Cartographic Projection
every map is wrong, and by exactly how much
Concept

Warp — where it appears

Moving a raster from one projection into another, exactly in the coordinates and never exactly in the values. The exactness is in the coordinates and never in the values, so a reprojected raster is a resampling of the original rather than a copy of it.

Named by 3 essays across one field — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

A raster warped to Lambert azimuthal equal-area and back, nearest against bilinear. The left panel is the field the raster carries — a smooth analytic function, so that the error of an interpolation is the interpolation's error and not a photograph's history. The other panels are what is left after warping into Lambert azimuthal equal-area and back to Equirectangular, shown as the difference from the original at six times the contrast. Nothing moved: the coordinates go through the maps exactly. What is lost is that a target pixel's centre does not fall on a source pixel's centre, so a value has to be invented for it. Bilinear is closer to the field — RMS 0.0022 against 0.0212 — and has given up 0.63 per cent of its variance to get there. The panels are drawn at 48 by 32 cells; the measurement is made at the same resolution.

Reprojecting a raster invents values

Moving a picture from one projection to another moves no coordinate — the maps are exact both ways. What is lost is that a target cell's centre does not land on a source cell's centre, so a value has to be made up for it, and the making-up has an order of convergence: 1.00 for nearest, 1.98 for bilinear, 2.93 for a cubic, measured by refining the grid.

applied · Dataset The same kernels, across an edge. Each kernel measured over the same five rasters as the smooth measurement, on a field that carries a step across a tilted line instead of a smooth function. The solid lines are the edge and the faint ones the smooth field. The orders on the smooth field are nearest 1.00, bilinear 1.98, cubic 2.93; across the edge they are nearest 0.78, bilinear 0.58, cubic 0.60 — within a factor of 1.33 of one another, and the fastest of them belongs to nearest-neighbour, which does no interpolating at all. The ranking a smooth field establishes does not survive a discontinuity, and a real raster is mostly edges.

An edge has no order of convergence

On a smooth field the three resampling kernels converge at orders 1, 2 and 3 and the choice is obvious. Across a discontinuity they converge at 0.78, 0.58 and 0.60 — within a factor of 1.4 of each other, in an order that puts nearest-neighbour first, and a real raster is mostly edges.

applied · Dataset Give the edge a width and the kernels get their orders back. Every edge this collection has resampled across has been exactly discontinuous, which is not what a sensor produces: a footprint, an atmosphere and a lens all smooth a boundary over a cell or two before anything is resampled. Convolving the edge with a Gaussian of stated width and refitting gives 1.23, 1.97 and 3.60 at one degree of blur, against 0.78, 0.58 and 0.60 with no blur at all. The blur is held fixed in degrees while the grid refines, which is what happens to a real sensor's data as its resolution improves.

A real edge has a width

Thirteen edges were measured and every one of them was exactly discontinuous, which no sensor has ever produced. Convolving them with a point-spread function of one degree — a cell or two — takes the three kernels from 0.78, 0.58 and 0.60 back to 1.23, 1.97 and 3.60, and takes the edge along a parallel, which converged at −1.49, up to 1.92 for bilinear and 3.73 for cubic.

applied · Dataset

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Convergence orderRasterResamplingToleranceDiscontinuityInterpolationQuantisationAliasingClosed formConventionInterpolation kernelInverse problem

All concepts