Take the 2-minute tour ×
Geographic Information Systems Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for cartographers, geographers and GIS professionals. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I have a map document authored in ArcMap. The spatial reference for each of the raster layers is Alaska State Plane. If I set the Data Frame projection to Web Mercator (Auxiliary Sphere), then my raster layers have a resolution of about 2 meters, when the actual data has a resolution of about 2 feet. I'm trying to publish the map document as a Map Service (ArcGIS Server 10.0) but the quality of the imagery is not acceptable for the use case.

Is there any way to make the imagery draw at 2-ft. resolution, or do I need to reproject the data (about 500 GB of raster imagery)?

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

I know this is an old post, but could prove useful to others searching on the topic...

Now I just ran into a similar issue, and the only way I could get around altering the resolution was to resample the data. This had to be done at the tile level, and with almost 5000 tiles it could have been time consuming.

I just created a toolbox>model Used the Iterator Raster function from the dropdown on top and built my model to iterate all raster tiles, then send each one to the resample tool. This allowed me to set the cell size (x,y) for each tile. BE AWARE of the reference system... The first time I ran my model I didn't realize the tiles were in stateplane FEET and when I wanted them in METERS for my end result, I just typed in (1,1) for cell size. Not realizing that my end product produced (0.3048,0.3048) meter cell sizes... I had to delete it all and start over.

If anyone actually sees this as useful and wants to learn more, post a comment and I can add screen shots of models as examples.

NOTE: when using the iterator in model builder, you have to include a recursive name to the output, such as %name%... otherwise the model will run, the first tile will be processed and it will time out thinking the next tile has the same name as the first and will have no where to save its output.

share|improve this answer
1  
One caveat to the resampling method: If your actual data (i.e. pixel values) are important, it would be better to go ahead and reproject the data. In playing around with this on some local data, I found that in addition to changing the resolution, there was a pretty significant difference in pixel values between the same location projected on the fly and actually reprojected to a new file. For display purposes this is obviously less of an issue, but just a heads up if your end users will be querying data. –  JWallace Jan 24 at 16:58

Your Answer

 
discard

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.