Pixel blooming in Google Earth

"Jeff R." <contact.me.DeleteThis@this.ng> wrote in message
news:4788627e$0$4471$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>I happened upon these two rather impressive blown highlights in Google
> Earth, at:
>
> 150°59'49.49"E 33°49'0.68"S
>
> (and a hundred metres or so north of that) and and just wondering... Is
> this common in Google's sat shots? Anyone seen others?

This is a flare from a direct sun reflection. These are not that unusual,
though some of them are spectacular looking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFIfl8XGw1U

> Didn't the goddam astronaut check his histogram before posting?

Yep - and, like most of us, he decided that he'd rather expose for the rest
of the picture, rather than try for non-existent detail in a specular
reflection.

> It actually begs another set of questions...
> My scanner frequently blooms just like those shots if I'm scanning highly
> reflective items, but my digital cameras don't bleed in a linear fashion
> like that - just a big white patch.
>
> Is Google using a huge flatbed scanner in its satellites?

You may not be far off - aerial survey cameras sometimes use a linear
arrangement to produce a continuous strip. Satellites may well do the same.
--
Mike Russell - www.curvemeister.com
 >> Stay informed about: Pixel blooming in Google Earth 

"Jeff R." <contact.me DeleteThis @this.ng> wrote in message
news:4788627e$0$4471$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>I happened upon these two rather impressive blown highlights in Google
> Earth, at:
>
> 150°59'49.49"E 33°49'0.68"S
>
> (and a hundred metres or so north of that) and and just wondering... Is
> this common in Google's sat shots? Anyone seen others?
>
> Didn't the goddam astronaut check his histogram before posting?
>
> It actually begs another set of questions...
> My scanner frequently blooms just like those shots if I'm scanning highly
> reflective items, but my digital cameras don't bleed in a linear fashion
> like that - just a big white patch.
>
> Is Google using a huge flatbed scanner in its satellites?
>
> --
> Jeff R.

Not really. As another mentioned the closeup photos are shot from planes.
And there is a plexiglas window. So when they get bright reflections from a
surface (such as a body of water when the sun is low and in the general
direction that the camera is pointing) the plexi window tends to turn it
into a streak. I have seen that in some of the higher res photos you can
spot some of the blurry imperfections and dirt on the window. I have even
seen (in some of the earliest images) a reflection of items in the cockpit
behind the camera.

Randy B.
 >> Stay informed about: Pixel blooming in Google Earth 

Jeff R. wrote:
> I happened upon these two rather impressive blown highlights in Google
> Earth, at:
>
> 150°59'49.49"E 33°49'0.68"S
>
> (and a hundred metres or so north of that) and and just wondering... Is
> this common in Google's sat shots? Anyone seen others?
>
> Didn't the goddam astronaut check his histogram before posting?
>
> It actually begs another set of questions...
> My scanner frequently blooms just like those shots if I'm scanning highly
> reflective items, but my digital cameras don't bleed in a linear fashion
> like that - just a big white patch.
>
> Is Google using a huge flatbed scanner in its satellites?
>
> --
> Jeff R.
>
>
>
In all probability, the shots are taken from a satellite that just takes
the pictures, some of which will have reflections of the sun, which WILL
result in blown out whites. Quitcherbitchin.
 >> Stay informed about: Pixel blooming in Google Earth 

"Jeff R." <contact.me.DeleteThis@this.ng> wrote in message
news:4788627e$0$4471$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>I happened upon these two rather impressive blown highlights in Google
> Earth, at:
>
> 150°59'49.49"E 33°49'0.68"S
>
> (and a hundred metres or so north of that) and and just wondering... Is
> this common in Google's sat shots? Anyone seen others?
>
Here's nice starburst one.
52°30'40.78"N 4°56'59.52"E
 >> Stay informed about: Pixel blooming in Google Earth 

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 07:14:06 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor.TakeThisOut@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
<2NZhj.76045$c_1.30774@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:

