Upload
jeremy-dawson
View
216
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Geological Survey
Geometric Assessment of Remote Sensed DataGeometric Assessment of Remote Sensed Data
Oct. 25 2005
Presented By:
Michael Choate, SAICU.S. Geological Survey, National Center for EROSSioux Falls, SD
2
Outline and IntroductionOutline and Introduction
Landsat 7 Image Assessment System (IAS) Background Expanding the use of IAS
Ground Control Mensuration RESOURCESAT-1 Assessment
Statistics Vector Plots
Conclusions
3
Landsat Image Assessment System (1 of 2)Landsat Image Assessment System (1 of 2)
Responsible for assessment of image quality of Enhanced Thematic Mapper (ETM+)
Ensure compliance with radiometric and geometric requirements Perform radiometric and geometric calibration of satellite and
ETM+ Calibration results and updates distributed through Calibration
Parameter File (CPF) IAS contains Image to Image (I2I) registration assessment tool
Provides numerical evaluation of accuracy of common bands of temporally distinct ETM+ images
No real restriction on image data sets that can be used, other sensor can be used in assessment
IAS contains Band to Band (B2B) registration assessment tool Provides numerical evaluation of accuracy of between band
registration within an image No real restriction on image data sets that can be used, other
sensor can be used in assessment
4
Landsat Image Assessment System (2 of 2)Landsat Image Assessment System (2 of 2)
Expanding the IAS beyond ETM+ LPGS-Lite used as prototype for Advanced Land Imager (ALI)
assessment system (ALIAS) IAS I2I and B2B used for assessment of other sensors and
datasets SurreySat Orbview-3 Digitized aerial photography
5
Ground Control (1 of 2)Ground Control (1 of 2)
Landsat IAS built ground reference data sets called Geometric Supersites or just Supersites
Built from Digital Orthophoto Quadrangulars (DOQs) DOQs are designed to meet national mapping accuracy
standards of 1:24k maps, or ~6 meters Inspection with highly accurate GPS surveyed locations showed
most DOQs exceeded 6 meters accuracy 1 meter DOQs reduced in resolution to match PAN band (15m for
ETM+ and 10m for ALI) DOQs are mosaiced to create a data set equal to one World Wide
Reference 2 (WRS2) nominal swath/length Image chips are pulled from DOQ mosaics USGS 1 arc second DEMs used for ground control height
Currently 30 data sets available
6
Ground Control (2 of 2)DOQ Mosaic
Ground Control (2 of 2)DOQ Mosaic
Note that individual DOQ files are visible in the mosaic
7
Ground Control (3 of 3)Landsat WRS-2 Supersite Locations (CONUS)
Ground Control (3 of 3)Landsat WRS-2 Supersite Locations (CONUS)
8
MensurationMensuration
Mensuration done with Grey Scale Correlation
• Offset is calculated by fitting surface around peak location
2/
2/
2/
2/
_2/
2/
2/
2/
_
2/
2/
2/
2/
2_2/
2/
2/
2/
2_
2/
2/
2/
2/
),()1)(1(
1 ),(
)1)(1(
1
),(),(
),(),(
),(
N
Nj
M
Mi
N
Nj
M
Mi
N
Nj
M
Mi
N
Nj
M
Mi
N
Nj
M
Mi
ijfNM
fiyjxgNM
g
where
giyjxgfijf
giyjxgfijf
yxR
• Outliers removed by observing correlation characteristics andresidual statistics
• Correlation points chosen as evenly displaced points
throughput image files
9
CorrelationCorrelation
Grey Scale Correlation
CalculatePeak
X and YOffset
10
RESOURCESAT-1 RESOURCESAT-1
Payload contains three imaging sensors Linear Imaging Self Scanner IV (LISS-IV)
Ground sample distance of 5.8 meters 3 bands 70km swath (monochromatic) 23km (multispectral)
Linear Imaging Self Scanner III (LISS-III) Ground sample distance of 23.5 meters 4 bands 141km swath
Advanced Wide Field Sensor (AWiFS) Two separate sensor modules (AWiFS-A and AWiFS-B) 4 bands 370km swath for each camera (740km total)
11
RESOURCESAT-1 Assessment (1 of 2)RESOURCESAT-1 Assessment (1 of 2)
Attempt to assess both the AWiFS and LISS-III sensors aboard the RESOURCESAT-1 platform
