Timeline for Is saving rasters to VRT bad convention?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 1, 2020 at 15:01 | vote | accept | JWB | ||
| Apr 22, 2019 at 4:59 | comment | added | JWB | Thank you so much - I had gotten lost in the VRT documentation. I will just stick with compression! | |
| Apr 19, 2019 at 15:05 | comment | added | AndreJ | This works as long as you still work in the same CRS. If your project is in another CRS, reprojecting the source data of the VRT on-the-fly will cost a reasonable time during project work, compared to a ready-reprojected new TIF file. Same goes for low-zoom overviews if your source data does not have them. | |
| Apr 18, 2019 at 14:34 | vote | accept | JWB | ||
| Apr 18, 2019 at 14:34 | |||||
| Apr 18, 2019 at 7:54 | comment | added | Billy34 | One other use is sparse raster. That is several non contiguous rasters that can be used as a whole without having to store a full raster encompassing them | |
| Apr 18, 2019 at 7:34 | comment | added | pLumo | that is what I tried to say in the second paragraph "VRT's make sense for ..." | |
| Apr 18, 2019 at 7:24 | comment | added | user30184 | It may make sense to save the .vrt files if the original images must be saved in any case, and if .vrt adds something non-trivial to the original data that normally requires writing out a new physical image file. For example derived bands and pansharpened VRT in gdal.org/gdal_vrttut.html are good examples about that. | |
| Apr 18, 2019 at 7:08 | history | edited | pLumo | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 178 characters in body
|
| Apr 18, 2019 at 7:02 | history | answered | pLumo | CC BY-SA 4.0 |