Opened 11 years ago

Closed 9 years ago

#172 closed support (fixed)

Support: 26/June/2008, Chris Hecker, WM06/06 + ET07/05

Reported by: mggr Owned by: mggr
Priority: immediate Milestone:
Component: Support Keywords:
Cc: Other processors:

Description (last modified by mggr)

Chris contacted us with a lot of complex questions. Going to link full emails here rather than precis.

Hi Gary
I am currently working on the Eagle / Hawk data from the 2006 Campaign to Mojacar, Spain (WM06-06, PI: Teeuw, 2 June 2006), also as a testcase for the Ethiopia data.
I am using ATCOR-4 for airborne data for a model based atmospheric correction. while doing so I noticed artifacts that give troubles. I remember that the first year's data gave lots of headaches and was wondering if you knew about the symptoms I am getting and if you may have a workaround / solution for them. I put some screendumps in a *.ppt file for you.
 
Sensor Saturation
In some of the brighter areas of flightline 13, I notice some strange behaviour (it may be in other places as well, but I first noticed it in flightline 13, since our calibration sites are in that line). The Eagle spectra look OK as of about 0.7 micron. wavelengths shorter than that show a strong trough in their reflectance spectra. Slide 1 shows the spectra we recorded on the ground (in gree) and the Eagle spectra (in yellow and orange). It looks like the detector saturated and the data wrapped around when it reached the end of the ?sensitivit or long integer range. I checked the hdf file but couldnt really find any indication on which pixels had saturated during acquisition.
 
Here some questions:
- Was sensor saturation a problem that year?
- Can we get a mask that shows pixels that reached the saturation level (or close to saturation level) so we can mask them out. Or alternatively, the original DN values before they were changed to scaled radiance values.
 
Wavelength calilbration
The eagle and hawk hdf files come with central wavelength and width of each band. When I use that for the atmospheric correction, I get clear artifacts that show that there is a wavelength accuracy problem. slide2 shows a hawk spectrum with derivative looking artifact at 1.14 and also a general shift of the image spectrum towards longer wavelengths as compared to fieldspectra (green; for example alunite spectral feature at 2.2 looks shifted).
- are there any spectral response curves for individual detectors?
- is anything known about the shape of the response curves?
- can we assume that the widths of bands as listed in the hdf file is a fwhm for a gaussian shaped response curve (as an approximation)
- is there a newer wavelength calibration file than the one that was used then?
 
Spikes or steps
spectra often show a step around 0.688 microns and some spikes / noise at 0.860 (see slide 1).
- Is that related to an internal change to a different detector array?
- anything that can be done to correct for it?
 
 
Radiometric accuracy
radiance values in general look a bit lower than ground spectra with appropriate looking atmospheric correction. That's more an observation than a problem, since we can correct for that easily.
 
Actually, if I look at the figure 2c in the data_quality-2007.pdf , it looks to me like there is not only a radiometric shift between Eagle and Hawk but also a 50 nm wavelength shift. Sounds like a lot though, so not sure if that is possible.
 
Greets from Holland,
Chris

Summary of actions required:

  • generate 2006 overflow info and masks for Chris' projects (requires 2006 data)
  • notify with results of 2008 July calibration (wavelength and radiance) info when they become available
  • info on changes made to the setup of the two sensors between 2006 and 2008 (fov and nr of pixels) (speculated on this)
  • pass on copies of relevant CCD datasets if and when we get them from Specim (#173)

Attachments (1)

screendumps_atcor4.ppt (857.5 KB) - added by benj 8 years ago.

Download all attachments as: .zip

Change History (7)

comment:1 Changed 11 years ago by mggr

Reply:

Hi Chris,

Chris Hecker wrote:
> I am currently working on the Eagle / Hawk data from the 2006 Campaign to Mojacar, Spain (WM06-06, PI: Teeuw, 2 June 2006), also as a testcase for the Ethiopia data.
> I am using ATCOR-4 for airborne data for a model based atmospheric correction. while doing so I noticed artifacts that give troubles. I remember that the first year's data gave lots of headaches and was wondering if you knew about the symptoms I am getting and if you may have a workaround / solution for them. I put some screendumps in a *.ppt file for you.