Given two areas of coverage Arizona
Corresponds to Landsat WRS-2 path 37 row 37 Acquisition date 6/29/2005
Railroad Valley Corresponds to Landsat WRS-2 path 40 row 33 Acquisition date 8/10/2005
Both images were orthorectified geocoded products AWiFS Assessment
Image extent of AWiFS data set allowed only a very small portion of the image file to be compared to corresponding supersite
Issue made worse by comparing individual AWiFS data sets (A,B,C,D) independently
Independent study done to avoid double resampling AWiFS data sets (each data set map projected with different set of parameters)
12
RESOURCESAT-1 Assessment (2-2)RESOURCESAT-1 Assessment (2-2)
Control covered only partial amount of multiple data sets Band assessment made for all data sets
AWiFS A, B, C and D data sets assessed independently LISS-III Assessment
DOQ control completely covered full image extent Output included
residuals file containing point by point residual offset in line and sample direction
statistical file containing maximum, minimum, mean, standard deviation, and root mean squared error of residuals for line and sample directions
residuals vector plot
13
DOQ and LISS-III
AWiFS-A,B,C,D
Arizona Data Sets (AWiFS, LISS-III, DOQ)
DOQ
LISS-III
897000 m
85800 m 172000 m
172000 m
172000 m
172000 m
A B
CD
DOQ and LISS-III
14
Full Resolution LISS-III to DOQFull Resolution LISS-III to DOQ
DOQLISS-III
15
AWiFS Image-to-Image AWiFS Image-to-Image
Data Set Image Correlated Kept
Standard Deviation
Line
Standard Deviation Sample
RMSE Line
(pixels)
RMSE Sample (pixels)
RMSE Line
(meters)
RMSE Sample (meters)
Arizona C 139 104 0.1397 0.1077 0.2068 0.1317
11.580
7.375
Arizona A 78 55 0.3427 0.2201 0.7097 0.2286
39.743
12.801
Railroad Valley D 43 32 0.1063 0.2275 0.1344 0.3206
7.526
17.953
16
AWiFS Band-to-band registrationArizona
AWiFS Band-to-band registrationArizona
Rband = Reference Sband = SearchStDevL = Standard deviation lineStDevS = Standarddeviation sampleRMSEL = Root mean squared errorlineRMSES = Rootmean squared errorsample
Rband Sband Correlated Kept StDevL StDevS RMSEL RMSES
AWIFSA 2 3 400 277 0.04226 0.04382 0.04382 0.06592 2 4 385 191 0.06595 0.08581 0.08403 0.08600 2 5 385 169 0.07565 0.08671 0.09238 0.11779 3 4 387 199 0.06837 0.06114 0.07558 0.07016 3 5 398 198 0.09356 0.08532 0.10121 0.15835 4 5 387 215 0.10925 0.11055 0.10963 0.15464
AWIFSB 2 3 382 239 0.03524 0.03407 0.05388 0.10192 2 4 375 189 0.06740 0.07265 0.12407 0.14688 2 5 376 242 0.10609 0.16076 0.21235 0.16775 3 4 371 178 0.03845 0.06093 0.07159 0.07729 3 5 383 244 0.07445 0.20019 0.14464 0.23672 4 5 376 246 0.12470 0.18588 0.15958 0.24792
AWIFSC 2 3 385 217 0.03390 0.04197 0.03736 0.05815 2 4 365 200 0.07396 0.08361 0.07957 0.08418 2 5 381 173 0.08964 0.10440 0.12030 0.15107 3 4 368 156 0.04472 0.04065 0.04508 0.05547 3 5 387 196 0.08591 0.11163 0.10627 0.19996 4 5 381 167 0.07336 0.11273 0.07985 0.13505
AWIFSD 2 3 385 269 0.03979 0.03624 0.06174 0.09626 2 4 376 220 0.06576 0.07917 0.12023 0.14688 2 5 384 254 0.09942 0.16939 0.22521 0.16939 3 4 376 206 0.05170 0.06046 0.07618 0.07560 3 5 385 280 0.08614 0.19413 0.17400 0.23242 4 5 380 214 0.10408 0.10795 0.14929 0.22538
17
AWiFS Band-to-band registrationRailroad Valley
AWiFS Band-to-band registrationRailroad Valley
Rband Sband Correlated Kept StDevL StDevS RMSEL RMSES
AWIFSA 2 3 399 279 0.03602 0.04776 0.04135 0.07413
2 4 387 187 0.07630 0.08233 0.09105 0.08618
2 5 393 211 0.1122 0.12855 0.14919 0.15088
3 4 389 170 0.05387 0.06460 0.05547 0.07090
3 5 396 195 0.09002 0.13150 0.11036 0.21430
4 5 380 142 0.07946 0.09086 0.08373 0.16688 AWIFSB 2 3 377 259 0.03842 0.03672 0.04473 0.11329
2 4 359 181 0.06190 0.07686 0.09917 0.12965
2 5 372 234 0.12667 0.20486 0.19267 0.20619
3 4 359 153 0.03807 0.05668 0.06560 0.07051
3 5 371 226 0.10473 0.22581 0.14773 0.25554
