Start a new topic

Compression of Raster Matrial Datasets (Mixture Layers)

Original Post by: ccbrianf Fri Jan 22 17:33:35 2010


For the same reasons discussed in the CDB 3.1 addendum <b>Compression of Elevation Datasets</b>, I propose that we need an to allow a similar fixed point storage option for <b><i>Raster Material Mixture Layers</i></b>. I believe an eight bit material mixture percentage (interpreted similar to a visible alpha band) should satisfy the precision requirements of most simulation applications for the foreseeable future while also allowing significant database compression. Comments?


Original Post by: David.Nadeau Fri May 20 17:05:06 2011


With the other items that are being looked at for CDB - we haven't considered this specific item for Version 3.2

This being said, you are more than welcome to participate and provide an addendum that we could all review together and include in the Specification once it is approved.


Are you interested in doing this addendum?

Original Post by: RyanFranz Fri Apr 15 22:10:17 2011


Is this still being considered as an addition to the CDB 3.2 spec? Just asking, since I recently had to use a 400GB raster material dataset (005_RMtexture). Something like this proposal should be able to reduce the file sizes quite a bit with no loss of quality.

Original Post by: David.Nadeau Wed Dec 15 22:03:15 2010


This is a good question, we will look at this since it would also enable us to reduce the size of the Material textures on disk.

Original Post by: ccbrianf Thu Sep 23 18:39:25 2010


For the same reasons discussed in the CDB 3.1 addendum <b>Compression of Elevation Datasets</b>, I propose that we need an to allow a similar fixed point storage option for <b><i>Raster Material Mixture Layers</i></b>. I believe an eight bit material mixture percentage (interpreted similar to a visible alpha band) should satisfy the precision requirements of most simulation applications for the foreseeable future while also allowing significant database compression. Comments?


Is this proposal being considered for inclusion in CDB 3.2?

Login to post a comment