Slashdot Mirror


Google's GeoEye-1 Takes Its First Pictures

Kev92486 writes "I was scanning through my RSS feeds today and happened upon an article about Google's GeoEye-1 imaging satellite which launched on Sept 6. Intrigued as to what the quality of the image was like, I decided to check it out only to find that the first picture was actually of my college campus, Kutztown University (Pennsylvania).
I had to make sure I was reading the article correctly as Kutztown is not a very large or well known campus. I'm not sure as to why they chose Kutztown for their first pictures. I would be interested if anybody could provide some sort of insight as to what process was used to select the first test location. Was the satellite simply in a convenient orbit to snap pictures of Kutztown?"
Update: 10/09 20:56 GMT by T : HotHardware has its own article up on GeoEye-1, if you'd like your words and pictures in the same place.

152 comments

  1. I'll Tell You Why by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Funny

    I had to make sure I was reading the article correctly as Kutztown is not a very large or well known campus. I'm not sure as to why they chose Kutztown for their first pictures. I would be interested if anybody could provide some sort of insight as to what process was used to select the first test location. Was the satellite simply in a convenient orbit to snap pictures of Kutztown?

    Maybe you could explain this close up image of your campus? (It's from the lower right of the article's image)

    Don't be coy, we all saw the lead up to this in the papers earlier this year. Kutztown's had this coming--it was one thing to invite Putin to talk but when he left those trailers, that was too far.

    On a serious note, I'm certain they picked Kutztown based on the following:

    Let P denote the number of lawyers a university has on reserve.

    Let Q denote the number of lawyers Google has on reserve.

    Let R denote said university's reserve resources for emergencies.

    Let L be a function such that L(x) = the number of lawyers one can immediately hire with x dollars.

    Is P + L(R) Q? Then I think we have a candidate! I found it on Google Scholar.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:I'll Tell You Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Last line should read:

      Is P + L(R) < Q? Then I think we have a candidate! I found it on Google Scholar.

      Damn my inferior html skillz.

    2. Re:I'll Tell You Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Maybe you could explain this close up image of your campus? (It's from the lower right of the article's image)

      For anybody interested in the close up image, wondering where it *actually* is (because it ain't in the article's image), take a gander here:

      Google Maps (pops)

      The plane's actually sitting in a carpark in the western suburbs of Paris, France.

    3. Re:I'll Tell You Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the carpark of a Dassault AviationâZ factory (French fighters and private jets manufacturer) near Paris.

      It's a static show of an old fighter made by them long time ago.

    4. Re:I'll Tell You Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  2. I had the feeling someone was watching me today... by FireStormZ · · Score: 2, Funny

    ..

    --
    "Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
  3. Re:What a letdown by dfm3 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yes, but the high resolution imagery currently on Google maps typically comes from areal photos, not from satellite imagery. The news here is that the images were taken from a satellite in orbit, not from a plane.

  4. the tracking system is broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From what I understand they were actually trying to get a snapshot of Pottsville, PA. Home of America's oldest brewery(Yuengling).

  5. Kutztown? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Kutztown

    Gesundheit!

  6. Cousin Town University? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, so what's the second picture?

    1. Re:Cousin Town University? by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1

      Ok, I'll take a wild guess. The second picture is Kutztown University, little bit to the left of the first one.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
  7. mirror by Exstatica · · Score: 4, Informative

    this is probably gonna hurt but here goes anyway http://mirrors.mednor.net/slashdot/10092008/geoeye-1-kutztown.jpg

    1. Re:mirror by jcr · · Score: 1

      Thanks, that image is amazing.

      I wouldn't have guessed it was from a satellite. With that kind of resolution, I'd have expected it to be shot from an aircraft.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    2. Re:mirror by Annymouse+Cowherd · · Score: 1

      Why don't people use nyud.net anymore?

    3. Re:mirror by TheDreadedGMan · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the mirror!

      Picture is quite clear, can't wait for Google Earth to be refreshed.

    4. Re:mirror by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

      It doesn't rhyme well enough.

       

      --
      Deleted
  8. Re:What a letdown by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Informative

    Oops, mod that down. The picture in TFA isn't good, but one linked from TFS is big and sharp.

  9. Re:What a letdown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    aerial

  10. Nice Football Field by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sooo, Kev92486, how are the *squints eyes and leans closer to his LCD screen* Golden Bears doin' this year?

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Nice Football Field by jbeaupre · · Score: 5, Funny

      The endzone is in good enough shape to read. That might be a clue.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    2. Re:Nice Football Field by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Can't tell you, season starts Saturday.

      http://www.kutztown.edu/goldenbearnetwork/

    3. Re:Nice Football Field by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do so many college campuses have cemetaries?

    4. Re:Nice Football Field by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where else can they dig a tunnel and grab bodies for their autopsy classes?

    5. Re:Nice Football Field by keeboo · · Score: 1

      Where?
      I could only locate a rugby-or-something-alike field.

    6. Re:Nice Football Field by heliocentric · · Score: 1

      Kutztown is really the home of the Fighting Amish.

      http://fightingamish1.tripod.com/amish/main_page/left_menu/logo.gif

      It is kind of like Notre Dame, and a little bit not.

      --
      Wheeeee
  11. Tennis courts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    It bothers me that the tennis courts are not equally spaced. Can they fix that and take another picture?

