Importing large raster datasets
Importing raster datasets in the range of 10 GB or less can usually be done with the default Map Import settings. The general documentation on importing maps can be found here.
However, if the dataset you are importing is significantly larger - 20 GB or more - the settings become more important to get a good result without using too much processing time and file size. This article will go more in-depth on the different parameters and how they affect the import process and result.
Image Quality
Image quality in this context refers to how similar the output result is to the input data.
Relevant Map Import parameters:
Resampling
This is the method to use when creating downsampled versions of the main dataset (also called pyramids or overviews). The default resampling method is average. The following table shows a benchmark comparing the different methods. Each row shows the percentage difference in execution time from average
| Method | Average time (seconds) | Difference vs. baseline | Sample tile |
|---|---|---|---|
| average | 42.45 | 0% | 
|
| nearest | 38.50 | -9% | 
|
| bilinear | 57.66 | 36% | 
|
| cubic | 61.80 | 46% | 
|
| cubicspline | 60.64 | 43% | 
|
| lanczos | 66.82 | 57% | 
|
| gauss | 54.28 | 28% | 
|
Full article here: Comparing resampling methods in massivegeopackage
Tile format
TEST
Quality
The quality parameter controls how aggresively JPEG tiles are compressed. It is expressed as a value between 10 and 100 where
- Higher values = less compression, larger files, better image quality.
- Lower values = more compression, smaller files, more visible artifacts.
The relationship between file size and visual quality is highly nonlinear. Using quality=100 is not a lossless conversion, but it will result in a very large dataset. Decreasing the number will retain most of the visible quality while giving substantial size reductions. The default value of 75 gives a good balance between visual quality and file size.
Visual quality can be objectively measured as Structural Similarity (SSIM), which is a comparison of the compressed image to the original. We have done a benchmark of several compression algorithms, comparing SSIM to file size at various quality measures. Notice how JPEG (red) starts to flatten out at around 60-75 quality. Increasing quality from 85 to 96 will more than double file size with almost no increase in visual quality. The full article can be found at Comparing compression in different formats