4 5 362 218 0.14401 0.20931 0.16418 0.24253 AWIFSC 2 3 400 240 0.02833 0.03724 0.03397 0.06240
2 4 368 137 0.07316 0.03811 0.07659 0.04298
2 5 396 218 0.08465 0.10226 0.11299 0.15503
3 4 373 150 0.03658 0.04852 0.03651 0.06133
3 5 398 169 0.05943 0.08506 0.08081 0.20627
4 5 372 223 0.10425 0.18362 0.10639 0.18669 AWIFSD 2 3 383 204 0.03383 0.02352 0.03808 0.10849
2 4 380 227 0.05506 0.06319 0.09495 0.14275
2 5 381 260 0.09961 0.20816 0.17632 0.20891
3 4 380 223 0.05212 0.03589 0.07748 0.05903
3 5 381 284 0.10137 0.22873 0.15645 0.26241
4 5 379 280 0.11741 0.18018 0.13605 0.23520
Rband = Reference Sband = SearchStDevL = Standard deviation lineStDevS = Standarddeviation sampleRMSEL = Root mean squared errorlineRMSES = Rootmean squared errorsample
18
LISS-III Image-to-ImageLISS-III Image-to-Image
Data Set
Correlated Kept
Standard Deviation
Line (pixels)
Standard Deviation Sample (pixels)
RMSE Line
(pixels)
RMSE Sample (pixels)
RMSE Line
(meters)
RMSE
Sample (meters)
Arizona 272 125 0.1556 0.1151 0.1586 0.1207 3.727 2.836 Railroad
Valley 342 199 0.1387 0.1239 0.1484 0.3871
3.487
9.096
19
LISS-III Band-to-band registrationLISS-III Band-to-band registration
Rband Sband Correlated Kept StDevL StDevS RMSEL RMSES 2 3 395 273 0.08324 0.02066 0.16589 0.07507 2 4 393 241 0.06012 0.08167 0.08314 0.13762 2 5 394 256 0.09039 0.07859 0.09415 0.11794 3 4 394 200 0.04144 0.05549 0.12041 0.07635 3 5 394 237 0.04947 0.08265 0.12463 0.08754 4 5 392 174 0.06117 0.05555 0.06140 0.06184
Rband Sband Correlated Kept StDevL StDevS RMSEL RMSES 2 3 387 309 0.07114 0.02327 0.18845 0.05252 2 4 370 214 0.06762 0.08491 0.07830 0.14568 2 5 378 251 0.09012 0.06464 0.13489 0.11831 3 4 367 151 0.03944 0.06010 0.11135 0.08848 3 5 386 201 0.04210 0.04960 0.07953 0.07113 4 5 377 152 0.03947 0.10423 0.04325 0.10920
Arizona
Railroad Valley
Rband = Reference Sband = SearchStDevL = Standard deviation lineStDevS = Standarddeviation sampleRMSEL = Root mean squared errorlineRMSES = Rootmean squared errorsample
20
LISS-III Band registration vector plot (Arizona)Vectors scaled to show trend
LISS-III Band registration vector plot (Arizona)Vectors scaled to show trend
21
LISS-III Band registration vector plot (Railroad Valley)Vectors scaled to show trend
LISS-III Band registration vector plot (Railroad Valley)Vectors scaled to show trend
22
LISS-III Image to Image Residuals (Arizona)Vectors scaled by 350
LISS-III Image to Image Residuals (Arizona)Vectors scaled by 350
LISS-III Arizona Data setVector residuals
comparing LISS-III to DOQs
23
LISS-III Image to Image Residuals (Railroad Valley)Vectors scaled by 350
LISS-III Image to Image Residuals (Railroad Valley)Vectors scaled by 350
LISS-III Railroad Valley Data SetVector Residual
Comparing LISS-III and DOQs
24
ConclusionsConclusions
Landat 7 Image Assessment System can be expanded for use beyond that of the Enhanced Thematic Mapper
Image extent of AWiFS data set difficult to assess with given ground control available
Approach using other type of control covering more area would work better
Mosaicing several Landsat scenes National Land Cover Database (NLCD)
AWiFS data set band registration difficult to assess, more data sets would be helpful
LISS-III data sets showed good relative geometric accuracy to that of DOQs
LISS-III vector plots for band registration residuals show possibility of small misalignment
25
Back Up Slides
26
LISS-III Band registration vector plot (Arizona)LISS-III Band registration vector plot (Arizona)
27
AWiFS Railroad Valley Data Set Showing DOQ CoverageAWiFS Railroad Valley Data Set Showing DOQ Coverage
DOQ Coverage
Red out line is equal to approximately one Landsat WRS image extent
28
LISS-III Railroad Valley Data Set Showing DOQ CoverageLISS-III Railroad Valley Data Set Showing DOQ Coverage
LISS-III DOQ Mosaic