Geographic Information Systems Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for cartographers, geographers and GIS professionals. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Is there a way people have used to import a paper map as a raster without using a large format scanner. I do not want to cut my map. I'm wondering how much success people have gotten using things like a regular digital camera, and what software they used to process the image to the point where I can just georeference it. I might even try something like microsofts photosynth software, or canons stitching software.

share|improve this question
In most situations you will get better locational accuracy by georeferencing each image separately, rather than mosaicing the images and georeferencing the mosaic. – whuber Aug 22 '11 at 17:48

I think if you want to use a camera, you would need to use a stand to ensure that the sensor is parallel to the map. I previously did this and mounted the camera using a monopod leg, clamped to the top of a bookcase. This enabled me to photograph 1m x 1m quite easily, and I didn't need to stitch anything together.

I think stitching it together using any program that deals with panoramas (photoshop or gimp, for example) should not be hard.

share|improve this answer
I've done a similar method and stitched together in Paint.NET: (free). – Jay Cummins Aug 20 '11 at 16:05
May have to try this. It's a rather large map (about 2 USGS quads in physical size). I tried a single picture of the whole map, and the resolution isn't nearly good enough. – mike Aug 20 '11 at 18:37
@red If you used a point-and-shoot or even a high end camera (such as a DSLR) with a mediocre lens, you were getting about 0.5 mm resolution or worse with your image, which is marginal. A DSLR (or larger format camera) with a large sensor and high-quality lens (corrected for geometric distortions in software with aperture optimally set around f/7 - f/8) will get about 0.2 mm resolution. That's twice as good as the expected resolution from manual digitizing of the map (and exceeds national mapping standards in the US). So a camera literally offers a decent one-shot solution when used right. – whuber Aug 22 '11 at 17:54
I'm not sure what kind of megapixels you have - but an single image with a 5MP camera (say 2000x2500 pixels is only good for a small part of the map - maybe 8 inches x 10 inches @ 250dpi. – mike Aug 23 '11 at 23:14

To get an idea of what is possible, or just to be awed, have a look at the About the Technology section of the David Rumsey Historical Map Collection site, put up by Cartography Associates.

Their optical capture and digitization methods are the gold standard in my opinion.

share|improve this answer
The collection is awesome! – Chad Cooper Aug 22 '11 at 21:05

If you need another free (and working, as I experienced) sticher with fine defaults as well as an unbelievable number of manual settings try Hugin.

share|improve this answer
I gave this a try - I may need to read the documentation - it does what I want - but it seem best for images taken from a single point, just rotate the camera. – mike Aug 20 '11 at 18:39
@redbeard: I've used this successfully for scanned maps. You can set the "camera" parameters to values that resemble a scanner. I was really happy with the results. – Jake Aug 21 '11 at 2:15
What kind of values did you use? – mike Aug 23 '11 at 23:43

You could also try Autostitch -- I have had great luck with it.

share|improve this answer

You might try kinkos, Staples, or another engineering supply (our area has triangle A&E)
They will have a large format scanner that you get get a raster on cd for $8-15.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.