Timeline for Unwanted artefacts working with Raster analysis
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 20, 2019 at 15:24 | history | edited | whuber | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
appended answer 293330 as supplemental
|
| Nov 20, 2019 at 12:38 | comment | added | MappaGnosis | I doubt this is a problem with the slope algorithms. I have never had it in many years of using these tools. This looks like an underlying data problem possibly as a result of some preprocessing applied to the DEM. The cross-hatching looks very similar to artefacts you get from certain types of wavelet compression (which might have been applied at some point in the data's lifecycle) - or some other pre-processing. To provide any further help, the OP will need to provide some of the original data and some indication of provenance and any other processing steps the OP has applied first. | |
| Nov 20, 2019 at 12:26 | history | edited | Quarantäne | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 20 characters in body; edited tags
|
| Nov 20, 2019 at 12:23 | vote | accept | Quarantäne | ||
| Nov 20, 2019 at 12:23 | |||||
| Aug 15, 2018 at 21:24 | comment | added | lambertj | Does the size of the erroneous crosshatching correspond with your raster cell size? | |
| Aug 15, 2018 at 19:13 | comment | added | FelixIP | Did you tick FLOAT during conversion to tif? | |
| Aug 15, 2018 at 18:54 | history | asked | Quarantäne | CC BY-SA 4.0 |