under mask 4  TCC raw under mask 4 mask_4 is shown profile_white is shown black ROI is shown | under mask 4 - mask 4 is too vast
- for calibration and profiling,
- we shall concentrate on the black rectangular ROI
this is shelf waters off Mayaguez |
BLUE vs GREEN under mask_4  BLUE vs GREEN KBLUE/KGREEN=0.82 This is OII+0.7 water type Maximum depth of bottom detection is ~24 m - LsM is for coral sand
- The brightest pixels are seen to be ~3 times darker than coral sands
| COASTAL vs GREEN under mask_4  COASTAL vs GREEN |
Modeling PAN solution along profile WHITE  Modeling by the "PAN solution" The RED profile shows LIDAR depth - this plot also shows water column corrected signatures for Coastal, Blue and Green bands
- turbid shelf waters off Mayaguez cause depth under-estimation
- like on section A at 20 km
- like on section C between 16 km and 26 km
PAN and GREEN solutions yield ...... | Modeling GREEN solution along profile WHITE  Modeling by the "GREEN solution" The RED profile shows LIDAR depth - this plot also shows water column corrected signatures for Coastal, Blue and Green bands
....approximately the same depth |
GREEN solution vs PAN solution along profile YELLOW  PAN and GREEN solutions yield approximately the same depth retrieval - Minute differences allow for spectral features to appear that the GREEN solution cannot resolve
- The Landsat 8 GREEN solution mapth depth down to 24 m, while the Landsat 8 PAN solution maps depth down to 18 m in these waters
| GREEN solution vs PAN solution along profile YELLOW  This confirms that the PAN solution is trustworthy to considerable advantage |
under mask_4  ZLIDAR-ZPAN over the whole scene - Calibration only used pixels under mask_4 and was applied to the whole scene
- BLUE: depth over-estimation
- RED: depth under-estimation
- Using the PAN solution, coastal shelf waters allow for modeling down to 10-13 m in this environment
- where waters are more turbid than assumed, depth retrievals are badly under-estimated: deep platform waters are more turbid
- where waters are distinctly clearer than assumed, depth retrievals are badly over-estimated: open ocean waters are clearer: this needs a special study under mask_3
- Only the shallow shelf off Mayaguez and isolated pinacles exhibit acceptable depth retrievals down to 10-13 m
- deeper than that: there is probably no bottom detection altogether, apart from the outer oceanic areas
|  ZLIDAR-ZPAN in centimeters - light tones for moderate error
- darker tones for more severe error
GREY used the PAN solution GREEN used the GREEN solution |
Z4SM vs ZLIDAR under mask_4_ROI  Z4SM vs ZLIDAR under mask_4_ROI smoothing by a 5 pixels kernel - most pixels in the 0-13 m depth range
- display along the diagonal:
- NO NEED FOR FIELD DATA for optical calibration
- although seatruth suggests minor adjustments
- slight increase of Lm for the PAN band
- then estimate a tide height for correction
| ZLIDAR-ZPAN under mask_4_ROI  ZLIDAR-ZPAN under mask_4_ROI smoothing by a 5 pixels kernel - depth underestimation caused by coastal shelf waters shows around 13-25 m
- there is nothing we can do, unless maybe refer this case to a "semi-analytic" approach?
|
Z4SM vs ZLIDAR under mask_5_ROI  | Z4SM vs ZLIDAR under mask_5_ROI  |