Pixels per Mile/Kilometer

[NHawk]

Has anyone every figured out what the exact relationship is between pixels and kilometers/miles in grayscale elevations?

I work with a pixel accuracy of about 201 meters per pixel and that seems to give the best results for me. But I really don't think that's correct. And my math brain died years ago so I just can't seem to come up with a logical relationship.

I would really like to work in a WYSIWYG environment with my other programs and this is a crucial part of doing that.

[Easyscor]

4096 / 512 = 8 pixels per mile.

Each pixel is 1/8th mile or 660 feet.

Oh, so your 201 is very close, it's 201.1679...

I use feet  x 0.304799995

[NHawk]

Dang! No wonder it works fairly well. I'm actually at 201.172.

Except a grayscale is 1024x1024. And with the resolution set to 804 meters (1/2 mile) it is WAY off.

[715]

Isn't the elevation grayscale 1/2 mile per pixel?   (1024 pixels for 512 miles)

[NHawk]

That is what I always thought. But when working in a WYSIWYG terrain generator set at 804 meters per pixel what you get is far from what you see. As I said, the best results for me are obtained with the WYSIWYG set at 201 meters per pixel.

I was hoping for a little clarification on why this might be.

[NHawk]

And now that I've posted the dumbest question in the world, lightning struck and I've figured out why the WYSIWYG is showing something different. It uses a 24 bit RGB that interprets the RGB values to 3 elevations within the 24 bit RGB value.