  12. Here's why... by SamMichaels · · Score: 4, Funny

    I think they were aiming for the First United Church of Kutztown, but the coordinates were off. Rumor has it the abbreviation is written on the roof.

    1. Re:Here's why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I think they were aiming for the First United Church of Kutztown, but the coordinates were off. Rumor has it the abbreviation is written on the roof.

      Abbreviation? So Fstuntdchurkutz? Confusing but thank god they didn't put their acronym on the roof though!

    2. Re:Here's why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they were aiming for the First United Church of Kutztown, but the coordinates were off. Rumor has it the abbreviation is written on the roof.

      acronym

  13. Why by OrangeTide · · Score: 0, Troll

    Why is it necessary for Google to spy on me? They collect all these pictures, send people around with automatic cameras on their cars. Are they just collecting data for the eventual creation of SkyNet?

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:Why by veeoh · · Score: 3, Funny

      ...because they can.

      and now you have complained on a public website they will watch you good.. mwuahahahah.

      Have you looked at the car parked across the street, watching?

      Sleep tight.

    2. Re:Why by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Because you are actually the unwitting star of a reality TV show.

      Smile!

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    3. Re:Why by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      But what I was trying to ask is what is the point. What value does having pictures of everything in the world have? I think it detracts from the world rather than enhances anything.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    4. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you think it detracts from the world?

    5. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Because when you take someone's photograph you steal their soul.

    6. Re:Why by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      In my opinion, GoogleEarth/Google Maps is an excellent research tool. I use it for flight planning, vacation planning, navigating around unfamiliar cities, etc. This summer, I finally got my airplane flying and spent a while checking out areas I thought I might like to fly to. I've used it to research 4x4 trails to explore in my truck. I went to Tennessee for a conference this summer and used Google Maps to research hotels near the conference venue, and to find directions to and from places I needed to go while I was there. In short, Google Earth and Google Maps help me get *out* and explore more than I would before these tools became more available.

      I'm not exactly sure how taking a picture of something detracts from the world. I can't rock climb a cliff on Google Earth, nor can I kayak a photo of an awesome whitewater river. Even the best, most detailed photographs fall far short of the experience of actually *being* somewhere, so it's not like people are going to opt for Google's imagery over actually going to scenic/interesting places.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    7. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called a map, you can buy them all over. They make special ones for hikers, rock climbers and pilots too. Amazingly they fold up and can fit in your pack.

      I think the gpp is just being a Luddite.

  14. Waiting for Green Bay by ckotchey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Even more curious to me is why Google Earth still has such a low-res image of Green Bay, WI (Packers!!), but I can see Cochranton, PA (population: a few dozen or so) clear as crystal. Go figure.

    1. Re:Waiting for Green Bay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Even more curious to me is why Google Earth still has such a low-res image of Green Bay, WI (Packers!!), but I can see Cochranton, PA (population: a few dozen or so) clear as crystal. Go figure.

      Note: Resolution is directly proportionate to intelligence per capita. Having worked "Packers!" into every single one of your discussions your entire life has left you devoid of intelligence and full of beer & cheese, hasn't it? However I'm sure you've managed to mate with another manatee and spread your seed to annoy the hell out of other states with your dumbass unfounded allegiance to one of football's most mediocre teams.

      How's Brett?

    2. Re:Waiting for Green Bay by Zadaz · · Score: 4, Informative

      Could be any number of things. My farm in rural Iowa is at such a low resolution that it's difficult to make out large buildings. (And it's obviously reconstructed form false color images. Probably less than 30m resolution.

      However a mile to the west there's a huge strip of very high resolution images. ~0.5m resolution. Why? It just so happens that there is a large wind farm going up in that strip of land. It seems that the wind farm company paid for a high resolution survey of the area and that just got added to the data pile. Until someone wants to see what yet another soybean farm looks like, I'm SOL. (Which is too bad because I'd really like to see how the crops are doing from a few thousand miles away.)

    3. Re:Waiting for Green Bay by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 1

      I'm moving to a fairly large sized town that is actually split right in two with google earth/maps. The eastern side of town is horrible quality, and the left is normal. Which is a little annoying given that it's only a few hours drive away from one of google's offices. I really hope this winds up filling up some of the nearly dead spaces.

      --
      Everything will be taken away from you.
    4. Re:Waiting for Green Bay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You realize that even if higher resolution pictures are taken, it's a single point in time, right? That's like monitoring your crops by looking up the word "Farm" in an encyclopedia.

    5. Re:Waiting for Green Bay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live near Cochranton, PA and it's not nearly that small. The population is more on the order of about a thousand (check Wikipedia). The surrounding towns/villages/whatever like Sugarcreek and Hannahville are closer to the size you're talking about.

    6. Re:Waiting for Green Bay by SirCowMan · · Score: 1

      For the longest time my town of 160,000--St. John's, Newfoundland--lacked any form of detail. Proceeding 50km north, however, would (and still does) show a large square of ocean full of ripply water and some drift-ice.

      --
      !Equality through palindromes semordnilap hguorht ytilauqE!
  15. Uhhh no, it's something else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually the government took the satellite project over and they wanted to spy on what the infamous Kutztown 13 are doing today.

