In exploring and comparing the TIN and DEM data models, I -unsurprisingly perhaps- found DEM more familiar to work with. Based on previous experience in the UWF program and with displaying ecosystem data through my career, I felt like I had a better handle on how the DEM can be manipulated, which tools I had at my disposal, and consistent expectations for what the visual output would be from a given action. Though it is unfortunate that a DEM requires multiple calculations and tool runs to return values for aspect, slope, and elevation, I already had a solid foundation for this process. The neighbor-dependent nature of derived DEM values like this does produce a model that is easy to read, though less accurate than the TIN.
That being said, working with the TIN dataset for this project was extremely smooth, and as a researcher I think I prefer the higher accuracy available in the TIN, even if this somewhat sacrifices visual display for contour lines. The multiple faces of the triangle network in the TIN made it very clear when modeling difference values over a three dimensional structure, and I felt it was much quicker to get the necessary values in the TIN for aspect, slope, and elevation than the successive familiar tool running with the DEM.
Overall, while I would be more likely to use a DEM for a public-facing map or display, I appreciate the data quality advantages of the TIN model. When working with three dimensional elevation data especially, I think it will be my first choice whenever one is available.
 |
| A screenshot of the DEM model, with layers of calculated DEMs visible in the contents pane. TINs do not require these additional calculations to display the same information. |
No comments:
Post a Comment