How on earth can you miscalculate something like that by almost an order of magnitude when we have satellite imaging around for decades?
> The scientists were able to reach these estimates by merging together two separate mechanisms for sampling trees — satellite observations and ground-based ecological work. The former gives an overall view of where forests do and don’t exist on the Earth’s surface. But the latter goes underneath the canopy to determine how many trees exist in a given area in a given type of forest. Thus, the study amplified satellite views with no less than 429,775 separate measurements of the density of trees at different locations around the globe.
"satellite observations and ground-based ecological work. The former gives an overall view of where forests do and don’t exist on the Earth’s surface. But the latter goes underneath the canopy to determine how many trees exist in a given area in a given type of forest."
It seems that satellites give a good measure of the acreage covered by forests but are not suitable for differentiating individual trees. To do that requires on the ground sampling and as more sampling is done it is being discovered that the actual number of trees differs substantially from previously established estimates.
(I didn't read the article)
So I guess the answer it depends what you're trying to measure.
I guess the need never arise for an automated tree counting algorithm.
I'm sure we can count trees from pictures reasonably well, but we can't count tree mass that's entirely obscured by other objects.
To count trees accurately from pictures would require a vast quantity of footage taken from under the canopy.
Recent developments with laser scanning using drones is likely to improve accuracy too.
Are you a programmer? Have you never had to deal with someone who thinks they're smarter than they are and thinks they know everything get pushy about the simplicity of doing things that are not as simple as they assume? I have, and I can't say I'm a fan of those conversations or the people who initiate them. Your comment feels a lot like that.
Perhaps you need to chill down a bit. This isn't Reddit. We're all here to learn something.
Some trees will be obscured by others so you will need a number of different cameras to create a 3D map. You would also need to measure the distance between the cameras to determine what area they cover.
A 10 minute analysis revealing a list of complexities as long as my arm is not a good start. It will probably be easier (let alone more accurate) to just count the trees.