Hi,
You asked help for understanding, so
Check the size of the original image:
309153 x 277451
Check how many bands:
1
Check how many bits per pixel for each band:
32 bits (makes 4 bytes)
Multiply:
309153 x 277451 x 4 = number of bytes as uncompressed = 3.43099E+11 = 343 GB
Compare with the 120
GDAL documentation does warn that this can cause trouble with
external software.
From: gdal-dev On Behalf Of Cainã K. Campos
Sent: 13 March 2020 13:08
To: Brian
Cc: gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org
Subject: Re: [gdal-dev] Need some help understanding why this raster is so big
if you run without the
if you run without the switch it will create the result without
compression, so you will be back to a 400Gb file. Instead run everything in
one single command.
With compression it is likely to take some extra time, as some calculation
has to be done to achieve that.
If you want speed, tile the rast
Here is the gdalinfo output I am just re-projecting to 4326
Driver: VRT/Virtual Raster
Files: Depth (Max).vrt
Depth (Max).Terrainredacted.tif
Depth (Max). redacted .tif
Size is 309153, 277451
Coordinate System is:
PROJCS["USA_Contiguous_Albers_Equal_Area_Conic_USGS_version",
GEOG
What is the source (and target) projection and extent? Some projections
have expansive limits, but you can specify the target extent with -te
HTH
On Fri., 13 Mar. 2020, 23:43 Brian, wrote:
> Is it faster to do a gdal_warp with compression then without? Is it safe
> to assume the drive write spe
Is it faster to do a gdal_warp with compression then without? Is it safe
to assume the drive write speed would be the limiting factor for speed in
this case?
On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 8:33 AM Cainã K. Campos
wrote:
> Hello Brian,
>
> Try to add the switch -co "COMPRESS=LZW" to the command line t
Hello Brian,
Try to add the switch -co "COMPRESS=LZW" to the command line to generate
a compressed result with lossless compression.
On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 9:07 AM Brian wrote:
> So compressed this raster is fairly small about 120mb but running
> gdal_warp produces a raster that is about 416
So compressed this raster is fairly small about 120mb but running gdal_warp
produces a raster that is about 416 gb, is this something this list can
help with? If so I can upload the file somewhere and let you guys/gals take
a look at it.
___
gdal-dev mail
