edits made by Alex #22
Conversation
| # Nested grid setup: chip size being ChipSize0X no need to resize, otherwise has to resize the arrays | ||
| if self.ChipSize0X != ChipSizeUniX[i]: | ||
| Scale = self.ChipSize0X / ChipSizeUniX[i] | ||
| if self.ChipSize0X != (ChipSizeUniX[i]*self.GridSize_ChipSize0_Ratio): #ASG |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
chipsize0x -> grid_spacing -> from the file (e.g. 120 m)
GridSize_ChipSize0_Ratio -> GridSpacing_ChipSize0_Ratio -> GridSpacing_ChipSize0_oversample_ratio -> define chipsize0 and calculate the ratio
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the condition check can be the same as before regardless of whhat gridSpacing is. No need to change it. See below please.
OLD:
if self.ChipSize0X != ChipSizeUniX[i]:
Scale = self.ChipSize0X / ChipSizeUniX[i]
NEW (what we discussed yesterday):
if self.GridSpacingX != (ChipSizeUniX[i] * GS_CS_oversample_ratio):
Scale = self.GridSpacingX / (ChipSizeUniX[i] * GS_CS_oversample_ratio)
If you plug in GridSpacing=120, ChipSize0=240, ChipSizeUniX=[240, 480] (GS_CS_oversample_ratio=0.5), you will find the NEW one is equivalent to the OLD one.
However, the NEW one sometimes causes problems, while the OLD doesn’t. For example, when GridSpacing=480, ChipSize0=240, ChipSizeUniX=[240, 480] (GS_CS_oversample_ratio=1), the condition will be invalid when ChipSizeUniX[i]=480 , hhowever we do want it to be valid.
For this reason, I think it is conveninent to keep using the OLD condition check.
| if type(self.OverSampleRatio) is dict: | ||
| overSampleRatio = self.OverSampleRatio[ChipSizeUniX[i]] | ||
| overSampleRatio = self.OverSampleRatio[(ChipSizeUniX[i]*self.GridSize_ChipSize0_Ratio)] #ASG ---------------- |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
subpixel program oversampleRatio dictionary is not affected
| # Below is for replacing the valid estimates with the bicubic filtered values for robust and accurate estimation | ||
| if self.ChipSize0X == ChipSizeUniX[i]: | ||
| if self.ChipSize0X == (ChipSizeUniX[i]*self.GridSize_ChipSize0_Ratio): #ASG |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
refer to above comment on the condition check; should keep the original version
|
closing this as has been solved by PR #23 |
No description provided.