>Jeff R. wrote:
>> I happened upon these two rather impressive blown highlights in Google
>> Earth, at:
>>
>> 150°59'49.49"E 33°49'0.68"S
>>
>> (and a hundred metres or so north of that) and and just wondering...
>> Is this common in Google's sat shots? Anyone seen others?
>>
>> Didn't the goddam astronaut check his histogram before posting?
>>
>> It actually begs another set of questions...
>> My scanner frequently blooms just like those shots if I'm scanning
>> highly reflective items, but my digital cameras don't bleed in a
>> linear fashion like that - just a big white patch.
>>
>> Is Google using a huge flatbed scanner in its satellites?
>
>Detail that close in GE is from aerial photos/scanners, not satellites.
>Control of blooming is a function of the CCD design in the camera. I'm
>surprised that a scanner has blooming caused by the same type of sensor
>defect, as most scanners use a line sensor and not an area sensor. More
>likely that the reflections from your object are behaving unlike
>reflections from paper, and therefore being mis-interpreted.

A common problem in cheaper scanners is lens flare.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: Pixel blooming in Google Earth 

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 02:59:30 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter.TakeThisOut@charter.net>
wrote in <tOednVhZivjuHBXanZ2dnUVZ_tfinZ2d.TakeThisOut@giganews.com>:

>Jeff R. wrote:
>> I happened upon these two rather impressive blown highlights in Google
>> Earth, at:
>>
>> 150°59'49.49"E 33°49'0.68"S
>>
>> (and a hundred metres or so north of that) and and just wondering... Is
>> this common in Google's sat shots? Anyone seen others?
>>
>> Didn't the goddam astronaut check his histogram before posting?
>>
>> It actually begs another set of questions...
>> My scanner frequently blooms just like those shots if I'm scanning highly
>> reflective items, but my digital cameras don't bleed in a linear fashion
>> like that - just a big white patch.
>>
>> Is Google using a huge flatbed scanner in its satellites?

>In all probability, the shots are taken from a satellite that just takes
>the pictures, some of which will have reflections of the sun, which WILL
>result in blown out whites. Quitcherbitchin.

High-res images have often been taken by aircraft rather than satellite.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: Pixel blooming in Google Earth 

/\BratMan/\ wrote:
> "Jeff R." <contact.me DeleteThis @this.ng> wrote in message
> news:4788627e$0$4471$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> I happened upon these two rather impressive blown highlights in
>> Google Earth, at:
>>
>> 150°59'49.49"E 33°49'0.68"S
>>
>> (and a hundred metres or so north of that) and and just
>> wondering... Is this common in Google's sat shots? Anyone seen
>> others?
> Here's nice starburst one.
> 52°30'40.78"N 4°56'59.52"E

A nice mixture of sensor overload and diffraction spikes!

David
 >> Stay informed about: Pixel blooming in Google Earth 

/\BratMan/\ wrote:
> "Jeff R." <contact.me.TakeThisOut@this.ng> wrote in message
> news:4788627e$0$4471$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> I happened upon these two rather impressive blown highlights in Google
>> Earth, at:
>>
>> 150°59'49.49"E 33°49'0.68"S
>>
>> (and a hundred metres or so north of that) and and just wondering... Is
>> this common in Google's sat shots? Anyone seen others?
>>
> Here's nice starburst one.
> 52°30'40.78"N 4°56'59.52"E

Giant disco ball??
 >> Stay informed about: Pixel blooming in Google Earth 

"/\BratMan/\" <br.DeleteThis@man.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:4788d0e7_1@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>
> "Jeff R." <contact.me.DeleteThis@this.ng> wrote in message
> news:4788627e$0$4471$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>I happened upon these two rather impressive blown highlights in Google
>> Earth, at:
>>
>> 150°59'49.49"E 33°49'0.68"S
>>
>> (and a hundred metres or so north of that) and and just wondering... Is
>> this common in Google's sat shots? Anyone seen others?
>>
> Here's nice starburst one.
> 52°30'40.78"N 4°56'59.52"E

Thanks for that.
That shows the sort of reflection/sensor overload that I'd expect to see in
a conventional-type digital camera sensor. My camera shows the same
diffraction spikes if I stop it down far enough. (Not a function of
over-exposure.)