    1. Re:Uhhh no, it's something else by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      Looks like those two near the left side are trying to make 14.

  16. don't ask slashdot by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Funny

    go outside, write your question and your email address on a poster, and point it skyward

    then go inside and wait for a reply in your inbox

    if you don't like google's answer, go outside, and stick your middle finger up to the sky

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:don't ask slashdot by Gazzonyx · · Score: 1

      Too bad I didn't know about this... I would have done it. That shot is a mile or two from my apartment and I'm the secretary of the Kutztown Technology Association and the president of the Kutztown Linux Group :) It's unfortunate that they didn't show the whole town. It only extends a mile to the north... that road in the middle is Main Street; small town, lots of corn fields. But an awesome little Main Street.

      --

      If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

  17. Re:google ceiling cat.... by Deadplant · · Score: 1

    As someone with a wiener big enough to be seen from space I am concerned by this.

  18. That's no moon... by argent · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maybe you could explain this close up image of your campus? (It's from the lower right of the article's image)

    That's just a Mirage.

    1. Re:That's no moon... by JakusMinimus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wonder how many readers here actually get the joke? The thing is, it looks more like an F-102 Delta Dart/Dagger to me.

      --

      You can be an atheist and still not want to succumb to some weird cross-over sheep disease -- AC
    2. Re:That's no moon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you could explain this close up image of your campus? (It's from the lower right of the article's image)

      That's just a Mirage.

      I see what you did there...

    3. Re:That's no moon... by Neanderthal+Ninny · · Score: 1

      No, it appears to be F-106. Look at the "coke bottle" shape body which the F-102 doesn't. Mirage III and 5 has a parallel body like the F-102. Mirage 2000 has a "coke bottle" shape.
      I don't know when this image was taken but when I was at Maxwell Air Force Base at the Air University in the late 1980's there was a section that looked like that area for doing "emergency dispersal" in case of base attack and dispersing aircraft to different locations. I don't remember having an F-106 for this class but we did have several T-38 for that class.

  19. not impressed with orbit by FunkyELF · · Score: 4, Informative

    Wikipedia says that the GeoEye-1 was supposed to be in Sun-synchronus orbit... but look at the shadow on the water tower

    1. Re:not impressed with orbit by NameIsDavid · · Score: 5, Informative

      Is there something wrong with the angle? Sun-synchronous orbit means that each time the satellite appears over that same university campus, it will do so at the same time of day. So, unless you see multiple shadow angles implying that the image was taken over multiple passes and that the shadow angle changed with each pass, I don't see what's specifically unimpressive about the orbit. Can you explain your observation?

    2. Re:not impressed with orbit by atteSmythe · · Score: 1

      From my reading of the Wikipedia article (and this is my introduction to sun-synchronous orbit, so I could be wrong), the neat part is that wherever the satellite is overhead, it's at the same point in time.

      Again from Wikipedia, GeoEye-1's orbit is 10:30 am sun-synchronous...I think those shadows look like about 10:30 AM in the autumn.

    3. Re:not impressed with orbit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are only two ways to obtain surface images with no shadow:
      1) Image only between the tropic of cancer and tropic of capricorn on the right day of the year
      2) Use a really big mirror

    4. Re:not impressed with orbit by speroni · · Score: 1

      Just because it is sun synchronus doesn't mean it is directly below the sun. It could be sun synchronus with an off set angle.

      If it was directly in line with the sun, the glare from bodies of water would be pretty intense.

      --
      Eschew Obfuscation
    5. Re:not impressed with orbit by thisisauniqueid · · Score: 1

      You can only take photos without shadows at one point on the earth at any given time: specifically, the area immediately around where your satellite's shadow is projected onto the earth. Sun-synchronous orbit just reduces the number of shadows you're likely to see, unless you're always imaging directly downwards. This picture is taken north west of the satellite's shadow, so the buildings have shadows too.

    6. Re:not impressed with orbit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're referring to the length of the shadows, that is mainly the result of the sun elevation of that area this time of year. You'll get shorter shadows (all else equal) during the summer months when the sun angle is closer to 90 degrees.

    7. Re:not impressed with orbit by NotmyNick · · Score: 1

      From my reading of the Wikipedia article (and this is my introduction to sun-synchronous orbit, so I could be wrong), the neat part is that wherever the satellite is overhead, it's at the same point in time. Again from Wikipedia, GeoEye-1's orbit is 10:30 am sun-synchronous...I think those shadows look like about 10:30 AM in the autumn.

      Congratulations, Sherlock. It is Autumn. FTA:

      GeoEye-1 was launched Sept. 6 from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California and has been going through calibration and check-out since it was launched. This week, the satellite returned its first images.

      What exactly was your point?

      --
      Notmysig
    8. Re:not impressed with orbit by SpleenVenter · · Score: 1

      It's Autumn in the northern hemisphere. Last I checked, the satellite is orbiting the entire planet. The southern hemisphere's seasons are...uh...what's the word? Oh yeah: completely opposite.

    9. Re:not impressed with orbit by SpleenVenter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sun-synchronous orbits are extremely common for optical imaging satellites. A sun-synchronous orbit simply means that the satellite crosses the equator at a specific time of day on every orbit. The sun-synch time can be chosen at will; you can make it any time that you want. If you choose noon, you get very short shadows; if you choose a time early or late in the day, you'll get long shadows. The length of the shadows at any give spot the Earth (away from the equator) changes with the season (because the sun's relative angle changes as the Earth orbits the sun).

