BirdsEye difference in qualitites

[jstraus]

I have downloaded a few samples of the three qualities available for download via BirdsEye.

 

Basic quality seems fairly useless.

 

But, I cannot detect any difference in better and best (middle and highest options) qualities other than the file sizes are much bigger for best quality. I have only looked at these on computer screen with better and best tiles right next to each other.

 

Is anyone else seeing a noticeable difference in quality? I believe that I waited for downloads to complete.

 

I live in southern Oregon, and the imagery seems pretty good, but I could be wrong.

 

I'm interested in any feedback on this.

[+Walts Hunting]

Been considering Birdseye. Will keep an eye on the responses

 

[+larryc43230]

Been considering Birdseye. Will keep an eye on the responses

 

I'm in the same situation. I just began tracking this thread in the hope that some early adapters will help us decide if it's worth signing up for.

 

--Larry

[+GeekBoy.from.Illinois]

I'm in the same situation. I just began tracking this thread in the hope that some early adapters will help us decide if it's worth signing up for.

Well, I was an early adopter. As such, I have felt some pain, but not near as much as some others I have spoken with. I downloaded 1.7GB of imagery data in about 6 "tiles" (limits you to about 400-450MB per "tile") and loaded to them to my Oregon 400t. With it being new, the servers are quite slow in responding, so my downloads took much longer than I would have preferred, but they still completed in time for me to load them to my GPSr for my first caching outing using them on Saturday. I loaded an area of about 60x80 miles with no problems (other than the slowness). It took about 1.5 hours to copy all the data to the SD card in the GPSr once it was downloaded.

 

Like the first poster, I am using the middle level of detail. I did this more so to conserve space on my SD card than for quality. I do intend to go back and do more detailed testing and playing.

 

As for worth, the decision is all up to you. I find that having an image of the area is worth more to me than only having the maps. I am able to see the large clearing and a nice large trail that goes to within 50-100 feet of the cache icon as compared to not knowing that there was a trail there and bushwacking for 200-300 feet because I didn't know there was another trail closer to the cache. It was also nice to see that there really is a small lake there that doesn't show on my maps, but it does on the imagery.

 

For me, I am happy I have it, and can't imagine caching without it now, but I have only done one afternoon of caching and no urban caching since getting the data.

[jstraus]

I believe that the image resolution is worth the price for BirdsEye. I am easily getting down to individual trees and bushes and many trails visible unless under dense tree cover. I'm also glad to hear that you are able to pull down some pretty large tiles in one shot. I also assume that the servers are a bit stressed for now but expect that to clear a bit as time goes on.

 

I finally got a card for my 400t and have transferred image tiles from unit to card. I will say that I am pretty impressed with the redraw speed when zooming and panning the map with the imagery. I kinda figured the card I/O would be a bit slower compared to on-unit data and I haven't really noticed a difference.

 

Anyone else notice a difference in "speed" between on device data and on card data?

 

J

[+Walts Hunting]

I currently use the CN navigator card in the slot so don't think I have space and would be restricted to the on board memory.

[+GeekBoy.from.Illinois]

I currently use the CN navigator card in the slot so don't think I have space and would be restricted to the on board memory.

I seem to recall that a friend of mine had found a posting on the AT&T wireless support forums that told exactly how to move your maps from the default 2GB uSD card to a larger card, but that is not a discussion for here.

 

There are some ways you can manipulate things if you really want. For example, if you have a 400t or a x50t unit, you could backup the internal topo map from the GPSr and then delete it, freeing up about 2.5GB of space for your new imagery data. I have strongly considered doing this since I almost never use the topo maps myself anyway.

 

As of right now, I have about 3.7GB of imagery data loaded onto my uSD card and it doesn't seem to have any problems with it. Getting the data there was a challenge, but I may have just discovered something to help that process out too... I will be testing that out soon and if I am right, I will able to easily add as much as my uSD card can handle.

 

I now cover the general area of NE-IL/SE-WI from I-80 on the south side, Lake Michigan on the east, I-94 on the north (Milwaukee to Madison) and I-39 on the west. The west side isn't complete yet, but almost. This is made up of 12 or 13 image "tile sets" Each "tile set" is made of close to the max of 20000 image segments (medium resolution).

