Early Positive Reviews for Esri LAS Optimizer

It’s early for the Esri LAS Optimizer, but these reviews are from 2 of the key people.

From Lewis Graham, one of the developers of LAS:

“You can download the Esri Compressor/Decompressor here:
http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=787794cdbd384261bc9bf99a860a374f

Used this today to post some files to our FTP site. Good compression and super easy to use.”

From Martin Isenburg:

“On the train to the airport I finally found some time to play with the new LiDAR compressor of Esri myself. First impression: solid! Nice piece of work so my compliments to the many tireless hours the Esri I developers must have worked on that. Compression is fast and compression rates are state-of-the-art.”

There is a concern about it not being open source. From Doug Newcomb:

“If the format is not fully documented, it’s not an open format.  Dealing with closed formats is a pain point for me that api-only access does not resolve.”

This entry was posted in Data, Software. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Early Positive Reviews for Esri LAS Optimizer

  1. I was quoted a bit selective. (-; Evaluating the ESRI compressor’s performance suggests that it is more or less a proprietary variation of LASzip combined with spatial indexing and statistics (plus an optional re-ordering step). This functionality could easily be created using the community-chosen LAZ format in a fully compatible manner. I wish ESRI would work with us and their users. This story is still evolving. Follow it via this blog article or this discussion forum.

  2. Al Karlin says:

    While this is NOT a rigorous test of the software, I tested one LiDAR tile; 9,143,306 points; 250.016 KB in size; used EzLAS (x32 and x64), LASzip, and MG4 (MrSID). My results suggest that the Esri software is really quite competitive. As it is also very intuitive (though not quite as simple as LASzip), I think that many will adopt it. My preliminary results also suggest that it is A LOT faster than the MG4 compression/decompression. (My test computer was a 3.2 GHz Xeon processor with 6 GB RAM and WIN7-64.)

    Compression: (fastest to slowest)

    LASzip – 3.2 sec: 42,985KB
    EzLAS32 – 6.2 sec: 44,881 KB
    EzLAS64 – 6.7 sec: 44,881 KB
    MG4 – 1min,2 sec: 86908 KB

    Decompression: (fastest to slowest)

    LASzip – 6.5 sec: 250,015 KB
    EzLAS32 – 7.6 sec: 250,016 KB
    EzLAS64 – 7.6 sec: 250,016 KB
    MG4 – 16.2 sec: 250,014 KB

    • W2 says:

      Al, your compression testing result is interesting. Are you sure you are doing apple-to-apple comparison? If EzLAS is twice as slower as LASzip, Martin won’t say both have “near-identical performance.”

      My understanding is that EzLAS is multi-threaded except for decompression (see also Marting’s initial report). This would suggest that, if done correctly, the speed performance should be much faster with modern computer systems. E.g., on a 4 cores computer, EzLAS could be 3-4 times faster than LASzip, depending on your data size, disk type, and OS. Also, I would suggest running the test several times to remove noises.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>