Opened 10 years ago
Closed 8 years ago
#559 closed flight processing (fixed)
MA14/14, flight day 309/2014, Sepilok
| Reported by: | dap | Owned by: | benj |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | whenever | Milestone: | |
| Component: | Archiving | Keywords: | |
| Cc: | Other processors: |
Description (last modified by dap)
Data location: ~arsf/arsf_data/2014/flight_data/malaysia/MA14_14-2014_309_Sepilok
Data arrived from ARSF via network transfer on 05/01/2015.
Scientific objective: Unknown
Priority: Currently unfunded
PI: David Burslem
The following Fenix header files have large differences between their fps_set and fps_qpf values:
- FENIX309-14-15.hdr (0.379)
- FENIX309-14-18.hdr (0.437)
- FENIX309-14-19.hdr (0.420)
- FENIX309-14-25.hdr (0.275)
- FENIX309-14-26.hdr (0.394)
Sensors:
- Fenix (requested)
- LiDAR (delivered 12/05/2015)
- FW LiDAR (delivered 12/05/2015)
- RCD (requested)
Change History (38)
comment:1 Changed 10 years ago by dap
- Description modified (diff)
comment:2 Changed 10 years ago by dac
comment:3 Changed 10 years ago by tec
Nav
Data in ~/arsf_data/2014/flight_data/malaysia/RG13_06-Basestation_data/RINEX DATA SABAH/Rinex/temporary_gps_dataz/309
comment:4 Changed 10 years ago by dap
Navigation Processing
(On behalf of tec)
Basestation: Danum_2nd
Lat: 5 52 28.93448
Lon: 117 56 59.26022
Ell: 66.509m
Antenna Height: 1.395m
comment:5 Changed 10 years ago by tec
Navigation Processing
Processed data using grafnav.
C/A code: 1.425
KAR dual freq distance: 80.00
Ell Mask: 14.0
comment:6 Changed 10 years ago by tec
Navigation Processing
Finished Nav.
Also processed RCD CSV thing
comment:7 Changed 10 years ago by tec
LiDAR Processing
Starting
comment:8 Changed 10 years ago by tec
LiDAR Processing
No features, roll & pitch correction will be difficult to say the least. Pitch currently seems to be at -0.000183180 which
| Line | Roll | Pitch | FW | Classified | Classified FW |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LDR141104_230141_1.LAS | -0.0060750 | -0.000483180 | Y | ||
| LDR141104_230535_1.LAS | -0.0060750 | -0.000483180 | Y | ||
| LDR141104_230950_1.LAS | -0.0060750 | -0.000483180 | Y | ||
| LDR141104_231350_1.LAS | -0.0060750 | -0.000483180 | Y | ||
| LDR141104_232214_1.LAS | -0.0060750 | -0.000483180 | Y | ||
| LDR141104_232707_1.LAS | -0.0060750 | -0.000483180 | Y | ||
| LDR141104_233136_1.LAS | -0.0060750 | -0.000483180 | Y | ||
| LDR141104_233548_1.LAS | -0.0060750 | -0.000483180 | Y | ||
| LDR141104_234002_1.LAS | -0.0060750 | -0.000483180 | Y | ||
| LDR141104_234341_1.LAS | -0.0060750 | -0.000483180 | Y | ||
| LDR141104_234749_1.LAS | -0.0060750 | -0.000483180 | Y | ||
| LDR141104_235148_1.LAS | -0.0060750 | -0.000483180 | Y | ||
| LDR141104_235600_1.LAS | -0.0060750 | -0.000483180 | Y | ||
| LDR141105_000153_1.LAS | -0.0060750 | -0.000483180 | Y | ||
| LDR141105_000656_1.LAS | -0.0060750 | -0.000483180 | Y | ||
| LDR141105_001120_1.LAS | -0.0060750 | -0.000483180 | Y | ||
| LDR141105_001621_1.LAS | -0.0060750 | -0.000483180 | Y | ||
| LDR141105_002037_1.LAS | -0.0060750 | -0.000483180 | Y | ||
| LDR141105_002432_1.LAS | -0.0060750 | -0.000483180 | Y | ||
| LDR141105_002854_1.LAS | -0.0060750 | -0.000483180 | Y | ||
| LDR141105_003311_1.LAS | -0.0060750 | -0.000483180 | Y | ||
| LDR141105_003723_1.LAS | -0.0060750 | -0.000483180 | Y | ||
| LDR141105_004108_1.LAS | -0.0060750 | -0.000483180 | Y | ||
| LDR141105_004526_1.LAS | -0.0060750 | -0.000483180 | Y | ||
| LDR141105_004907_1.LAS | -0.0060750 | -0.000483180 | Y | ||
| LDR141105_005318_1.LAS | -0.0060750 | -0.000483180 | Y | ||
| LDR141105_005849_1.LAS | -0.0060750 | -0.000483180 | Y |
comment:9 Changed 10 years ago by tec
LiDAR Processing
Delivery nearly created, waiting on dap to generate the screenshots.
Then height offsets need to be done and a readme created.
comment:10 Changed 10 years ago by tec
LiDAR Processing
Ready for DC
comment:11 Changed 10 years ago by dap
Beginning LiDAR Delivery Check
comment:12 Changed 10 years ago by dap
LiDAR Delivery Check
- Actions
- The patched LiDAR data in the DEM seem to be higher than the ASTER data - this should be commented on in the read me.
- Elevation differences are in the wrong units.
- Flight lines 16 and 27 have some falsely classified points but these looked as though they might be difficult to classify manually.
