[mkgmap-dev] DEM contrast option?

Mon Jul 9 18:14:24 BST 2018

Hi Gerd,

all screenshots show the same part of the same map:
	- the first pair with the dedicated Typ-file
	- the second pair with a matching transparent Typ-file (all polygons, lines and points are transparent/invisible with this Typ)

Inside a pair the screenshots differ in the detail-settings of BaseCamp - see the dark overlay at the bottom.
	• 1: dedicated Typ - low detail BaseCamp
	• 2: dedicated Typ - high detail BaseCamp
	• 3: transparent Typ - low detail BaseCamp
	• 4: transparent Typ - high detail BaseCamp

I wanted to point out, that the contrast of the DEM lowers when viewing higher details in BaseCamp.
It´s clearly visible on the transparent view how less bright/dark the shading gets in higher details.

I would prefer to see the HIGHER contrasting DEM over all detail-settings in BaseCamp.	

Question is how to adjust it. As the different strength in shading is rendered - shouldn´t there be a reason for it?
Any dem-dists, interpolation and overview-dem-dist combinations behaved as expected regarding DEM details - but not the contrast.

Any eventual mistake in my style I hope to disregard by the transparent view to the map.

Jan

> Am 09.07.2018 um 17:29 schrieb Gerd Petermann <GPetermann_muenchen at hotmail.com>:
> 
> Hi Jan,
> 
> to be honest, I don't even understand how you produce the two different screen shots. If you prefer one of the two,
> why/when do you use the other?
> 
> Gerd
> 
> ________________________________________
> Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces at lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von jan meisters <jan_m23 at gmx.net>
> Gesendet: Montag, 9. Juli 2018 16:25
> An: Development list for mkgmap
> Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] DEM contrast option?
> 
> Which resolution exactly do you mean?
> I already described that I tried different values for dem-dists (including one single resolution).
> This, of course, has a huge effect on DETAILS, but not on CONTRAST.
> 
> Anybody has an idea how to adjust contrast?
> 
> Am 05.07.2018 um 20:20 schrieb Felix Hartmann <extremecarver at gmail.com<mailto:extremecarver at gmail.com>>:
> 
> You should only use one single resolution
> 
> On Thu, 5 Jul 2018, 19:31 jan meisters, <jan_m23 at gmx.net<mailto:jan_m23 at gmx.net>> wrote:
> Tried a lot of dem-dist variations: fixed resolution as you hinted, decreasing and even inverted steps.
> Unfortunately nothing changed the shown behavior.
> 
> What I´d like to see is the same CONTRAST in the shading over all resolutions.
> In higher resolutions the darks of the DEM are clearly brighter, whatever dem-dists used.
> With the blank screenshots I wanted to show that there is no additional (higher resolution) polygon in my style eventually hiding the DEM.
> 
> Had some success (at least on DEM contrasts) mixing levels and overview-levels, but that obviously breaks the rest of the map.
> 
> Jan
> 
> 
> Am 04.07.2018 um 21:14 schrieb Felix Hartmann <extremecarver at gmail.com<mailto:extremecarver at gmail.com>>:
> 
> if you have several dem resolution levels in mkgmap - then it will lose in detail (in order to zoom in/out faster). You could just create the map is a single dem resolution - then detail level is always the same.
> 
> On 4 July 2018 at 18:52, jan meisters <jan_m23 at gmx.net<mailto:jan_m23 at gmx.net>> wrote:
> I just made my first map with the new DEM-option and I´m impressed. Pretty easy.
> But I wonder why DEM shading looses contrast in higher resolutions in BaseCamp:
> 
> <1DEM_low.jpg><2DEM_higk.jpg>
> 
> My Style has background poly 4a and 4b (both transparent), however they are not mentioned in polygons. I wouldn´t know how to tag them anyway.
> And even with a completely blanked typ-file the difference is visible:
> 
> <3DEM_low-e.jpg><4DEM_high-e.jpg>
> 
> HGT´s are 3“ data from viewfinderpanaramas.org<http://viewfinderpanaramas.org/>
> 
> To keep the contrasted DEM up to higher resolutions/zooms I played with all DEM-options from help, and also with transparencies, but that had no effect - the softer shading remains.
> 
> I see the switch in Basecamp somewhere between assumed resolutions 20 and 22.
> How is this switch defined? Is there a value to adjust this?
> 
> Jan
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mkgmap-dev mailing list
> mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk<mailto:mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk>
> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Felix Hartman - Openmtbmap.org<http://openmtbmap.org/> & VeloMap.org<http://velomap.org/>
> Schusterbergweg 32/8
> 6020 Innsbruck
> Austria - Österreich
> _______________________________________________
> mkgmap-dev mailing list
> mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk<mailto:mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk>
> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mkgmap-dev mailing list
> mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk<mailto:mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk>
> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
> _______________________________________________
> mkgmap-dev mailing list
> mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk<mailto:mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk>
> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
> 