[+Walts Hunting]

There are some ways you can manipulate things if you really want. For example, if you have a 400t or a x50t unit, you could backup the internal topo map from the GPSr and then delete it, freeing up about 2.5GB of space for your new imagery data. I have strongly considered doing this since I almost never use the topo maps myself anyway.

 

I like that idea. I have the CN Navigator card so can't go the card route. I have the 24K TOPO for areas where I spend 99% of my time so had been wondering if I could delete the TOPO map.

[+Walts Hunting]

Forgot to ask which file(s) should I remove.

[+Walts Hunting]

Well, I bought it and overnight later have a 381Meg file. When I click send to it starts and there is no info on when it is done. How will I know?

[yogazoo]

I have downloaded a few samples of the three qualities available for download via BirdsEye.

 

Basic quality seems fairly useless.

 

But, I cannot detect any difference in better and best (middle and highest options) qualities other than the file sizes are much bigger for best quality. I have only looked at these on computer screen with better and best tiles right next to each other.

 

Is anyone else seeing a noticeable difference in quality? I believe that I waited for downloads to complete.

 

I'm still waiting for someone to address the OP's question.

 

[+lookn4gz]

the highest quality looks to me to have more detail in the highest zoom. I don't know if you would want to have all your files in the highest because of size, but maybe a few. I am using OR 400t. So to answer the question yes there is a noticeable difference on the gps'r from high to highest.

[+WHO-DEY]

Well, I bought it and overnight later have a 381Meg file. When I click send to it starts and there is no info on when it is done. How will I know?

that bothers me as well. I would liek to know what I have transferred to my unit, and when it is done, if in process.

[+northernpenguin]

Well, I bought it and overnight later have a 381Meg file. When I click send to it starts and there is no info on when it is done. How will I know?

that bothers me as well. I would liek to know what I have transferred to my unit, and when it is done, if in process.

 

Don't "auto copy to card". Drag it to your card and a little green status bar with a T on the left side will appear. Once it's done copying the little status bar will go away.

 

Now, a little hint to make life easier (via Avernar):

Copy \Garmin\Garmindevice.xml to \Garmin on your SD Card, and you won't have to power up the GPS to download BirdsEye. Just put the card in and Basecamp will recognize your GPS / Serial number.

 

I'm using a mix of Highest and High maps for caching. Yes, it's clearer on the highest setting, when the GPS is zoomed in stupid close. It also makes the GPS sluggish (Colorado 400t) as that's a lot of info for it to process. I've switched from using "Highest" to using "High" so I can get more coverage in the GPS. I don't really notice the difference, although I'll still use "highest" for specific cases. Even on the "High" setting I can make out individual trees.

 

I can also say now that my Colorado 400t supports 16GB SDHC cards ..... had to get a bigger card for all the Birdseye imagery I'm using.

[+Walts Hunting]

Thanks northernpenguin for that. Will definitely do that.

 

I can't get a bigger card since I have the CN Navigator card in the 400t currently. Someone earlier said I could remove teh TOPO2008 from it but didn't say which file(s) I could remove. I use 24K currently and never turn on the TOPO anyhow.

[+GeekBoy.from.Illinois]

Thanks northernpenguin for that. Will definitely do that.

 

I can't get a bigger card since I have the CN Navigator card in the 400t currently. Someone earlier said I could remove teh TOPO2008 from it but didn't say which file(s) I could remove. I use 24K currently and never turn on the TOPO anyhow.

Sorry, You should see a file named GMAPPROM.IMG (or something very similar) that is about 2.6GB in size. That is the included TOPO map on your "t" units. Before you delete it, I would strongly suggest making a backup to your computer or to a DVD.

 

A while back, when I first got my Colorado 300, I learned that you could remove that file and rename the GMAPSUPP.IMG file that MapSource uploads to the GPSr to be GMAPPROM.IMG and your GPSr would think that the uploaded file was now your "personal" base map file. Yes, you lose the included base map, but you recover the space for the maps that you don't use (if you don't use them).

[Tomas4x4]

I have done some tests with the same area on High and Highest setting and found this:

 

1) File size for High is around 1/4 of size for Highest (in my case 10MB vs. 34MB)

 

2) Unexpectedly in the BaseCamp each quality has range of magnifications where it is best, it is not that Highest always produces better results. Highest has better resolution in range 80-300ft, High has better resolution in range 500ft-0.2mi, above that, it looks the same.

