14 replies to this topic

[burwelbo]

"Here

is a few snap shots at 100%. The project was actually an archaeological

management application built using the Geodatabase and ArcObjects. The

white areas contained snapshots of all the tools as well as the data

model I created. I didn't think of the key map. The map is also suppose

to convey the spatial distribution of archaeological sites. One of the

problems I am not sure how to overcome is that of point density. Should

I make the symbols smaller, leave them as they are or move them to make

them more legible?

Thanks for the comments.
Bruce

Attached Files

•  yemen1.jpg   890.9K   304 downloads

[frax]

ok...
Was this all done in ArcMap? Correct me if I am wrong, but there
doesn't seem to be any anti-aliasing with the points/line features, or
text labels?

The DEM is beautiful...

[burwelbo]

Everything
was done in ArcMap. I spent alot more time on the Hillshade than
everything else. I also use ERMapper alot and you can fuse hillshades
with colour where as in ArcMap you make the Hillshade semi transparent.
The trick I found with ArcMap is to play with the histogram for the
hillshade (95% clip). This increases the intensity of the hillshade and
makes the colours more vibrant. With ERMapper, the colours tend to
change when you fuse it with the hillshade.

[frax]

the color is hypsographic tints, right?

[burwelbo]

Thats
correct. I built a custom colour LUT with the hillshade on top set to
semi transparent. The hillshade was created in ERMapper and then
clipped to the yemen political boundaries. I then applied a multi rink
buffer to the political boundaries iof all the countries. The multi
ring buffers were set to several different intervals. I added the Yemen
islands after the fact and repeated the process only out a smaller
distance. I should have reradded the islands and ran the buffers again
but I was in a hurray.

[Martin Gamache]

Convention is usually dark for low and light for high for hypsometric tints which you inverted any reason why?

[burwelbo]

Actually,
I didn't know that. That's good to know. I'm always nore concerned
about things like text style, orientation, and proper use of space.
Thanks for the comments.

Bruce

[DaveB]

"

Convention is usually dark for low and light for high for hypsometric tints which you inverted any reason why?

http://

Is this true? From my reading I wouldn't've thought so, but I could be wrong.
(see
Imhof, which you have posted on-line - a big thank you for that! ).
I believe he referred to various color schemes, including light to dark
and dark to light.

In any case I think it's good to break with ""convention"" from time to time.

I
think the colors look good in this map. One thing to consider - the
lower elevations may actually be lighter (sand), while the higher
elevations made be harder darker rock? "

[Kartograph]

"

QUOTE(Alpine Mapping Guild @ Mar 26 2006, 03:26 AM)
Convention is usually dark for low and light for high for hypsometric tints which you inverted any reason why?






Is this true? From my reading I wouldn't've thought so, but I could be wrong.

Actually
there are several different schools of thought on hypsometric tints.
Imhof is clearly for dark>light, whereas in germany the Sydow-School
is still big, there you have lowland green, hilly is beige and
mountainous is brown.
There is also the Ottwald school, which is
adapted by most british products. Ottwald made experiments and found
out, that there are specific colours which have a ""depht"" feeling. It
ends up mostly like the Sydow one, with the big exception of
lilac/purple > grey > white for mountains.
It´s a cultural
thing insofar, as it depends who made the most important atlas in which
country to shape the minds of readers. Look at some arab maps, and you
will find all kinds of punky colour combinations.
AFAIK, Imhof had
the ""photorealistic"" line of argumentation for his Atlas works.
Interestingly, the most detailed, realistic looking depictions of
mountains (i.g. Alpenverein and Swiss Topo or Alpine Mapping Guild :-))
in Topo Maps don´t use hypsometric tints.

EDIT: I just found
error in my reasoning: Ottwald had grey as deepest, then green, then
beige than brow followed by lilac and white for glaciers IIRC. "

[Martin Gamache]

Dave,

I'm
all for breaking with convention ... I just like to know why. As
long as it has been thought out and you like the coloring and it is
useable(which this is)...I'm all for it.

As Andreas wrote I
really favor cartographic realism and the use of landcover derived
tinting for shading, however that does not exclude the use of
hypsometric adjustments.

[DaveB]

"

Dave,

I'm 
all for breaking with convention ... I just like to know why. As 
long as it has been thought out and you like the coloring and it is 
useable(which this is)...I'm all for it.

http://

Agreed

As 
Andreas wrote I really favor cartographic realism and the use of 
landcover derived tinting for shading, however that does not exclude 
the use of hypsometric adjustments.

http://

Well, you certainly know how to make great-looking maps of mountainous terrain! "

[gp1]

In any case, it's a very nice production

Same comment about the anti-alasing of text/symbols

[frax]

isn't
it possible to get anti-aliased symbols in ArcMap? The text/symbols
represent the main content/message in this map after all, and it feels
that the flashy DEM/tints gets most of the attention now...

[merft]

"I
think the map is nicely done. It is clean, non-cluttered, and an
excellent for a map developed entirely in ArcMap. I feel the
hypsometric tinting is appropriate for the region and is similar to one
I use for arid regions.

My only comment, and this is a
personal pet peeve, is limit the use of purple. I know there are many
who may disagree, but purple for me is a revision/error color and a
color of last resort. I wouldn't change anything but I thought I'd toss
it out.

isn't 
it possible to get anti-aliased symbols in ArcMap? The text/symbols 
represent the main content/message in this map after all, and it feels 
that the flashy DEM/tints gets most of the attention now...

http://

ArcMap's
support for anti-aliasing is very limited. Actually, I can't think of
an instance where it is really supported. This has to do with ArcMap's
reliance on the Windows GDI for printing and export. Everything is
converted to an EMF before printing or export. The EMF file is then
converted to the appropriate export format or to a print job.

I
spent nearly a day, at the 2003 ESRI UC, talking with the programmers
working on the print and export routines. Essentially, they admitted
what they were using was temporary until they could get a custom
print/export routine developed or purchased. At that time they were
hoping to have it roll it in one of the 9.x versions of ArcMap. As of
the last UC, the plans to update the print/export routines have been
scrapped, maybe in the next major release but don't hold your breath.

-Tom
"

[frax]

one
could just export/print it to e.g. (e)ps file and rasterize it in
photoshop/illy/acrobat (or equivalent) instead. (to get full
anti-aliasing)