      Shadows are actually a useful artifact when you're doing imagery analysis, and that's part of the reason that away-from-noon descending nodes are chosen. 10:30 is a popular time because it gives shadows that are "just right" -- not too long and not too short. Note that a 1:30PM orbit would theoretically be an equivalent (and symmetrical) choice -- but for practical purposes a morning orbit is a better choice: there are statistically fewer clouds in the morning over most of the planet compared to the afternoon. Also note that a "10:30" orbit means "10:30 at the equator". It's a bit earlier than this in the northern hemisphere, and a bit later for the southern -- but it's always at the *same* time of day.

    10. Re:not impressed with orbit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh? The point on Earth with no shadow is the one where the Sun is at the zenith (approximately where the line from the center of the Earth to the Sun intersects the surface of the Earth). It has nothing to do with the position of the satellite.

    11. Re:not impressed with orbit by swimsaturn · · Score: 1

      I don't see anything wrong with the shadows either. Sun-synchronous doesn't mean there won't be any shadows, it just means that the shadow angles will be consistent every time the satellite takes a picture of a given location.

    12. Re:not impressed with orbit by MemoryAid · · Score: 1
      Two trivial solutions also exist:

      1. Choose an overcast day. A flat layer of clouds will not have perceptible shadows.

      2. Take the pictures at night. There won't be any local shadows from the sun, but there will, of course, be the shadow of the Earth itself. Remember to adjust accordingly for moon-induced shadows.

      --
      Language students: Don't try to learn English here. This ain't it.
    13. Re:not impressed with orbit by MemoryAid · · Score: 1
      You have both described a case where photos can be taken without shadows. The "satellite shadow" case is a region where the shadows exist, but aren't observable by the satellite and therefore don't appear in the photos.The "zenith" case is where shadows aren't formed at all (for vertical objects), and thus aren't photographed.

      By the way, imaging satellites are closer to the subject for photos directly downward, so they end up being more common in practice than oblique angles. However, taking pictures of the same place from two different angles can yield a good stereoscopic image, so some satellites will angle their lenses a bit (one looking slightly forward, one aft). Also, the distance between consecutive satellite passes is generally more than can be captured with the high-resolution cameras, so the camera may be aimed side-to-side to target a specific area. These variations from vertical are likely less than the sun angle at higher latitudes.

      --
      Language students: Don't try to learn English here. This ain't it.
    14. Re:not impressed with orbit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, all else equal, the shadows will be longer this time of year vs. during summer due to the sun elevation.

    15. Re:not impressed with orbit by d_p · · Score: 1

      1. You will have some great shadow-free images of the tops those clouds.
      2. Uh, its dark.

      However, radar can see through clouds and in darkness.

  20. So does this mean full satellite coverage... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    ... on google maps and if so how long will it take?

  21. Fairly Random by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The actual image collected was a 16 km wide swath cut through PA and part of New York. The swath was chosen based on timing and that it would be fairly close to nadir. As for why Kutztown in particular, I'll ask around, but I think it was basically just something interesting to look at(read:not trees). The calibration and focus were probably pretty good at that point in the image too. Keep in mind this is literally the very first image from the satellite, using preliminary calibration and focus, with the color bands aligned by hand. The imagery from this satellite is going to be exceptional once everything is said and done.

    1. Re:Fairly Random by jcr · · Score: 2, Informative

      The swath was chosen based on timing and that it would be fairly close to nadir.

      I think you mean perigee not nadir.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    2. Re:Fairly Random by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The swath was chosen based on timing and that it would be fairly close to nadir.

      I think you mean perigee not nadir.

      -jcr

      Nope I meant nadir

      The nadir angle is basically how far to the side the satellite is pointing from its ground track. The farther off nadir the more you're looking at the sides of buildings and trees vs. the top. You're generally off a bit, but anything above 30 starts to get useless for most things.

    3. Re:Fairly Random by SpleenVenter · · Score: 1

      Exactly right. And anything more than about 15 degrees off-nadir gets a bit dicey if you're using the imagery as a source for mapping.

      It's not very common for the satellite to collect imagery at nadir (that is, looking exactly, perfectly straight down). Why? Because the target of interest is only very, very rarely going to be exactly on the ground track. Fortunately, all modern imaging birds can "point" off the side and backwards/forwards.

    4. Re:Fairly Random by gmxgeek · · Score: 0

      Don't be a nadir hater!!!!!!

      --
      --gmxgeek
  22. Re:What a letdown by Thelasko · · Score: 1

    There are many parts of the world that don't have aerial photographs available (look at Google maps of GreenBay, WI; or Bowling Green, KY). This will improve Google Maps for people in those areas dramatically.

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
  23. Re:What a letdown by rockmuelle · · Score: 5, Informative

    Well, it's not really news. If you understand the different data sources, it should come as no surprise that these images are not as good as the high-resolution aerial photos and as good as good satellite photos (think of the before/after tsunami photos)

    Good aerial photos have a pixel resolution of 6 inches. Decent ones are 12 inches. GeoEye-1's resolution is 50 cm, or about 19 inches. 19 inches is good for working with large objects, but not useful for fine-grained measurements. (it will be fine for 99.9% of the apps Googlers develop)

    For a good example of 6 and 12 inch data, look at the state of Indiana (in the US) in Google Earth. In 2005/6, Indiana re-imaged the entire state with aerial photos. The whole state is at least 12 inches and all metro areas are 6 inches.

