Using the Panchromatic band for water column correction to derive water depth and spectral bottom signature: Landsat 8 OLIP bandset used for this work Purple=1, Blue=2, Green=3, PAN=4, Red=5, NIR=6 and SWIR1=7 
Collaboration with Fabio Favoretto, Ph.D Student, Coralline Algae Ecology Grupo Interdisciplinario de Ciencia Ambiental, Universidad Autonoma de Baja California Sur Carretera al sur km 5.5  La Paz favorettofabio@gmail.com 
Using pan sharpened images in this study Pan sharpening using Rstudio with Brovey method 
N>=1/9 all sorts of outliers produce fancy pixels  N>=2/9  N>=3/9  N>=4/9 appears to yield a clean DTM, even in Bay of La Paz 
Fabio's seatruth DTM 15 m GSD is very crude: note the depth contour lines abutting the shoreline no tide correction Fabio's DTM is most useful, but needs to be refined  Combined depth 15 m GSD N>=4 is quite appealing no tide correction, no smoothing 
" the regressions graphs ZC vs ZR (from my DTM) in each scene, the % of retrieved depths within 1.0 m is different from the one reported on the histogram, why? Feb 25th 2017" October 19th 2013 Histogram:

" if i understood it correctly, in the regresion graphs for the depth combined, the ZR are the mean combined values for each pixel (excluded the one with high standard deviation), i like this, but, i have a doubt... isn't it obvious that the correlation is better because all the eventual artifacts or bad retrieved depths create a model that correlates better with the retrieved depths from one of the images that compose the average? Feb 25th 2017" YES it is obvious because

slcOLI_cz.zip 63 MB 
slcOLI_cz.zip 66 MB updated Nov 23rd 2016 Datum and Ellipsoid: WGS83 UTM zone 12 
4SM depth in centimeters for each of 9 scenes, no smoothing, GSD 15m
Plus miscellaneous items 