Split off from ticket #113.

Hawk data processed with Azspec and Caligeo shows a gap between the two, particularly at the short-wave end of the spectrum. Over land the two are very close at the longer-wave end, over water Caligeo is consistently higher than Azspec (though the gap is larger at the short-wave end). Azspec data looks more plausible but Hawk needs calibrating to check which (if either) is correct.

Over water:

Over land:

Data location: ~arsf/arsf_data/in_progress/2008/flight_data/uk/GB07_04-2008_044_Hayton

Data arrived from ARSF via initial SATA disk transfer in March.

Scientific details: See ~arsf/arsf_data/in_progress/2007/ARSF_Applications-GB_2007/GB07-04_*

PI: P. Halcon

Sensors:

• Eagle (delivered 2nd June 2008)
• Hawk (delivered 2nd June 2008)

If you use the -cuo option in azatm to change the values it's supposed to set overflowed and underflowed pixels to, it doesn't seem to have an effect - always sets underflowed pixels to 0 (even if told to set them to ffff) and always says:

************* radcal underflow and overflow fill values changed ********
      under : 00000  = 0     over: 00000  = 0

...in azatm output, regardless of what values are entered for the under/overflow (tried with 0 fffe and ffff ffff).

Arose from testing on #115