 

3) In the GPS, there is the same difference in ranges 20ft-300ft where Highest not surprisingly rules, at 500ft, I could not honestly tell any difference in quality and High was a bit better at 800ft-0.2mi range, but not much. At 0.3mi-0.7mi both are identical.

 

For me, Highest seem like better choice overall choice (just get bigger card and more patience for download).

[+lookn4gz]

thanks northernpenguin I tried the mirosd card last night and work perfectly.

[+Walts Hunting]

I'm onboard and it dawned on me that since i use the 24K for my area I don't need the CN card anymore and can remove it and put in a 16G card.

 

That will let me put in a much greater 24K area. I generally sit down at the start of each month and update everything (never found I needed to do it more than that) based on my plans for that month.

 

I agree about the resolution. I did a high and a highest for the area around my house and I swear with the highest I can see the license plate on my RV when I zoom down. Not sure I need that quality but will go for it with one issue.

 

What about redraw time when using highest? Anybody have a feel for that/.

[+Walts Hunting]

Does anybody know where BaseCamp stores the Birdseye imagery. I am thinking it would be quicker to open the location up in explorer and drag and drop.

 

I have decided to go with highest. I deleted the TOPO off of my T model (I have updated to 24K maps for wherever I go and do a once a month update of the Oregon). I have over 4G left on my device after doing that and that will cover a pretty big area (even in highest).

 

Since Basecamp keeps any you have downloaded I can delete and add as needed without downloading again. Over a little time (takes awhile to download) I will have areas I go to 95% of the time on the laptop.

[+GeekBoy.from.Illinois]

Does anybody know where BaseCamp stores the Birdseye imagery. I am thinking it would be quicker to open the location up in explorer and drag and drop.

 

I have decided to go with highest. I deleted the TOPO off of my T model (I have updated to 24K maps for wherever I go and do a once a month update of the Oregon). I have over 4G left on my device after doing that and that will cover a pretty big area (even in highest).

 

Since Basecamp keeps any you have downloaded I can delete and add as needed without downloading again. Over a little time (takes awhile to download) I will have areas I go to 95% of the time on the laptop.

I know that on the Mac, BaseCamp keeps the data in a different format than it sends to the GPSr. I have a "folder" with any files in it for each "region" I have selected to download. I would be surprised to hear that they did drastically different on the PC software.

 

Wheat I have done to simplify things is I have copied a few XML files from my GPSr onto a USB drive. If I connect that USB Drive to my computer, BaseCamp thinks I have connected the GPSr, and I can work using that instead of the slower connection to the GPSr. Once I have loaded files to the USB drive, I can then just drag them onto the uSD card for my GPSr and get it all done much faster. It also allows me to keep an "archive" of imagery so that I can re-load much more quickly if I need.

[+GeekBoy.from.Illinois]

the highest quality looks to me to have more detail in the highest zoom. I don't know if you would want to have all your files in the highest because of size, but maybe a few. I am using OR 400t. So to answer the question yes there is a noticeable difference on the gps'r from high to highest.

On my 400t, I have an area where I have loaded both "Higher" and "Highest". If I zoom to a level of 800ft or further out, it displays the data from the "Higher" set, If I zoom in to 500ft or closer is displays the data form the "Highest" set. In my case, there is a "buffer zone" between the end f the "Highest" and the start of the next image tile on the "Higher" where no image data is displayed at the 500ft or closer zoom.

 

Now as for image quality, my "old" eyes can't really see much difference between the "Higher" and "Highest" data for zoom levels of 200ft and further out. From 80ft to 200ft, I can see a minor difference, and closer than 80ft, I can see a distinct difference. I also noticed that for me, zooming in the "Highest" to closer than 50ft is about like looking at "Higher" data zoomed in to 80ft level. So for me, based on this, while I can see a difference, I doubt I will load much (if any) "Highest" level image data because I don't see enough value from the resolution to compensate for the space required and the download time needed to load it all. Granted, that is my opinion, but to each their own.

[snowfleurys]

Anyone know if the 100/96cell limit for 'custom raster imagery' has been increased?

[+CrimsonPirate]

Does anybody know where BaseCamp stores the Birdseye imagery. I am thinking it would be quicker to open the location up in explorer and drag and drop.

 

It won't work unless you really know what goes on in that folder. See for yourself.

 

%appdata%\garmin\basecamp\gcsoverlays

 

... Not a pretty picture. 'Scuse the pun. Heh