Sorry about the headaches - since we took over the data processing in 2007, we're working through all these various problems as we find them and are suffering alongside you :/  Hopefully by the end of the process, we'll all have a much better quality product.

> *Sensor Saturation*
> In some of the brighter areas of flightline 13, I notice some strange behaviour (it may be in other places as well, but I first noticed it in flightline 13, since our calibration sites are in that line). The Eagle spectra look OK as of about 0.7 micron. wavelengths shorter than that show a strong trough in their reflectance spectra. Slide 1 shows the spectra we recorded on the ground (in gree) and the Eagle spectra (in yellow and orange). It looks like the detector saturated and the data wrapped around when it reached the end of the ?sensitivit or long integer range. I checked the hdf file but couldnt really find any indication on which pixels had saturated during acquisition.
>  
> Here some questions:
> - Was sensor saturation a problem that year?

We took over processing in 2007 for Eagle and Hawk, so I can't give you a definitive answer for 2006.  I've checked with Phil (the aircraft operator) and he doesn't recall there being obvious issues there.  The person that'd have processed the data is Andrew Wilson at CEH, who may know more (cc'ed).

However, we can speak for 2007/8 data and, in the process of getting a FODIS bug fixed, Bill also fixed an error in overflow detection (basically he was looking for 4096 rather than 4095, the actual maximum value for Eagle, and similarly for Hawk [16383] - apparently a miscommunication from Specim).  This immediately highlighted overflows that previously were silently ignored - I suspect this would mean Andrew won't have been warned of any overflow errors when processing 2006 data.

We initially found this a couple of weeks ago (you tend to find the bugs just as we do!) and have been a) working with Bill to get the processing software correct in this regard and b) beginning to evaluate the impact on previous data deliveries so we can notify users with an appropriate warning.  We're intending to generate masks in order to evaluate this, as you suggested too.

Here's our internal ticket on the issue:
 http://www.npm.ac.uk/rsg/projects/arsf/trac/ticket/168

As you say, a saturation event would probably generate these troughs in the data.  You can see that in the Caligeo output for the overflowed area - the curve in the data there can only be the calibration values..

http://www.npm.ac.uk/rsg/projects/arsf/trac/attachment/ticket/168/az1110-2-annotated.jpg

Caligeo (the official Specim processing software) is also producing these bad results (though it does at least give a warning there was an overflow somewhere in the processing, but doesn't provide masks or locations either)

Note there's an additional issue with Eagle, relating to smear correction on the type of CCD used, that means any data values following an overflowed band (i.e. bluer bands, due to the read-out order) should be treated with caution.

> - Can we get a mask that shows pixels that reached the saturation level (or close to saturation level) so we can mask them out. Or alternatively, the original DN values before they were changed to scaled radiance values.

We're happy to either generate a mask for you or pass you the raw data so you can generate your own.  The 2006 data will take some time though - currently it's held in a fire safe at the airport.  Gary was going to ship a copy down to us sometime in the next few weeks, whereupon we can make it available to you.  If you want copies of 2007 data, we have that here and can make it available immediately.

We should be able to get hold of the calibration files for 2006 too, but I'm not sure if you'd want to attempt to reverse the calibration process..

