Talk:Orthophoto

[Untitled]
Orthophotos are not only aerial. Architectural orthophotos of building facades from ground photographs also exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.52.164.135 (talk) 09:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The esri link in citation #1 is broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.122.1.5 (talk) 14:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I think Photomapping should be merged into this page as it covers the same subject. Beechhouse (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Orthorectified for topography is not correct. Article should discuss the curved surface of the earth compared to the flat image.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.145.224.33 (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This page can stand alone by itself or it can be merged with the Photogrammetry subject. Both are OK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.36.32.21 (talk) 11:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Different merge candidate: the page for Digital orthophoto quadrangles is just a stub, and this page (on Orthophoto in general) has a lot on DOQ's in particular. I think either the sections on DOQ's should be moved to the Digital orthophoto quadrangles page, or that page should be merged with this one. Mrflip (talk) 10:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That or there's a merge discussion at Aerial Photography discussing the merger of yet another(!) related page, the Orthophotomap page in to the pre-existing category of Aerial_photography... Da5nsy (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with above statement because a map also contains text, lines and other graphics included for us to read it. The Orthophoto is just the photo. Orthophotomap is more than the mere orthophoto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.10.22.194 (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: and others. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed text
While this content was blanked for copyright review, an IP contributor very kindly proposed alternative text at the temporary space provided for a rewrite. I did not need to implement it, since there was content in the article that could be retained, but I bring it here so that it can be utilized as needed by editors of the article:

The content was contributed by IP 131.217.6.7. Thanks! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Google Earth imagery
I don't think Google images are adjusted for camera tilt. I can see an example at coordinates: 52.357061,4.922157 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zimbricchio (talk • contribs) 11:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Weird orthophotomosaic explanation here
"orthophotos — aerial or satellite photographs which have been transformed to correct for perspective so that they appear to have been taken from vertically above at an infinite distance."

The distance from which an orthographic picture is taken doesn't influence the result hence "infinite distance" is not a requirement. ">0" distance would imply exactly the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallby (talk • contribs) 23:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC)