Aerial photos - better than Google Earth / maps

Adrian · 2007-07-05T14:17:59+00:00

This may not be news to most of you, but I have just discovered Micro$oft's answer to Google Earth, and it scores a few points over its rival.Firstly, the maps (like Google Maps) and 3D (like Google Earth) are integrated so you can switch between the two.Secondly, and more importantly, you can switch to viewing the un-manipulated source images. Because these have not been twisted to remove the natural perspective of the shot, the whole resolution is available, providing far more detail. The upshot is that there's enough detail to make out railway features such as signals, gantries and even individual sleepers.Here's an example :a quiet Preston station, where a Pendolino is just visible poking out from under the canopy, and a 57/3 in the north bay (can't quite make out the number ;-) )'s a long link, so it will no doubt get wrapped, but I'm sure you can fix that.The down side to all this is that you need to install it on your PC (like Google Earth), but it's worth it IMHO.Adrian

Jul 05, 2007 44 Replies

Rate this thread:

AdrianB 19 years ago

Please go back and read what I said, not what other people have said I said. There were no sweeping statements. The highest resolution offered by M$ is higher than the best offered by Google, simply because they allow you to look at the unprocessed images, before they were "corrected" for perspective in order to stitch them together.

To be honest, I wouldn't have thought that the folk on this group would have needed of the rider "image quality may very depending on the location being viewed", any more than they would need it to say "Caution, contents may be hot" on top of a McDonalds coffee.

Adrian

Vote

The Stainless Steel Cat 19 years ago

That link doesn't work for me at all, and even if I try

formatting link

I just get redirected to

formatting link

seems not to have images at all, only maps.

But then as a Mac owner using Safari, I'm probably not the target market. So for me, MS's version scores nul points.

Cat.

Vote

Bob 19 years ago

Like I said, the best maping device depends on where and what you are looking for.

Whilst your post may be helpful for soe, it will not be so, for others.

Aerial photos are not of a universal quality across the who;e country.

Vote

AdrianB 19 years ago

Surely that goes without saying. Anyone who has spent five minutes with any of these tools will realise that - especially the type of person who would make models and frequent a USENET group. I really didn't think I needed to point that out.

Once more, all I was trying to point out was that you could get at the SOURCE photos rather than the manipulated, stretched and by necessity, degraded versions which are stitched together on ALL of these sites. On M$, that means that theBEST stitched images are no better than the BEST images on Google, but the SOURCE IMAGES (called "Birds Eye View" on M$) are clearer and higher resolution than ANYTHING available on Google in ANY AREA (at the moment). Of course these high-res source images are not available for all locations.

I'm off to uk.performance.cars. Someone there has just posted a message about the latest BMW saying how good the suspension is. Perhaps I'll point out that Land Rovers are better if you live in the Highlands of Scotland. Perhaps not.

Adrian

Vote

Bob 19 years ago

Suit yersel Adrian

Vote

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required