Mapmerge for OziExplorer

Have a look here LINK

Hello, there is no set value you should use. Obviously the less metres per pixel the better resolution you will have but at the cost of increase file size. However there is no point in making the m/pixel setting less than the original image. A bit of experimentaion maybe required to get the best comprimise between resoltuon and file size (though 15 maps isnt that many so cant see file size being too much of a problem sepending on original scan resolution).

Maybe not 100% relevant as I didnt use mapmerge but the 100K mozaics I have done are as follows

165 maps - resulting file is 10.6m/pixel - 1.1GB (ecw format)
126 maps - resulting file is 11.3m/pixel - 0.89GB (ecw format)

I have another ecw mozaic with about 100 maps (ecw format again) - it is 5m/pixel but only 156mb - mayeb ecw compression higher (?) The map is not as clear as the others I have despite less m/pixels??

Anyway - I would suggest you stay with the same similar m/pixel as the original. You are only doing 15 maps so cant see file size being a problem. Set it to go overnight if need be - a watched kettle never boils!!

Cheers
Greg

Another left-field thought Mike is to look at the seamless mapping feature released in the latest development version....the ability to simulate seamless mapping might fix the problem of losing detail and save some time etc.

quick link: http://www.oziexplorer3.com/dev/development_version.html

Just a thought, merry christmas :)

Andrew

Its probably best to match your original resolution, figure out the width of the map in meters and divide by the pixel width shown in the "check calibration of map" . I'm going to take a wild guess and say the figure is between ten and twenty five.