geometric quality analysis of avhrr orthoimages

Clicks: 179
ID: 208051
2015
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #392 of 499 articles by views in Journal of pharmacological sciences

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 499 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
The geometric accuracy of 2008 AVHRR orthoimages from Metop-A, NOAA-17 and NOAA-18 satellites over Switzerland have been investigated here. The methods employed in the study are fully automated, with an accuracy of 0.1–0.2 pixels, however, blunders do occur and this requests a careful blunder detection approach. The investigations include analysis of relative, absolute and band-to-band registration (BBR) accuracy. Regarding relative accuracy, thousands of points are matched between Metop-A, NOAA-17 and NOAA-18 images of the same day. The accuracy is quite high with mean shifts between 0.2 and 0.4 pixels. Systematic stripes have been observed when NOAA-18 images are involved in matching. In spite of many efforts to find the source of this error, no explanation could be found. In addition, large shifts up to 2.9 pixels on some days between September and December 2008 were observed. Regarding absolute accuracy, digitized lakes as reference polygons have been used and a subpixel lake matching method has been applied. The mean shifts generally fulfilled EUMETSAT and GCOS specifications, although some partial results exceed them, especially for Metop-A. Regarding BBR accuracy, six multispectral bands have been compared, also with point matching. The EUMETSAT specification is 0.1 km, however, this specification refers to original images, not orthoimages. Taking also into account the matching errors of 0.1 km, the EUMETSAT specifications are in principle fulfilled in all cases except matching of Metop-A and NOAA-17 Band-2 images with Bands 4 and 5. The overall work showed that although, in general, accuracies are high and fulfill specifications, errors exceeding the specifications can occur and vary depending on the satellite used, time and location. Such errors influence subsequent geometric or thematic processing; thus, an automated and permanent quality control of such images should be executed.
Reference Key
aksakal2015remotegeometric Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors ;Sultan Kocaman Aksakal;Christoph Neuhaus;Emmanuel Baltsavias;Konrad Schindler
Journal Journal of pharmacological sciences
Year 2015
DOI
10.3390/rs70303293
URL
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/7/3/3293
Keywords
geometry

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.