I'd like to go over a little bit of the basics around raster spacial data resolution. So I've got three different versions of the same data here. The original data is in 30 meter spacial resolution, and then I've changed it or down-sampled it to have one that's 500 meters spacial resolution and one that's 1,000 meter spacial resolution, so I just want to kind of compare them. If we look at the original spatial data, And we zoom in quite a bit, we can see the individual pixels or cells. And you can see that there's a fair amount of detail that's available even if we zoom in quite a bit. Let's say I don't know, we'll try 1 to 24,000. So we can see the ravine, we can see sort of undulations going on, so it's actually a pretty good dataset. And if I just Alt-Click on it, that'll zoom out to the whole layer. But if I go to the 500 meter resolution of course it's much more pixellated of course while lower special resolution. And if I go to 1000 meters it's really coarse, you probably wouldn't use data first in an area this size of that spacial resolution, but I'm just trying to compare them. If we look at the properties for the 30 meter version. So you'll see under the source tab, you have information here about this data set. So for example, the columns and rows. So we have 1,425 columns, and 1,043 rows. Number of bands, that's just refers to satellite imagery, which we're not talking about here. So we'll only have one. The cell size which is our spacial resolution, is 30 by 30. So it's a square, which means 30 meters by 30 meters. So each cell represents one square in the ground, that's 30 meters by 30 meters. And the uncompressed size of this is 1.42 megabytes. Let's compare that for example with the 500 meter version, the properties there. And you'll see we have much fewer columns and rows. It's only 86x63. The cell size is 500x500. And now the uncompressed size has gone from over 1 MB to just 5.29 kb, so a much, much smaller data set. Of course we're getting much less resolution here, so if we zoom in to the same area, let's go the same scale that we had before 1 to 24,000. And you're not getting nearly as much detail, it's not as useful. Yes we have fewer cells, less data storage, less processing requirements but we're not really getting the same level of detail that we would have with a full size version. With the original spacial resolution. And if we look at the properties for the 1,000 meter version, you will see we are using 43 by 31 cells, we have a spacial resolution of 1,000 by 1,000 and the uncompressed size is 1.3 kilobytes so much smaller yet again. Although there's probably not much of a practical difference between 500 and 1,000 meters spacial resolution. They're basically tiny files sizes regardless of which one you're using. So, now you can kind of see the difference in terms of the spatial resolutions, the number of cells that can be used to represent the same area, and the data volume that's going to be required at different resolutions. It may not seem like a big deal for a small area like this, we're only talking about maybe a megabyte of data. But if you're working with really large areas and/or with really fine or small spatial resolutions, 1 meter, because even satellite imagery now that let's say 40 centimeters or even 20 centimeters, you can very quickly start getting into really large data volumes for an area, say the size of a city. And so it's just something to consider or to keep in mind when you're using the raster data model. Is it's going to be really a defining factor of what you can do with that data is the spatial resolution.