<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" > <channel><title>Comments on: Relief Shading</title> <atom:link href="http://gislounge.com/relief-shading/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://gislounge.com/relief-shading/</link> <description>Geographic Information Systems, Maps, GPS, and GIS Jobs</description> <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:13:11 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator> <item><title>By: Mark</title><link>http://gislounge.com/relief-shading/#comment-345</link> <dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2008 16:51:22 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://gislounge.com/?p=710#comment-345</guid> <description>I&#039;ve noticed that it seems common to hillshade with the sun emulated at 315° &amp; 45° above the horizon (or something similar).  This doesn&#039;t appear to be good practice relative to real sun angles in the northern hemisphere.  I realize using actual figures for the basis of a primarily visual calculation could have downsides (things might literally &#039;appear&#039; to be upside-down).  Though this unrealistically illuminates cool northern slopes &amp; shades exposed southern aspects.  This is also in direct contrast (quite literally) to the realities of aerial imaging.  One can imagine what a transparent overlay of the two would look like (not good).  Do standards exist in this regard?  Opinions anybody?</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve noticed that it seems common to hillshade with the sun emulated at 315° &amp; 45° above the horizon (or something similar).  This doesn&#8217;t appear to be good practice relative to real sun angles in the northern hemisphere.  I realize using actual figures for the basis of a primarily visual calculation could have downsides (things might literally &#8216;appear&#8217; to be upside-down).  Though this unrealistically illuminates cool northern slopes &amp; shades exposed southern aspects.  This is also in direct contrast (quite literally) to the realities of aerial imaging.  One can imagine what a transparent overlay of the two would look like (not good).  Do standards exist in this regard?  Opinions anybody?</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
<!-- Served from: gislounge.com @ 2012-02-09 01:34:59 by W3 Total Cache -->