    I'll be really excited when we can get continually updated 6 inch data... My only concern is that with Google's dominance, we'll be stalled at 19 inches for a long time and people will start to think that's the best we can do.

    -Chris

  24. Friends University... by zooblethorpe · · Score: 4, Funny

    My father-in-law got his undergrad education at Friends University of Central Kansas. No joke. I'd even just settle for a sweatshirt with the big "F.U." in the middle.

    (It's even funnier in some respects when you know that "Friends" here refers to the Quakers. :)

    Cheers,

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
    1. Re:Friends University... by Pontiac · · Score: 1

      My Cousins went to Ball State University.
      http://cms.bsu.edu/

      My Father in Law loves the BSU hat we got him.

      --
      If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur. --Red Adair
    2. Re:Friends University... by n17ikh · · Score: 1

      Near here is Furman University.
      Yes, their sweatshirts say F.U.

      --
      Hard work pays off tomorrow, but procrastination pays off NOW!
  25. Re:What a letdown by garaged · · Score: 0, Troll

    obsesion I sense ?

    --- Austin Powers obligated cite ---

    Gold Member - Austin Powers Faya !
    Dr. Evil - Fattttther, Austin Powers Fattther

    --
    I'm positive, don't belive me look at my karma
  26. Re:What a letdown by Bearhouse · · Score: 1

    True. A lot of people miss that - the really good resolution pictures on G are typically taken from aeroplanes or (more rarely) helicopters. Who knows what military/intel sats can do - for sure they'll never share. One thing they have in common with commercial sats tho' is problems with clouds and other stuff (moving fast high in sky, extreme angles of incidence, blah blah. The bs about being able to read your newpaper is just that...bs).

    Still, pretty damn good picture.
    As to why this place? Probably the first decent shot they could get (with no clouds etc) of someplace vaguely interesting - a lot of the earth is either sea, fields, woods...

  27. More info on the sat by Bearhouse · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Since there's nothing interesting in TFA

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeoEye_1#GeoEye-1

    *end oblig wikipedia karma-whoring*

    1. Re:More info on the sat by inKubus · · Score: 1

      Man if they can do 41cm for $200M, imagine what the expensive ones can do.

      --
      Cool! Amazing Toys.
  28. Playing catch up... by I.M.O.G. · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This was the one feature that maps.live.com had over google maps - they had this clarity before Google did, and they also offer the birds eye view which gives you an angled perspective rather than straight down.

    I'm glad Google now offers something similar as I like their service much better. In all fairness however, it should be acknowledged that Google was beat to the punch by Microsoft on this.

  29. Re:What a letdown by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 4, Informative

    Why would Google's dominance have anything to do with the 50cm limit? That's a government restriction on what's available for civilian use. The wired article says that it actually is capable of ~40cm but NGA degrades the resolution before releasing it to Google or anyone else. I know of another spacecraft that had to be placed in a higher orbit in order to keep the resolution below the limits.

    Since the US commercial space industry is effectively isolated by ITAR restrictions, but is still dominant overall for now, a US restriction basically leads to a world-wide restriction for everyone but other governments. A loosening of US regulation is the only real way to improve commercial space imagery in the short term, although if ITAR isn't loosened soon, the world's going to catch up and surpass the US anyway. But of course, saying you want to stop fighting international arms trade is about as easy as saying you want to make life easier for pedophiles or terrorists, and I can't see it passing anytime soon.

  30. Go Bills! by jayayeem · · Score: 1

    Lot of Andre Reed fans out there at Google, I guess.

    --
    I metamoderate, therefore I am
  31. OH NOES by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    *Waits for Google employees to T.P. his house and egg his car*

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  32. Goes back to Kutztown's NWB designation from 50's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In 1958 Kutztown was classified NWB: Nuclear whipping boy. In the event of another World War, all friendly nations will immediately fire their nuclear warheads at Kutztown to calibrate their weapon systems.

  33. Chromatic abberation by scaryjohn · · Score: 1

    Does anyone else notice that the colors (of say vegetation) bleed from one shape to the other? I might be deceiving myself, since I know the color and contrast images were taken at different resolutions.

    It kinda reminds me of Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky's pseudo-color photos of Imperial Russia.

    --
    One might ask the same about birds. What ARE birds? We just don't know.
  34. Re:What a letdown by nasch · · Score: 0

    Would these be areal photos (NSFW)? Or at least areol photos?

  35. They used what was available and cheap. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    As I understand it, Google used what was available (and cheap) when they were starting up the service. If something had been of interest to someone ELSE there'd be higher resolution imagery available.

    For quite a while my rural retirement house in Nevada had a very low resolution picture of the construction site from years before. Then Steve Fossett disappeared after taking off from a place a half-hour's drive away and google upgraded the imagery of the area to help with the search. The new pics are not as sharp as this latest imagery. But you can see the house, garage, and propane tank just fine.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:They used what was available and cheap. by scuba964 · · Score: 1

      Yep, found ya. We'll be by around 6.