The above points need to be addressed before the data are delivered.
- Additional Notes
- Screenshots seem ok, two of the flight lines seem brighter than others as mentioned above.
- A couple of the flight lines, when visualised in LAG, seem to be brighter than the others (brightness settings set to show by intensity), but flight lines don't seem as though they will be problematic.
comment:13 Changed 10 years ago by dap
Terry copied LiDAR delivery to ftp server yesterday. Currently copying the delivery to a hard drive (the medium requested by the PI in the application). Delivery was copied to ftp for quicker access in case needed.
comment:14 Changed 10 years ago by dap
- Description modified (diff)
Discrete LiDAR and FW LiDAR data delivered on 12/05/2015 to PI at the University of Aberdeen
comment:15 Changed 10 years ago by dap
- Component changed from Processing: general to Archiving
- Owner set to benj
comment:16 Changed 9 years ago by tec
RCD
Keeping image 651, 761
comment:17 Changed 9 years ago by tec
RCD
Ready for delivery check
comment:18 Changed 9 years ago by dac
RCD DC
Starting delivery check.
comment:19 follow-up: ↓ 20 Changed 9 years ago by dac
RCD DC
Ready to deliver. Might be worth adding something in the readme about why there are only two images.
comment:20 in reply to: ↑ 19 Changed 9 years ago by tec
Replying to dac:
RCD DC
Ready to deliver. Might be worth adding something in the readme about why there are only two images.
Done
comment:21 Changed 9 years ago by tec
Fenix
Started.
comment:22 Changed 9 years ago by dac
RCD
Delivered to PI via FTP on 12/06/2015.
Also add to hard drive with Fenix data when this is sent. Application requested delivery by hard drive but due to there only being two images went with FTP so PI could receive data sooner.
comment:23 Changed 9 years ago by tec
Fenix
SCTs
| Flight | SCT |
|---|---|
| 1 | 1.00 |
| 2 | 0.90 |
| 3 | 0.96 |
| 4 | 0.90 |
| 5 | 0.97 |
| 6 | -0.02 |
| 7 | 0.90 |
| 8 | 0.93 |
| 9 | 0.93 |
| 10 | 0.89 |
| 11 | 0.90 |
| 12 | 0.94 |
| 13 | 0.87 |
| 14 | 0.11 |
| 15 | 0.99 |
| 16 | 0.91 |
| 17 | 0.99 |
| 18 | 0.95 |
| 19 | 0.95 |
| 20 | 0.03 |
| 21 | 0.99 |
| 22 | 1.04 |
| 23 | 0.94 |
| 24 | 0.94 |
| 25 | 0.93 |
| 26 | 1.02 |
comment:24 Changed 9 years ago by tec
Fenix
Ready for DC
comment:25 Changed 9 years ago by dac
Fenix
Replaced wavescale in header files with one from new calibration. Lines 1 - 14 used VNIR binning of 2, lines 16 - 26 used binning of 4.
Processed files in APL - currently checking.
comment:26 Changed 9 years ago by dac
Fenix
Data processed. Creating delivery.
comment:27 Changed 9 years ago by dac
Fenix
Delivery created and ready for checking. Data quality report will need to be updated before sending.
comment:28 Changed 9 years ago by asm
Fenix Delivery Check
Started.
comment:29 Changed 9 years ago by asm
Fenix Delivery Check
Few details encountered:
-There are two different binnings used, should be two different ASCII view vectors on sensors_FOV_foder.
-Data quality report is from 2014.
-No logsheet. New logsheet shoud include two different binnings where used.
All other data is in accordance with delivery Check
comment:30 Changed 9 years ago by lah
Fenix DC
Have looked at all flightlines and masked spectra look reasonable, apart from the SWIR being about 5nm or 1 band offset from previous data e.g. 169. Water spectra in line 14 also look a little odd.
comment:31 Changed 9 years ago by dac
Fenix
- There are different spectral binnings but not different spatial binnings (which would require two sets of ASCII view vectors). Correct as is, but has noted in readme different spectral binning was used as an explanation as to why files have different numbers if bands.
- Have added logsheet. As flight was acquired over two days added date to take off and land time to clarify.
- Checked spectra against 6S simulations - look good.
- Had a look at water spectra for line 14 (river running through tropical forest) can't seen any obvious problems,
- Still waiting on 2015 data quality report to be produced.
comment:32 Changed 9 years ago by lah
Fenix DC
No significant problems with water spectra, so good to go when data quality report is ready.
comment:33 Changed 9 years ago by dac
Fenix
Data quality report finished. Copied to arsf11 on FTP server and emailed PI, cc'd David Coomes.
comment:34 Changed 9 years ago by dac
PI had problems downloading data via FTP. Dispatched on hard drive 02/10/2015
comment:35 Changed 8 years ago by dac
Archiving
Checked data. Ready for archive to NEODC.
comment:36 Changed 8 years ago by dac
Archiving
Uploaded to NEODC.
comment:37 Changed 8 years ago by dac
Fenix
The Fenix failed on Line 001b but it was listed in the readme as f309151b. This means that the flight directions don't line up with logsheet.
Have regenerated readme with correction and will email to PI. Will also upload update file to NEODC for Wendy.
comment:38 Changed 8 years ago by dac
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from new to closed
Archiving
Archived data available from NEODC. Readme for hyperspectral has been updated to the latest version.
David Coomes requested on 22/04/2015 lidar data for this project be processed at higher priority than hyperspectral data from RG13/06 as a PhD student needs the data.