Related

Will CA Birdseye imagery be improving? Goog Earth imagery is far more detailed.

Former Member
Former Member
Will the detail/resolution of the Garmin Birdseye imagery in the Southern California area be improving any time soon? Google Earth's satellite imagery is pretty much always better than that of Birdseye, and in my area (Southern California / Los Angeles areas), the difference is not subtle -- Google Imagery is much more detailed.

I've recently been comparing the highest zoom levels of Google Earth with the highest detail images from Birdseye in my area, and the GE imagery is clearly far more detailed. I can easily see oil spots in parking lots, individual brick-sized rocks, and side-view mirrors on cars that are simply indistinguishable in Birdseye. Again, this is using the HIGHEST level of detail that Birdseye offers.

When I originally read about Birdseye, people said that the imagery was comparable to Google Earth. Is this in some specific areas? In Southern California, BE is clearly NOT comparable to GE at this time, so I'm curious if and when the BE imagery might "catch up" to the GE imagery.

Thanks,

Larry
  • 0
    I came back to the forums to see if others have such issue because the last two times I downloaded area maps of the area that I planned to hike, the resolution was so bad, I just erased the maps. The large cities in Alberta, Canada are well defined, but most small towns and rural areas are quite blury. Yes, GE is definately superior to BE.

    From the lack of an answer to your querry, I gather that there isn't any good news to be had. Good thing that I didn't purchase another BE subscription for my new 62s. $30 isn't much but it's still a waste when the product doesn't meet the hype.
  • Former Member
    0 Former Member
    Obviously they use different data sources in different areas. In my area of Southern New Jersey, they are using the NJ State 2007 orthophotography which is freely available. The source data is at 1 foot per pixel and available for download from NJGIN - I have used it for other purposes before. BirdsEye has downsampled it a bit, to perhaps 2 feet per pixel, but it is still excellent and far, far better than Google Earth has to offer in my area.

    So I guess it depends on how good Google is in your area, and how bad Garmin's source is. But the point is that you cannot make general statements about Google being better than BirdsEye. It varies with location.
  • Former Member
    0 Former Member
    Obviously they use different data sources in different areas. In my area of Southern New Jersey, they are using the NJ State 2007 orthophotography which is freely available. The source data is at 1 foot per pixel and available for download from NJGIN - I have used it for other purposes before. BirdsEye has downsampled it a bit, to perhaps 2 feet per pixel, but it is still excellent and far, far better than Google Earth has to offer in my area.

    So I guess it depends on how good Google is in your area, and how bad Garmin's source is. But the point is that you cannot make general statements about Google being better than BirdsEye. It varies with location.


    I was careful to say "in my area," which means Southern California in my case. I was simply struck by the fact that I have yet to see BE offer comparable image quality to GE in any of the areas I've looked (I haven't looked in your area.)

    I've also noticed that GE is constantly getting better. Resolution in some of the areas I look at have noticeably improved in the last several months. I'm just curious if this is something that will happen with BE. On that note, how will we know? Do i have to re-download a map to see if it's any better? If so, that seems really clunky to me.

    Thanks,

    Larry
  • 0
    So I guess it depends on how good Google is in your area, and how bad Garmin's source is. But the point is that you cannot make general statements about Google being better than BirdsEye. It varies with location.


    Since I cannot realistically compare the quality of the two products for every square yard on the planet, my statement obviously refers to the area where my interest lies, and in this particular case, BE does not live up to expectation and Google Earth is the superior product.

    I have an Oregon 550 with BE subscription and a 62s without. The chances of me spending $30 on another subscription are pretty much nil at this point. I'll just keep taking a Google Earth printout with me on the out-of-the-city hikes and use BE to find a bench at a city park.