  36. Kutztown Golden Bears? by Fear+the+Clam · · Score: 1

    Talk about a specific fetish.

  37. Re:What a letdown by rockmuelle · · Score: 1

    My point has nothing to do with government limits or anything like that.

    What I mean is that by Google using this as their primary data source and with 50 cm being "good-enough" for a lot of applications, there will be less incentive to invest the better aerial data. It's just the simple fact that once the market is flooded with 50 cm data, most people won't know that there are better resolutions available and most consumer applications will be built around 50 cm as the standard.

    If Google used 40 cm or 6 inch data, the same would be true. I just worry that we'll be stuck with 50 cm data for the foreseeable future because of this. (and I'm greedy and want the world at 6 inches!)

    -Chris

  38. I think the photo data is misaligned... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you look carefully, there is a purplish ghosting about 2 pixels down/left of everything.

    1. Re:I think the photo data is misaligned... by SpleenVenter · · Score: 1

      This is the first imagery collected from the bird; it's no surprise at all that there is a little bit of band-to-band misregistration at first. This will be corrected over the next several weeks as calibration activities progress.

      If you've ever had the chance to spend time with early imagery from a bird, you'd know that this image looks fantastic for an early collection.

  39. Re:What a letdown by gbridge · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Good aerial photos have a pixel resolution of 6 inches.

    Do you mean 6 inches per pixel? This might impress you. I think it's 4cm per pixel but only available over central London for the time being.

  40. Wonder if that multispectral imagery is available? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    Wikipedia says the satellite also produces 1.65 meter multispectral imagery. I wonder if that is available publicly (without space-high fees) and how to go about getting hold of it?

    (Back in the late '60s and early '70s I was working on multispectral recognition and mapping programs to process aircraft, Skylab, and ERTS/Landsat data. Missed renewing my ham license due to a rush project hacking up a "clustering" algorithm to come up with a recognition map for a hunk of Italy for which we had data but no "ground truth" for calibrating the recognition algorithm. I always wanted to be able to play with that stuff personally, outside a sponsored research context. Now the computing power and storage is trivially cheap, so all that's needed is access to the data.)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  41. Re:What a letdown by jacquesm · · Score: 1

    just one word: wow

  42. Re:What a letdown by dinther · · Score: 1

    Not so sure it is satellite. I would have thought that the perspective would be straight down. In the picture you can see the sides of buildings as if it ware taken with a wider angle lens such as used on aerial photography.

    I think that with the extreme telelens required for satellites you would not see sides of buildings.

  43. Re:What a letdown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Good aerial photos have a pixel resolution of 6 inches. Decent ones are 12 inches. GeoEye-1's resolution is 50 cm, or about 19 inches. 19 inches is good for working with large objects, but not useful for fine-grained measurements. (it will be fine for 99.9% of the apps Googlers develop)

    I dunno, the average nipple is what? One inch across maybe? The Internet demands higher resolution.

  44. Summary of the Submission by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

    Kutztown Kutztown Kutztown. Kutztown? Kutztown Kutztown Kutztown Kutztown, Kutztown Kutztown! Kutztown, Kutztown Kutztown: Kutztown.

    Kutztown?

    Lameness filter encountered.
    Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition.

    1. Re:Summary of the Submission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The lameness filter was there for a reason...

  45. WHere is the business value? by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Owning a satellite to take images that are already available through other sources seems a tad wasteful.

    What else are they going to do? Are they positioning themselves to sell the images to other people/governments?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  46. Why are the parking lot lines visible? by Espinas217 · · Score: 1

    If the resolution is 50cm/px how can we see the lines on the parking lots which would have, at most, 15cm wide?

    --
    La vida no es una pastafrola. :wq
    1. Re:Why are the parking lot lines visible? by 4D6963 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Basically a line in an image has frequency components perpendicular to the line that are evenly spread over the spectrum. If you line is 10 cm wide and that you have a resolution of 50 cm/pixel then the brightest parts of the line will be 5 times dimmer (with respect to the darker background) than the colour of the paint. So you'll still see the line, it'll just be greyer, blending in the surrounding greyness.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
  47. Re:What a letdown by Spykk · · Score: 1

    I'll be really excited when we can get continually updated 6 inch data

    I'm pretty sure there is a joke in there somewhere...

  48. Where indeed? by fm6 · · Score: 1

    I'd say RTFA, except neither the submitter nor the editor bothered either. Google doesn't own GeoEye-1. It belongs to a company called (wait for it) GeoEye. Google only figures in the article because they're a big purveyor of sat photos.

  49. Re:What a letdown by edumacator · · Score: 2, Funny

    Six inches...that means from space, you'll finally be able to see my...wait...I meant at twelve inches.

  50. 0.41 m B&W vs 1.65 m colour resolution? by 4D6963 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    TFA says that when the satellite shoots in black and white it gets 16 times more pixels than in colour mode. I don't get it, how can it be?

    --
    You just got troll'd!
    1. Re:0.41 m B&W vs 1.65 m colour resolution? by SpleenVenter · · Score: 1

      There are two separate sensors on the focal plane. One is panchromatic (i.e., "black and white") with a resolution of about 41cm. The other sensor has the same native resolution, but shares it between one of four multi-spectral bands (Red, Green, Blue, Near-IR). This is why the MS (multi-spectral) resolution for each band is exactly 4x lower than Pan band -- 1.64m vs 41cm.

