Folks,
I would note that large -wm values can be very counter productive when
used in combination with SKIP_NOSOURCE. The problem is that the larger
the chunk size, you run into the chance that a large window will intersect
a small amount of data and the whole window ends up being processed -
Hello.
Is there no gap or noises in image data generated by this
method?
Regards.
--- doug_newc...@fws.gov wrote:
Hi Doug,
I finally tried your parameters and they did work
fine for me also. I
had something like hundred geotiffs, 400 MB each,
and I was pushing
them to
Hi Doug,
I finally tried your parameters and they did work fine for me also. I
had something like hundred geotiffs, 400 MB each, and I was pushing
them to bigtiff mosaic. I tried first with your *.tif selection and then
again by using a virtual raster file as source, created from Mapserver
doug_newc...@fws.gov wrote:
Hi Doug,
I finally tried your parameters and they did work fine for me also. I
had something like hundred geotiffs, 400 MB each, and I was pushing
them to bigtiff mosaic. I tried first with your *.tif selection and then
again by using a virtual raster file as
Frank Warmerdam warmerdam at pobox.com writes:
Shaun Kolomeitz wrote:
could push beyond 1GB/s. Currently to process (mosaic) an 80GB image it
takes several days to complete. This is also on 32bit hardware, and I
Shaun,
I suspect that there is a gross issue with how the warping is