> *Wavelength calilbration*
> The eagle and hawk hdf files come with central wavelength and width of each band. When I use that for the atmospheric correction, I get clear artifacts that show that there is a wavelength accuracy problem. slide2 shows a hawk spectrum with derivative looking artifact at 1.14 and also a general shift of the image spectrum towards longer wavelengths as compared to fieldspectra (green; for example alunite spectral feature at 2.2 looks shifted).
> - are there any spectral response curves for individual detectors?
> - is anything known about the shape of the response curves?
> - can we assume that the widths of bands as listed in the hdf file is a fwhm for a gaussian shaped response curve (as an approximation)

We don't have any information on the response curves at this time :/ We've recently asked Specim for copies of the CCD datasets - I can pass those on to you when we get them.  We'd currently use the gaussian curve approximation with the listed fwhms.

> - is there a newer wavelength calibration file than the one that was used then?

I can provide the Feb 2007 calibration files if that'd be useful to you? (or you can probably retrieve the same wavelength information from the 2007 data)  I believe the Specim instruments were factory serviced at the time of that calibration, so it's possible something may have changed re: wavelength/CCD positioning, but it may be worth a try.

Unfortunately, we have no external verification of the quality of the Specim calibrations :/  As you've read, our initial attempts to get a proper calibration were thwarted by equipment failures.  The current intent is to perform a full calibration at the end of July, which should give us data that'll resolve a number of these issues.

> *Spikes or steps*
> spectra often show a step around 0.688 microns and some spikes / noise at 0.860 (see slide 1).
> - Is that related to an internal change to a different detector array?
> - anything that can be done to correct for it?

We're not aware of these problems - are you seeing them in 2007 data too?  If so, could you provide some pixel/band locations and we'll take a look.

With regard to the steps, one thing that does come to mind is this might be where the overflow regions tend to begin.  If an overflow occurs, the raw value will stay fixed at the maximum and the result after calibration will only reflect the changes in the dark values and the calibration multiplier [calibration procedure is basically reflectance = (DN - dark value) * multiplier]

The other less likely possibility is there may be filters inside the detector that catch second- or higher-order light that'd otherwise affect measurements of the first order light.  I know some of the Specim instruments incorporate these filters, but presume this would have been accounted for.  I'd have to ask Specim for the wavelengths where this filter begins, if it's present.

> *Radiometric accuracy*
> radiance values in general look a bit lower than ground spectra with appropriate looking atmospheric correction. That's more an observation than a problem, since we can correct for that easily.

Yup, again, we're pretty limited on the sources of verification we have at this time - for the most part we don't even have ground spectra we can confirm against.  Gary has been working on this and has made an arrangement that'll give us some large spectrally calibrated targets near to the airport and we'll incorporate regular checks when these are in place.

> Actually, if I look at the figure 2c in the data_quality-2007.pdf , it looks to me like there is not only a radiometric shift between Eagle and Hawk but also a 50 nm wavelength shift. Sounds like a lot though, so not sure if that is possible.

We thought that too when we first saw it, but had subsequently decided it was probably (very) poor radiometric accuracy at the edges of the range.  It's still difficult to be sure until we have a well known radiometric/wavelength calibration though.

Here's our notes on the issue:
 http://www.npm.ac.uk/rsg/projects/arsf/trac/ticket/107
(note we had to use modeled spectra since we didn't have ground spectra available)

The only other thing I can add is that when FSF performed the initial attempt at calibration and lost their primary light source, they did still have a set of spectral line lamps.  They took some data from those and did a rough verification of the wavelength calibration - we were told it was good enough to use (50nm wouldn't be!).  Again, we should have a much better dataset to judge this from in a month or so - assuming the lights stay on..

Let me know if you'd like any of the above offers of data.  Obviously we'll inform you on the progress of the overflow issue once we have a proper idea of the extent of the problem, and will let you know the results of the radiometric calibration at the end of July.

Cheers,

Mike.

Hi Chris,

Chris Hecker wrote:
> I am currently working on the Eagle / Hawk data from the 2006 Campaign to Mojacar, Spain (WM06-06, PI: Teeuw, 2 June 2006), also as a testcase for the Ethiopia data.
> I am using ATCOR-4 for airborne data for a model based atmospheric correction. while doing so I noticed artifacts that give troubles. I remember that the first year's data gave lots of headaches and was wondering if you knew about the symptoms I am getting and if you may have a workaround / solution for them. I put some screendumps in a *.ppt file for you.