      The 16x factor in the article is correct if you consider a square area (4 x 4) instead of a single row of pixels.

    2. Re:0.41 m B&W vs 1.65 m colour resolution? by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      Oh, I assumed it was just another Bayer grid and that therefore it should be 4x rather than 16x.

      By the way, if it's anything vaguely like a Bayer grid, except a 4x4 one, shouldn't it allow us to obtain a better resolution than the 1.64m by using the same sort of technique as used to turn RAW digital images into the full resolution RGB pictures we see?

      --
      You just got troll'd!
  51. It's because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they currently have terrible pics

    http://www.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=8.88765,-79.7791&spn=0.007272,0.013915&t=h&z=17

    1. Re:It's because by SpleenVenter · · Score: 1

      GeoEye pics that are on Google Maps/Earth right now come from their Ikonos satellite; it has noticeably lower resolution than QuickBird-2, WorldView-1 or GeoEye-1. There won't be any GeoEye-1 pics up GE yet.

      Also, there are clouds and a quit a bit of haze in the image shown in your link -- this lowers the apparent image quality quite a bit.

  52. I thought that pic was one of the tanks! by Gazzonyx · · Score: 2, Informative

    You joke... if only you knew that at the top left, about another hundred yards further is a national guard post. They've got and old Abrams (at least I think it is) tank and a tracked anti-aircraft vehicle parked on the grass with signs that tell us students to keep of the tanks. No. Seriously. I'm currently a student at KU and I wish I were making up the part about 'keep off the tanks'... I've been meaning to steal that sign forever. It'd be wicked to put on the wall.

    --

    If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

  53. Mmmh.. by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

    Is it me or does your campus look like a game of Tetris from space? Maybe I should lay off the booze some..

    --
    You just got troll'd!
  54. Re:What a letdown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    obsession

  55. Re:What a letdown by BlackSabbath · · Score: 1

    Dude, if you're able to take high resolution areola photographs from an aeroplane you are doing very well.

  56. Re:What a letdown by Whiteox · · Score: 1

    That's pretty damned good. Unfortunately the London road crews can't paint parallel lines all to well.

    --
    Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
  57. I say bogus by Thagg · · Score: 1

    This is not a satellite photo -- it is an aerial photo. 1m resolution just wouldn't show the detail that we see here. The ballfield (100 m long) is about 135 pixels long, less than 1 m/pixel.

    How can this be a satellite photo?

    Thad

    --
    I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
    1. Re:I say bogus by SpleenVenter · · Score: 1

      This *is* a satellite photo. It is at 50cm resolution (the highest resolution the US Government allows imaging companies to publish or sell). GeoEye-1 is actually capable of a slightly better resolution -- but until the law changes, this is the best you'll see. Pretty darned nice, eh?

  58. First Imaging Target Choices by SpleenVenter · · Score: 1

    First images from a new imaging satellite are almost never great. Several things, most particularly focus, have to be guessed at on the ground before launch and then adjusted once the bird is on orbit. As others have indicated, the choice of a first target is sometimes pretty arbitrary. The calibration team wants contrast and edges, but otherwise the content for the very first images doesn't matter much -- the point is just to establish that the entire command/control/imaging/download chain is working correctly. Later images will be of specific locations that contain specific calibration targets -- and these are often courtesy of universities.

  59. Re:What a letdown by SpleenVenter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Do you have any idea of how expensive it is to collect aerial photography over large areas? Sure, 6-inch imagery is great. Who's going to pay for it? --and how do you collect it over, say, China? The Earth has just under 150,000,000 sq. km. of land surface area -- do you realize how long it would take to collect the Earth even ONCE from an aerial platform?

    Bottom line: there are good practical reasons why you won't see 6-inch imagery of the whole planet any time soon.

  60. Re:What a letdown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    The fragrance for men from Calvin Klein.

  61. What a secret. by Ostracus · · Score: 1

    "Since the US commercial space industry is effectively isolated by ITAR restrictions, but is still dominant overall for now, a US restriction basically leads to a world-wide restriction for everyone but other governments. A loosening of US regulation is the only real way to improve commercial space imagery in the short term, although if ITAR isn't loosened soon, the world's going to catch up and surpass the US anyway."

    Well except for one thing. Other governments are likely to place restrictions on their satellite sources for similar reasons to the US. And they're also likely to insist that other governments do the same. Remember the French outcry several months back? Were secrets are concerned, most governments are pretty much alike.

    --
    Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
  62. Man alive that place is green! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is there to do in Kutztown. Based on the image, it appears as if you cut a lot of grass. How many hours a week does that occupy one's time? Aside from that, there appears to be a University and a cemetery outback of church.

    I think I will visit next summer. No... Really... We should all descend on Kutztown next summer. Someone setup a domain to handle the event and start signing people up. We can have heavy metal bands, beer, and naked chicks. It will be awesome. I can't wait. Make sure you invite bikers. They really know how to party. Oh yeah, Germans too!

    Thanks in advance for organizing this. Kutztown - Summer 2009!

  63. First Imaging Target Choices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are all reading way to far into this. I bet if we looked at top dog responsible for launching this thing, one of them has something to do with Kutztown. Either from there, graduated from there, or has a kid there.

