13th September 2012, 12:39 PM
Hmmm, not sure. Would have to see it at work.
Would need lots of experimentation.
Have seen normal aerial photography (kites and poles) create the illusion of features, but also give a better view to see actual features.
Not sure that UV or IR photography or thermal imaging would help find features in plan on the ground any better than a dowsing of water would.
But prepared to be proved wrong.
Are the thermal/hydrological properties of natural and fill different enough to be detectable on anything other than an aerial/satalite image?
Maybe its something for the future when resolution improves and experiments have ironed out issues.
Take geophysical survey as an example......the problems are still being ironed out.
Would need lots of experimentation.
Have seen normal aerial photography (kites and poles) create the illusion of features, but also give a better view to see actual features.
Not sure that UV or IR photography or thermal imaging would help find features in plan on the ground any better than a dowsing of water would.
But prepared to be proved wrong.
Are the thermal/hydrological properties of natural and fill different enough to be detectable on anything other than an aerial/satalite image?
Maybe its something for the future when resolution improves and experiments have ironed out issues.
Take geophysical survey as an example......the problems are still being ironed out.