Sorry about the headaches - since we took over the data processing in 2007, we're working through all these various problems as we find them and are suffering alongside you :/  Hopefully by the end of the process, we'll all have a much better quality product.

> *Sensor Saturation*
> In some of the brighter areas of flightline 13, I notice some strange behaviour (it may be in other places as well, but I first noticed it in flightline 13, since our calibration sites are in that line). The Eagle spectra look OK as of about 0.7 micron. wavelengths shorter than that show a strong trough in their reflectance spectra. Slide 1 shows the spectra we recorded on the ground (in gree) and the Eagle spectra (in yellow and orange). It looks like the detector saturated and the data wrapped around when it reached the end of the ?sensitivit or long integer range. I checked the hdf file but couldnt really find any indication on which pixels had saturated during acquisition.
>  
> Here some questions:
> - Was sensor saturation a problem that year?

We took over processing in 2007 for Eagle and Hawk, so I can't give you a definitive answer for 2006.  I've checked with Phil (the aircraft operator) and he doesn't recall there being obvious issues there.  The person that'd have processed the data is Andrew Wilson at CEH, who may know more (cc'ed).

However, we can speak for 2007/8 data and, in the process of getting a FODIS bug fixed, Bill also fixed an error in overflow detection (basically he was looking for 4096 rather than 4095, the actual maximum value for Eagle, and similarly for Hawk [16383] - apparently a miscommunication from Specim).  This immediately highlighted overflows that previously were silently ignored - I suspect this would mean Andrew won't have been warned of any overflow errors when processing 2006 data.

We initially found this a couple of weeks ago (you tend to find the bugs just as we do!) and have been a) working with Bill to get the processing software correct in this regard and b) beginning to evaluate the impact on previous data deliveries so we can notify users with an appropriate warning.  We're intending to generate masks in order to evaluate this, as you suggested too.

Here's our internal ticket on the issue:
 http://www.npm.ac.uk/rsg/projects/arsf/trac/ticket/168

As you say, a saturation event would probably generate these troughs in the data.  You can see that in the Caligeo output for the overflowed area - the curve in the data there can only be the calibration values..

http://www.npm.ac.uk/rsg/projects/arsf/trac/attachment/ticket/168/az1110-2-annotated.jpg

Caligeo (the official Specim processing software) is also producing these bad results (though it does at least give a warning there was an overflow somewhere in the processing, but doesn't provide masks or locations either)

Note there's an additional issue with Eagle, relating to smear correction on the type of CCD used, that means any data values following an overflowed band (i.e. bluer bands, due to the read-out order) should be treated with caution.

> - Can we get a mask that shows pixels that reached the saturation level (or close to saturation level) so we can mask them out. Or alternatively, the original DN values before they were changed to scaled radiance values.

We're happy to either generate a mask for you or pass you the raw data so you can generate your own.  The 2006 data will take some time though - currently it's held in a fire safe at the airport.  Gary was going to ship a copy down to us sometime in the next few weeks, whereupon we can make it available to you.  If you want copies of 2007 data, we have that here and can make it available immediately.

We should be able to get hold of the calibration files for 2006 too, but I'm not sure if you'd want to attempt to reverse the calibration process..

> *Wavelength calilbration*
> The eagle and hawk hdf files come with central wavelength and width of each band. When I use that for the atmospheric correction, I get clear artifacts that show that there is a wavelength accuracy problem. slide2 shows a hawk spectrum with derivative looking artifact at 1.14 and also a general shift of the image spectrum towards longer wavelengths as compared to fieldspectra (green; for example alunite spectral feature at 2.2 looks shifted).
> - are there any spectral response curves for individual detectors?
> - is anything known about the shape of the response curves?
> - can we assume that the widths of bands as listed in the hdf file is a fwhm for a gaussian shaped response curve (as an approximation)

We don't have any information on the response curves at this time :/ We've recently asked Specim for copies of the CCD datasets - I can pass those on to you when we get them.  We'd currently use the gaussian curve approximation with the listed fwhms.

