Attention, Google Maps fans: Here come GeoEye photos
This shot of Kutztown University in Pennsylvania is the first image from the GeoEye-1 satellite. Google is a commercial customer for the satellite's imagery. Click for a larger view.
(Credit: GeoEye)Golden Bears fans, take note: The first high-resolution photos from GeoEye's newest satellite, GeoEye-1, have begun arriving, and Kutztown University in Pennsylvania is the first subject of scrutiny.
These are the shots that eventually will show up on Google Maps and Google Earth; Google has an exclusive partnership to use the GeoEye-1 imagery for online services. The satellite's camera can capture image details as small as 41 centimeters, though commercial customers only get 50-centimeter resolution because of U.S. regulations.
The Kutztown University image was taken at noon EDT Tuesday while the satellite was moving south at an altitude of 423 miles at a speed of 4.5 miles per second relative to the Earth's surface, GeoEye said.
GeoEye launched the satellite on September 6; GeoEye-2 is slated for a launch in 2011 or 2012. It has a 25-centimeter resolution.
Stephen Shankland writes about a wide range of technology and products, but has a particular focus on browsers and digital photography. He joined CNET News in 1998 and since then also has covered Google, Yahoo, servers, supercomputing, Linux and open-source software, and science. E-mail Stephen, or follow him on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/stshank. 
MS uses a high res 'birds eye view', which appears to be taken by aircraft. One advantage of the birds eye view is that you can easily orientate yourself because you not only see from the top, but the sides also, so what you see from ground level can be matched. Also you can get a idea of the height of the structure, which is not possible in a straight down view. Also usually MS provides 4 angles to view, so you can see all sides of a building/object.
Regardless, it's an amazing image. Can't wait to see GeoEye-2 images.
Just for purposes of "gut feel", lets convert from 0.41 meters to 16.14 inches, then round off that ~1/8 inch. Because a resolution of 16 inches means that any given pixel is going to be the averaged value of all reflected light coming from that ~270 square inches of surface, an image feature (like the line on a football field) which is a white stripe six inches wide against a dark green turf background is going to yield a 16"x16" pixel which is 64% dark green and 36% white -- very similar to a grey stripe 12 inches wide against the same background.
So that six-inch wide strip across the background turf is going to LOOK like something just less than sixteen-inches wide (as your eyes interpolate along a 2-dimensional swath of pixels) and only about 36% as white as the middle of a 30-inch-wide white stripe would be...
You can tell SOMEthing is there, you just can't distinguish precisely where its edges are or what color it actually is. Notice the pixelation collapse of the 10-yard markers on the football field -- you can't really distinguish the numbers, except somewhat vaguely from positional cues. And the traffic direction arrows on the parking lot surfaces -- you know it's an arrow, but more from gradient ratios than actually being able to see the shape of the arrowhead.
We are still some distance from the military resolution portrayed in various movie scenarios (e.g. http://www.c4i.org/spysats.html, re "Patriot Games", with Harrison Ford), of being able to look down in real time at terrorist training camps and view thermal profiles of individual people well enough to tell which direction they are facing. Or reading license plate numbers. Or watching sunbathers.
Be thankful.
- by dqkennard October 14, 2008 6:19 AM PDT
- Yes, there are similar resolution shots (or better) of some areas in most mapping sites. Those are aerial photography, which means coverage is expensive and slow to expand. These are satellite photos of noticably higher resolution than previously available. As the article says, that satellite is travelling at 4.5 miles per second relative to the ground. It's presumably taking images continuously. I would expect that eventually (probably not very long) there would be coverage of most of the land-area of the earth (minus a few classified areas, and probably a few excluded by privacy requests/lawsuits of some sort). I don't know what the domestic or international law is on what they can and cannot photograph -- or make available.
- Reply to this comment
-
(11 Comments)