0

I have hundreds of rasters, all with different rectangular cell sizes. I need to convert the pixels to be square, since I will be using a variety of Spatial Analyst tools such as Raster Calculator. However, I do not want to use the Resample tool as I do not want to reduce data accuracy. I am okay with the extent/size of the raster changing. How would I do this in ArcGIS Pro?

Edited for more info: although my rasters are all different sizes, when converting them to square cell sizes, it is ok for them to continue to be different sizes (just as long as they are square). Basically, I have hundreds of rasters from different areas, and my workflow is:

Multiply classRasterA1 by certaintyRasterA1 (Area 1)

Multiply classRasterA2 by certaintyRasterA2 (Area 2)

and so on.

  • If you're lucky, the least common denominator of pixel size (incorporating origin in the size determination) that meets your "no resample" requirement won't require petabyte-sized resultant rasters. You'd need to list all the rasters' origins and pixel dimensions in the question if you need help making this determination. It would, of vpurse, still involve using the Resample tool, but you'd just be converting to millimeter or smaller pixels. Or you could convert everything to vectors, and hope you don't have to process hundreds of millions of polygons... – Vince Feb 13 at 11:50
  • Thanks for your reply! Although I'm not sure I understand the first part... although my rasters are all different sizes, when converting them to square cell sizes, it is ok for them to continue to be different sizes (just as long as they are square). Basically, I have hundreds of rasters from different areas, and my workflow is: Multiply classRasterA1 by certaintyRasterA1 (Area 1) Multiply classRasterA2 by certaintyRasterA2 (Area 2) and so on. Does that change things? – Anna Feb 13 at 11:59
  • If all your rasters are 10m x 20m with a whole number origin, you could convert them to one meter squares with only a two order of magnitude increase in uncompressed size (10Gb to 2Tb). If, however, one of the origins was offset by a millimeter, then you'd need to use millimeter resolution, with a 2x10^8 increase in uncompressed storage (10Gb to 2 Exabytes). If you really don't care about origins, then you'd just need to increase to 10x10 pixel size (10Gb to 20Gb), but you won't preserve your data accuracy (+/-7m) – Vince Feb 13 at 12:25
  • What about just using the Rescale tool and using either an X or Y scale factor that will give me a square cell output? – Anna Feb 13 at 12:54
  • 1
    Can you explain? I just tested it out and my data values are consistent across the raster, just stretched out which is fine since I will ultimately be looking at percentages, and the ratio will be the same as my original data. – Anna Feb 13 at 13:20

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.