Yet the original post shows bleeding which is more consistent with an
overloaded flatbed scanner, or the type of CCD camera that astronomers use
on the back of their telescopes.


It just gets me wondering what sort of imaging setup is used by Google. Two
posters have suggested aircraft rather than satellites... I wonder.

....and thanks for all the comments to date.

--
Jeff R.
 >> Stay informed about: Pixel blooming in Google Earth 

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 09:39:08 +1100, "Jeff R." <contact.me.DeleteThis@this.ng> wrote
in <47894190$0$24086$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>:

>Yet the original post shows bleeding which is more consistent with an
>overloaded flatbed scanner, or the type of CCD camera that astronomers use
>on the back of their telescopes.

That's more a function of the vintage of the sensor -- CCD sensors have
gotten more resistant to blooming as the technology has improved.

>It just gets me wondering what sort of imaging setup is used by Google. Two
>posters have suggested aircraft rather than satellites... I wonder.

Both.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: Pixel blooming in Google Earth 

Jeff R. wrote:
> "/\BratMan/\" <br.TakeThisOut@man.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:4788d0e7_1@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>> "Jeff R." <contact.me.TakeThisOut@this.ng> wrote in message
>> news:4788627e$0$4471$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>> I happened upon these two rather impressive blown highlights in Google
>>> Earth, at:
>>>
>>> 150°59'49.49"E 33°49'0.68"S
>>>
>>> (and a hundred metres or so north of that) and and just wondering... Is
>>> this common in Google's sat shots? Anyone seen others?
>>>
>> Here's nice starburst one.
>> 52°30'40.78"N 4°56'59.52"E
>
> Thanks for that.
> That shows the sort of reflection/sensor overload that I'd expect to see in
> a conventional-type digital camera sensor. My camera shows the same
> diffraction spikes if I stop it down far enough. (Not a function of
> over-exposure.)
>
> Yet the original post shows bleeding which is more consistent with an
> overloaded flatbed scanner, or the type of CCD camera that astronomers use
> on the back of their telescopes.
>
>
> It just gets me wondering what sort of imaging setup is used by Google. Two
> posters have suggested aircraft rather than satellites... I wonder.
>
> ...and thanks for all the comments to date.

I expect Google does very little of their own imaging, if any. Most
photos would be purchased from a variety of other sources, such as NASA
and other space geo-imaging outfits, with close-zoom images coming from
assorted aerial-photo suppliers.

Satellite photos can only get you so much detail - even the best sensors
and lenses can't magically dissipate atmospheric interference, haze,
pollution, and so on. Small detail could only come from sources WITHIN
the atmosphere. Mosaics would have to be compiled over faily extensive
time frames to cover the entire surface of the globe without cloud cover
and other such interference, so you'll have varying light conditions
from one area of the surface to the next, as well.
 >> Stay informed about: Pixel blooming in Google Earth 

Jeff R. wrote:

> It just gets me wondering what sort of imaging setup is used by Google. Two
> posters have suggested aircraft rather than satellites... I wonder.

If you can see buildings leaning it's not satellite.
 >> Stay informed about: Pixel blooming in Google Earth 

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 23:50:49 GMT, Matt Ion <soundy106.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote
in <tncij.70$wx.9@pd7urf1no>:

>I expect Google does very little of their own imaging, if any. Most
>photos would be purchased from a variety of other sources, such as NASA
>and other space geo-imaging outfits, with close-zoom images coming from
>assorted aerial-photo suppliers.

Copyright notices are on the Google Earth main screen.

>Satellite photos can only get you so much detail - even the best sensors
>and lenses can't magically dissipate atmospheric interference, haze,
>pollution, and so on. Small detail could only come from sources WITHIN
>the atmosphere. ...

Military surveillance satellites are capable of amazing resolution by
means of such things as active and adaptive optics
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_optics>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_optics>.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: Pixel blooming in Google Earth