[ Ø ] Harsh Prakash, GISP – GIS Blog

Quiet Musings On Spatial Concerns (Health, Planning, Technology et al)

Archive for April, 2005

Follow Up [1]: Graphic Software

with one comment

It is good to know that some professionals concur with the views expressed in my earlier post on the potential for graphic software, like Macromedia Flash. One comment links to an impressive demonstration of this largely untapped potential.

Anyway, two companies whose product GUI I enjoy interfacing with- Adobe and Macromedia, announced their merger earlier this month.

Both their flagship products have become industry-standards in exchanging documents and creating experience-rich applications across platforms. The largely unused spatial potential within Macromedia Flash combined with the increasingly widespread use of Adobe PDF/SVG maps and the sprouting of some exciting derivatives like geoPDF, pstoedit and GSview, make this merger important to how spatial information is exchanged in the near future.

Written by Harsh

April 28th, 2005 at 6:01 pm

Posted in GIS,Mashup

Tagged with , ,

Follow Up [1]: Map Viewer and Google

with one comment

A quick note on the happenings at Google: Yesterday, Google added satellite imagery to its mapping. For speedy displays, 256px*256px JPEG image-tiles scanned at different zoom-levels and each weighing around 30 KB, coupled with some nifty AJAX come handy.

Such a drag-and-drool tiling paradigm, although practised for some time now by website developers to load large images, when applied to internet mapping represents a refreshing out-of-the-box approach. The GET HTTP request method uses a cryptic naming convention to fetch these image-tiles from a preexisting pallette, like so:

http://kh.google.com/kh?v=1&t=TILE…

WHERE in one instance, TILE zooms closer from [tqtsqr] to [tqtsqrtssssrq] and still closer to [tqtsqrtssssrtrttr].

Unlike for its regular mapping where Google predictably uses GIF image-tiles each sized at 128px*128px, for its satellite imagery, Google’s preference for JPEG over another competitive format PNG, is worthy of a second glance: As is common knowledge, JPEG supports millions of colors, but is infamous for its lossy compression. PNG on the other hand, is lossless while supporting millions of colors. However, PNG is currently not supported by all browsers and depending on compression settings, may end-up weighing more.

–π

Written by Harsh

April 5th, 2005 at 7:29 pm

Posted in GIS,Mashup

Tagged with ,