> - is there a newer wavelength calibration file than the one that was used then?

I can provide the Feb 2007 calibration files if that'd be useful to you? (or you can probably retrieve the same wavelength information from the 2007 data)  I believe the Specim instruments were factory serviced at the time of that calibration, so it's possible something may have changed re: wavelength/CCD positioning, but it may be worth a try.

Unfortunately, we have no external verification of the quality of the Specim calibrations :/  As you've read, our initial attempts to get a proper calibration were thwarted by equipment failures.  The current intent is to perform a full calibration at the end of July, which should give us data that'll resolve a number of these issues.

> *Spikes or steps*
> spectra often show a step around 0.688 microns and some spikes / noise at 0.860 (see slide 1).
> - Is that related to an internal change to a different detector array?
> - anything that can be done to correct for it?

We're not aware of these problems - are you seeing them in 2007 data too?  If so, could you provide some pixel/band locations and we'll take a look.

With regard to the steps, one thing that does come to mind is this might be where the overflow regions tend to begin.  If an overflow occurs, the raw value will stay fixed at the maximum and the result after calibration will only reflect the changes in the dark values and the calibration multiplier [calibration procedure is basically reflectance = (DN - dark value) * multiplier]

The other less likely possibility is there may be filters inside the detector that catch second- or higher-order light that'd otherwise affect measurements of the first order light.  I know some of the Specim instruments incorporate these filters, but presume this would have been accounted for.  I'd have to ask Specim for the wavelengths where this filter begins, if it's present.

> *Radiometric accuracy*
> radiance values in general look a bit lower than ground spectra with appropriate looking atmospheric correction. That's more an observation than a problem, since we can correct for that easily.

Yup, again, we're pretty limited on the sources of verification we have at this time - for the most part we don't even have ground spectra we can confirm against.  Gary has been working on this and has made an arrangement that'll give us some large spectrally calibrated targets near to the airport and we'll incorporate regular checks when these are in place.

> Actually, if I look at the figure 2c in the data_quality-2007.pdf , it looks to me like there is not only a radiometric shift between Eagle and Hawk but also a 50 nm wavelength shift. Sounds like a lot though, so not sure if that is possible.

We thought that too when we first saw it, but had subsequently decided it was probably (very) poor radiometric accuracy at the edges of the range.  It's still difficult to be sure until we have a well known radiometric/wavelength calibration though.

Here's our notes on the issue:
 http://www.npm.ac.uk/rsg/projects/arsf/trac/ticket/107
(note we had to use modeled spectra since we didn't have ground spectra available)

The only other thing I can add is that when FSF performed the initial attempt at calibration and lost their primary light source, they did still have a set of spectral line lamps.  They took some data from those and did a rough verification of the wavelength calibration - we were told it was good enough to use (50nm wouldn't be!).  Again, we should have a much better dataset to judge this from in a month or so - assuming the lights stay on..

Let me know if you'd like any of the above offers of data.  Obviously we'll inform you on the progress of the overflow issue once we have a proper idea of the extent of the problem, and will let you know the results of the radiometric calibration at the end of July.

Cheers,

Mike.

comment:2 Changed 11 years ago by mggr

Reply on 30/June:

Hi Mike
As usual a great anser with lots of detail but still right to the point!
Thanks for that.
Here some follow up thoughts:

The spain 2006 data is more of a testcase for the ethiopia 2008jan data
that has/will be coming in. If the data from 2006 is re-processed with
the improved saturation detection, I would be happy to get the mask of
saturated pixels (and an estimation of how many neighbouring pixels
spatially / spectrally may have to be buffered out as well) when the
re-prosessing is done. No need for the raw data there.

