Skip to main content
Solved

How can i improve the quality of the RasterMosaicker result

  • October 29, 2018
  • 4 replies
  • 41 views

jeroen
Contributor
Forum|alt.badge.img+15

When trying to merge different WMS layers together to reduce a PDF file size i'm loosing too much image quality. An alternative option that i build is to just add them as extra layers but the file size is sometimes too big for normal use. So my question is: How can i improve my image quality?

The ideal option is to get the same quality as you would normally see when all rasters are send to the the data inspector. Like this:

But with with nearest neighbour it looks like this:

If i use bi-linear it looks a bit better:

and bi-cubic looks even better:

But it still loses a lot of detail and line quality in the parts that the lines are semitransparent. Is there a option for merging this the same way as the result shown in the data inspector (see the first image) without all the abundance of data that you cannot see? In the end i would like my PDF with rasters merged to be/look the same as the PDF with the rasters as separate layers.

I have taken the necessary transformers from my flow into the workbench below with a small sample (1% of the area) of raster data. The raster would be bigger in x and y but have the same detail in pixels.

My settings in the mosaicker:

Best answer by gio

simple rasterstack.fmwt

 

Hi Jeroen,

 

Main difference (apart from removing processes that ssem not functional that is) is the use of MapnickRasteriser instead of RasterMosaicker.

I was not able to get it to look good using the Mosaicker. (to do that I think you need use at least one Rasterexpression to prevent for instance the grey line to mess up the red line etc.).

 

It is not easy to post things in this new forum format..lol. Had to try like 3 4 times.

 

 

 

This post is closed to further activity.
It may be an old question, an answered question, an implemented idea, or a notification-only post.
Please check post dates before relying on any information in a question or answer.
For follow-up or related questions, please post a new question or idea.
If there is a genuine update to be made, please contact us and request that the post is reopened.

4 replies

gio
Contributor
Forum|alt.badge.img+15
  • Contributor
  • 2252 replies
  • October 29, 2018

@JeroenR

A RasterpalletteResolver followed by RasterbandNodatasetter

Sort them and send to a MapnikRasterizer.

Is all you need. (apart from sorting order attributecreators)

Yields a better picture.

Also sort the kadaster on top of the BGT, looks way better.


gio
Contributor
Forum|alt.badge.img+15
  • Contributor
  • 2252 replies
  • October 29, 2018

looks like

I can even see some streetnames


jeroen
Contributor
Forum|alt.badge.img+15
  • Author
  • Contributor
  • 97 replies
  • November 1, 2018

looks like

I can even see some streetnames

Thanks! Do you have a example (screenshot or fmwt) of the flow and settings?

I'm only getting a white image as an result


gio
Contributor
Forum|alt.badge.img+15
  • Contributor
  • 2252 replies
  • Best Answer
  • November 1, 2018

simple rasterstack.fmwt

 

Hi Jeroen,

 

Main difference (apart from removing processes that ssem not functional that is) is the use of MapnickRasteriser instead of RasterMosaicker.

I was not able to get it to look good using the Mosaicker. (to do that I think you need use at least one Rasterexpression to prevent for instance the grey line to mess up the red line etc.).

 

It is not easy to post things in this new forum format..lol. Had to try like 3 4 times.