computing gradient from distances
Posted: Thu May 28, 2020 6:53 pm
Hi,
Sorry if this is a naive question but I am a little confused about the output of gradient from a scalar field. Given the euclidean/distances option (let's say horizontal distance vs elevation), why would the gradient be capped at 1? Maybe I don't fully understand how the gradient is calculated for a point cloud but in the simplest scenario, it's just the ratio of the vertical distance to the horizontal right, so larger values are certainly possible. I have been working an example of sea-cliff on Hawai'i that I am almost certainly should have a higher gradient, but still, the gradient only ranges from 0 to 0.9, this is even true if I click no on the distances option. I attached the example below.
Cheers,
Wren
Sorry if this is a naive question but I am a little confused about the output of gradient from a scalar field. Given the euclidean/distances option (let's say horizontal distance vs elevation), why would the gradient be capped at 1? Maybe I don't fully understand how the gradient is calculated for a point cloud but in the simplest scenario, it's just the ratio of the vertical distance to the horizontal right, so larger values are certainly possible. I have been working an example of sea-cliff on Hawai'i that I am almost certainly should have a higher gradient, but still, the gradient only ranges from 0 to 0.9, this is even true if I click no on the distances option. I attached the example below.
Cheers,
Wren