> > We're happy to either generate a mask for you or pass you the 
> > raw data so you can generate your own.  The 2006 data will 
> > take some time though
> > - currently it's held in a fire safe at the airport.  Gary 
> > was going to ship a copy down to us sometime in the next few 
> > weeks, whereupon we can make it available to you.  If you 
> > want copies of 2007 data, we have that here and can make it 
> > available immediately.
I wasn't involved in any 2007 acquisitions but the 2008 ET07-05 (Mojo)
data was delivered a few weeks ago. Any changes / saturation issues
there would be of great interest to us.

> > We don't have any information on the response curves at this 
> > time :/ We've recently asked Specim for copies of the CCD 
> > datasets - I can pass those on to you when we get them.  We'd 
> > currently use the gaussian curve approximation with the listed fwhms.

OK will stick to gaussian curves at the moment but response curves are
appreciated when they become available.

> > I can provide the Feb 2007 calibration files if that'd be 
> > useful to you? 
I think the Ethiopian data still uses the same calibration and I have
extracted the info from the hdf file. So that should be OK, I just
havent had the chance yet to look at the data. Will keep you up-to-date
on what I find.
I also noticed that the 2008 data for Eagle and for Hawk shows different
wavelength positions (I guess it was re-calibrated in 2007, as you
mentioned) and even the number of bands and pixels per scan line have
changed. Eagle now uses a different total fov, of which the port and
starboard section seem to be asymmetric. Is the sensor set up now
different, and where do the extra pixels come from?


> > With regard to the steps, one thing that does come to mind is 
> > this might be where the overflow regions tend to begin.  If 
> > an overflow occurs, the raw value will stay fixed at the 
> > maximum and the result after calibration will only reflect 
> > the changes in the dark values and the calibration multiplier 
> > [calibration procedure is basically reflectance = (DN - dark 
> > value) * multiplier]
> > 
> > The other less likely possibility is there may be filters 
> > inside the detector that catch second- or higher-order light 
> > that'd otherwise affect measurements of the first order 
> > light.  I know some of the Specim instruments incorporate 
> > these filters, but presume this would have been accounted 
> > for.  I'd have to ask Specim for the wavelengths where this 
> > filter begins, if it's present.

I think that it could be due to the saturation or even due to spectral
shifts which may cause the artifact during atm. Correction. Will have a
look at the 2008 data and let you know what I find.

>> > > *Radiometric accuracy*
>> > > radiance values in general look a bit lower than ground 
> > spectra with 
>> > > appropriate looking atmospheric correction. That's more an 
> > observation 
>> > > than a problem, since we can correct for that easily.
> > 
> > Yup, again, we're pretty limited on the sources of 
> > verification we have at this time - for the most part we 
> > don't even have ground spectra we can confirm against.  Gary 
> > has been working on this and has made an arrangement that'll 
> > give us some large spectrally calibrated targets near to the 
> > airport and we'll incorporate regular checks when these are in place.

Great! We do have simultaneous ground measurements for Spain (2006) and
Ethiopia (2008) although they were taken on reasonably homogeneous
natural targets rather than on atrificial tarps. May give an indication,
though. Our bright target on the 2006 Mojacar flight is useless, since
it was a bit too bright for the sensor! ;-) Our dark target of the 2006
Mojacar flight (Coal stock pile) lloks very resonable compared to the
airborne data. Richard Teeuw had made some measurement on the opposite
end of the study area and we may find some good spectra of bright
targets in his collection to compare with.

 
> > Let me know if you'd like any of the above offers of data.  
> > Obviously we'll inform you on the progress of the overflow 
> > issue once we have a proper idea of the extent of the 
> > problem, and will let you know the results of the radiometric 
> > calibration at the end of July.
Thanks Mike. For right now, I will focus on the Ethiopia data (mojo) and
see what comes out of that.
Looking forward to
- 2006 overflow info and masks
- 2008July calibration (wavelength and radiance)info
when they become available.
- info on changes made to the setup of the two sensors between 2006 and
2008 (fov and nr of pixels)


Cheers,
Chris

and counter reply:

Hi Chris,

Chris Hecker wrote:
> As usual a great anser with lots of detail but still right to the point!

