Post by: Adam Kaeser on March 25, 2010, 12:16:06 PM
A related question- has anyone detected (perhaps subtle) differences in the image quality/resolution produced by the SI systems using the various image output file formats (.bmp versus .png) that have been substituted as part of control head software upgrades.
Thanks for the info!
Adam
Post by: sonar2000 on March 25, 2010, 12:57:19 PM
Post by: Adam Kaeser on March 25, 2010, 01:21:02 PM
Thanks for such an immediate response. I'm awaiting the delivery of an 1197c any day now. If by chance you had an opportunity to send one of these .dat files to my email, I'm interested to have a look at the various file formats it can be converted to as you suggested. My email is
(removed for security reasons)
I have heard from other users that their 1197 units put out a .png file, apparently straight to the SD card (I would assume), so I'm a bit perplexed by the .dat file output you mention.
Thanks!
Adam
GA Dept of Natural Resources
Post by: RGecy on March 25, 2010, 01:35:35 PM
The 1197 puts out the snapshot in .PNG format only. They originally used the .BMP file format, but later switched to the PNG through a software update. The BMP files were much larger.
The .DAT file that Chuck is refering to is the data file that stores the waypoint information and a thumbnail of the snapshot.
Here is an image in the original PNG format.
As Chuck mentioned, you can open it in just about any image editor and then save to BMP if needed.
Good Luck,
Robert
Post by: Adam Kaeser on March 25, 2010, 01:53:00 PM
Thanks a ton, you guys are fast to respond, and I sure do appreciate it. It sounds like I will be able to upload an earlier version of the 1197 software to restore bitmap output if deemed necessary. I am leading several research mapping projects founded on the screen snapshots, and have been hyper-concerned, and ultra-discriminating when it comes to image resolution. With the delivery of our new 1197 I intend to get to the bottom of this issue- whether the .bmp file format is (as I suspect) higher resolution than the .png output. Any thoughts on this?
I'll post my findings to the thread when available.
Thanks-
Adam
Post by: RGecy on March 25, 2010, 02:07:12 PM
Here is some info from WikiAnswers:
Each format has its pros and cons, but there are differences and specific times when a certain format should be used.
PNG. Portable Networks Graphic. They best overall image format, especially for computer-generated graphics and files containing text and images having sharp transitions, but not as good as JPEGs for photos because of the larger file size. PNG is a better choice for storing photos that require a lot of editing, since JPEG is "lossy" and PNG isn't.
Although not as compatible with the Windows operating systems (especially XP) as other formats, PNGs produce very high quality images with high resolution, but the biggest pro is that PNG's can handle transparency that JPEGs cannot. PNG is mainly used in MAC operating systems but can now be used in Windows Vista.
BMP - Bitmap. This was probably the first type of digital image format. It's most common in Windows environments. This is generally medium-high quality but produces larger file sizes. This format is ideal for icons and small images.
I would stick with the PNG! Even if you are using Windows XP, most Image Editors use the format, you just would not see the thumbnails or previews in Windows XP.
Robert
Post by: sonar2000 on March 25, 2010, 02:15:00 PM
Do you still want some snapshots.
chuck.
Post by: Adam Kaeser on March 25, 2010, 02:42:31 PM
A colleague and I have developed the software tools and techniques for producing rectified raster image mosaics and sonar-based habitat maps from the screen snapshots, and have completed several mapping projects in the last 3 years, some published, and other papers soon to appear. The tools function entirely within the ArcGIS environment, and require no other software purchases. We also teach not-for-profit sonar mapping workshops to natural resource professionals interested in the techniques, next offered at the American Fisheries Society meeting in Pittsburgh, Sept 2010. I'd be glad to send you some of our products, but hesitate to get "too involved" with such discussions over the forum since we often have our hands full. I am, however, interested to hear more of your 3D mapping capabilities, and have long been interested in integrating 3D data with our 2D habitat mapping capabilities. I'd be glad to send you some information off-line if you wish to share another contact method, my email is (removed for security reasons), and thanks.
Adam
Post by: sonar2000 on March 25, 2010, 02:53:04 PM
Post by: Humminbird_Greg on March 25, 2010, 02:56:27 PM
Post by: Adam Kaeser on March 25, 2010, 03:30:46 PM
Adam
Post by: sonar2000 on March 25, 2010, 04:06:36 PM
Post by: mendota on March 25, 2010, 04:38:20 PM
However, the recorded data can be played back and viewed through SIView and HumViewer at full resolution, which is quite a bit better. I highly recommend you investigate these options.