  64. Re:What a letdown by badran · · Score: 0

    So it will be a Pixel large.... like that A-Z keyboard thing..

  65. Re:What a letdown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'm curious, how does USA stop Google from using Russia to launch it's satellites with higher resolution?

  66. Re:What a letdown by Skapare · · Score: 2, Informative

    For a good example of 6 and 12 inch data, look at the state of Indiana (in the US) in Google Earth. In 2005/6, Indiana re-imaged the entire state with aerial photos. The whole state is at least 12 inches and all metro areas are 6 inches.

    Also see the entire country of Denmark. And it has better color correction than the state of Indiana. For example, Tivoli Gardens and these strange neighborhoods.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  67. You read the subject! by cyclomedia · · Score: 1

    I'll second that, I first encountered bird's eye view while in London last summer and it's an order of magnitude better than plain-old top-down view because when (for example) you exit a tube station and are trying to find the large Forbidden Planet shop you tracked down on the map can you see:

      a) The roofs of all the buildings around you?
      b) The sides of all the buildings around you?

    The answer (unless you've gotten off at Lilliput and Castle) is b).

    I think the next evolution of this tech would be a combination of MS's birds-eye for rough detail, Google street view for higher res storefront detail (and under bridges) and both MS's photosynths ability to remove people and potentially vehicles (not just for privacy, when you're there in real life your brain filters out that "noise" from what you're looking at) and stitching ability. So you'll be able to have a full 3d render from the exact POV of each spot on your route, or sync it to the GPS on your mobile combined with Walking Directions - the beginnings of augmented reality!

    --
    If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
  68. I know why the picture showed your campus by Pope+Raymond+Lama · · Score: 1

    """ I decided to check it out only to find that the first picture was actually of my college campus, Kutztown University """

    So, this is the new quantum-photographic tecnology in Google's Geo's Eye: They had a picture that was potentially from anywhere on Earth. In the moment the first observed downloaded it, it immediately collapsed to your location.

    --
    -><- no .sig is good sig.
  69. I wish by relguj9 · · Score: 1

    We had some way of tracking where it's going to be, so we could go outside and do something ridiculous when it passes over ;D.

    1. Re:I wish by MemoryAid · · Score: 1

      Check out heavens-above.com for all your satellite tracking needs. Here's GeoEye 1: http://www.heavens-above.com/satinfo.aspx?lat=0&lng=0&alt=0&loc=Unspecified&TZ=CET&SatID=33331

      --
      Language students: Don't try to learn English here. This ain't it.
    2. Re:I wish by relguj9 · · Score: 1

      awesome, thanks.. going to have to play this this more later.. does it let it track what the satellite is looking at and when it will be at a certain location? Or is it just the current location in space? Would be crazy to organize an event to gather people and smile for the google camera in the sky lol.

    3. Re:I wish by MemoryAid · · Score: 1
      It's mostly a stargazer's website. It tracks satellites for the purposes of visually observing their passes. You can see in the graphic of the satellite track where the satellite will be illuminated by the sun above a nighttime surface. For this one, though, being sun-synchronous, one would have to be near one of the poles to see it.

      The real strength of this website is predicting visually detectable satellite passes for a user-defined point on Earth. Tell it where you are, and it will tell you when to look up to see something orbit overhead.

      It will tell you when the satellite will be most directly overhead within the next few days. Look up "All passes" and find the one that has the highest maximum altitude (in degrees). That one may be photographing you.

      --
      Language students: Don't try to learn English here. This ain't it.
  70. Re:What a letdown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, resolution on that scale really is a let down - I mean, without higher resolution, how am I ever going to see people sun-bathing topless or going at it like pornstars on their decks/pools/private beaches?

  71. Re:What a letdown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The whole state is at least 12 inches and all metro areas are 6 inches.

    I.... I can't.. it's just too easy.

  72. Thought GeoEye was part of Orbital Sciences by Dreben · · Score: 1

    "Google's GeoEye-1" is misleading. I thought GeoEye was a division of Orbital Sciences, not Google.

    1. Re:Thought GeoEye was part of Orbital Sciences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Orbital spun off Geo Eye a few years back.

  73. I know why! by cornjchob · · Score: 1

    It's the only place I've smoked opium, they're on to me!!!

    --
    We now have confirmed reports from an informed Orange County minister that Ethel is still an active communist.
  74. The Real Reason Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because if the super powerful strobe flash used to take the picture destroyed Kutztown University, nobody would notice for several years.

  75. My GF works at GeoEye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was simply the first thing that was under the satellite when it was ready to take pictures. Nothing sexy or supportive of any conspiracy theories. Hell, it could have been Kaliningrad Oblast, or Sao Paolo, or your mom's house.

  76. gaetano marano - NewSpaceAgency.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .

    everybody knows that the GPS satellites system has TWO operational modes:

    1. a "clear" commercial/low accuracy mode, and

    2. an "encrypted" military/higher accuracy mode

    well, my question is:

    could the Google Intelligence Agency (GIA) GeoEye-1 new spy satellite have also a VERY HI-RES "classified mode"?

    Google Intelligenge Agency (GIA) logo/patch/parody:

    http://www.ghostnasa.com/gia.jpg

    .