Albeit 10KB long!  This reply should strain the mail server less though :)

> The spain 2006 data is more of a testcase for the ethiopia 2008jan data
> that has/will be coming in. If the data from 2006 is re-processed with
> the improved saturation detection, I would be happy to get the mask of
> saturated pixels (and an estimation of how many neighbouring pixels
> spatially / spectrally may have to be buffered out as well) when the
> re-prosessing is done. No need for the raw data there.

Ok, we'll let you know when we have the 2006 info available.  I'd expect that'll be on the order of weeks-months (minimum 2-3 weeks before we get the data here).

> I wasn't involved in any 2007 acquisitions but the 2008 ET07-05 (Mojo)
> data was delivered a few weeks ago. Any changes / saturation issues
> there would be of great interest to us.

We could certainly make the Mojo raw data available now, which would let you determine any saturation there.  We could also probably produce a mask if you want to wait a few days for us to produce the code to generate this (I suspect you can out-speed us on this if you're in a hurry!).  Let me know what you'd prefer :)

> OK will stick to gaussian curves at the moment but response curves are
> appreciated when they become available.

Will do :)

> I also noticed that the 2008 data for Eagle and for Hawk shows different
> wavelength positions (I guess it was re-calibrated in 2007, as you
> mentioned) and even the number of bands and pixels per scan line have
> changed. Eagle now uses a different total fov, of which the port and
> starboard section seem to be asymmetric. Is the sensor set up now
> different, and where do the extra pixels come from?

Hmm, that's interesting.  I'd speculate that the difference is due to the FODIS region being activated - I don't know if this was present in 2006.  The FODIS is an incident light measurement which works by bringing light down from the top of the aircraft, via a fiber optic cable, direct to the CCD.  The FODIS region is roughly the first 64 columns on the left side of the CCD.  We don't have 2006 data to look at, but would this account for what you're seeing?

See http://www.npm.ac.uk/rsg/projects/arsf/trac/ticket/133 for some example pics of the raw files including the FODIS region.

> I think that it could be due to the saturation or even due to spectral
> shifts which may cause the artifact during atm. Correction. Will have a
> look at the 2008 data and let you know what I find.

That'd be very helpful, thank you :)

> Great! We do have simultaneous ground measurements for Spain (2006) and
> Ethiopia (2008) although they were taken on reasonably homogeneous
> natural targets rather than on atrificial tarps. May give an indication,
> though. Our bright target on the 2006 Mojacar flight is useless, since
> it was a bit too bright for the sensor! ;-) Our dark target of the 2006
> Mojacar flight (Coal stock pile) lloks very resonable compared to the
> airborne data. Richard Teeuw had made some measurement on the opposite
> end of the study area and we may find some good spectra of bright
> targets in his collection to compare with.

That's reassuring that the dark target sounds reasonable (and oops @ the bright target ;) ).  We'd certainly be very interested if you find anything notable in other comparisons - perhaps we could ask Richard for a copy of his ground data if it turns out to be useful.

Cheers,

Mike.

comment:3 Changed 11 years ago by mggr

  • Description modified (diff)

Added note on actions required for this ticket.

comment:4 Changed 11 years ago by mggr

  • Description modified (diff)
  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from new to closed

comment:5 Changed 11 years ago by mggr

  • Resolution fixed deleted
  • Status changed from closed to reopened

Oops, close was unintentional - 2006 data action is still open. We should have a copy of it now though.

comment:6 Changed 9 years ago by mggr

  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from reopened to closed

All quiet.. closing!

Changed 8 years ago by benj

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.