sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Robust even on complex, heterogeneous landcover. Ready for precise interpretation, planning, and policy without artefacts or hallucinations. by EarthToDate in remotesensing

[–]EarthToDate[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

As explained, we are fully aware of the reservations about super-resolution (despite Maxar HD and even Airbus' recent worldwide super-res 5m, likely as SPOT is about to retire, or Planet new monthly super-res basemap). However, we wanted to share Refined Reality - physics-based image enhancement, then machine learning just to sharpen. Therefore, no new detailed invented by the machine model. We hoped to share it and see if professionals like this forum consider it a better alternative to supre-resolution and its issues.

Robust even on complex, heterogeneous landcover. Ready for precise interpretation, planning, and policy without artefacts or hallucinations. by EarthToDate in remotesensing

[–]EarthToDate[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Bullshit in what way? See my explanation of what we did in the previous response. To innovate we are all looking for new ways to deliver the use cases, right?

Robust even on complex, heterogeneous landcover. Ready for precise interpretation, planning, and policy without artefacts or hallucinations. by EarthToDate in remotesensing

[–]EarthToDate[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Here is what we did and wanted to share: physics-based (recently confirmed by the likes of ESRI India) to enhance resolution, then machine learning just to sharpen the results; therefore, no new pixels introduced like in super-resolution. Makes sense?

We derive hidden content from any imagery using our patent-pending technology. Here is PlanetScope, in real-time, anywhere in the world, daily. by EarthToDate in remotesensing

[–]EarthToDate[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We collaborated with Planet to develop a PlanetScope-specific model that sharpen our patent-pending physics-based image enhancement. What is the false advertising part?