| 
ETM_2000-11-01 TCC
| 
ETM_2000-11-01 FCC |
| | |
| 
rashatibahCZ11.pix: Channel 16
Final averaged depth
in decimeters |
Average Depth
for each shallow pixel:
- Average (N=11): 11 depths in decimeters are averaged
- Standard deviation (N=11) is also computed
- images which yield depth outside Average+/-STD are rejected
- ==> N images survive
- Channel_16: Final average depth is written
- Channel_15: Final standard deviation is written
- Channel_14: Final N is written
==Two champions==
- 7 ZCombiner: 14.4 percents of shallow pixels of image ETM_2003-01-10 are rejected while averaging depth
- 2 ZCombiner: 15.5 percents of shallow pixels of image ETM_1999-11-15 are rejected while averaging depth
|
| 
rashatibahCZ11.pix: Channel 15
Standard deviation
on final averaged depth
in decimeters | 
rashatibahCZ11.pix: Channel 14
N on final averaged depth
|
| Maximum Depth 
rashatibahCZ11.pix: Channel 13
Deepest depth over 11 images
in decimeters | Maximum Depth 
rashatibahCZ11.pix: Channel 12
Shows which image is deepest 2 - blue for ETM_1999-11-15
11 - purple for TM_1990-11-06
... |
| | |
|
TM at Ras Hatibah
|
TM at Ras Hatibah
|
| 
| K[blue]/K[green]=0.55 Calibration using Mid waveband - WL[blue ]=485.0 nm at mid waveband
- WL[green]=569.5 nm at mid waveband
- WL[red ]=658.5 nm at mid waveband
is not acceptable as seen in the plot of X[1_2] vs X[3] This yields - ZM[blue ]=45.6 m
- ZM[green]=25.2 m
- ZM[red ]= 7.2 m
|
| 
| option A One way to alleviate the problem is: - keep WL[green]=569.5 nm at mid waveband
- relocate WL[red] at 624.7 nm
This yields - ZM[blue ]=45.6 m
- ZM[green]=25.2 m
- ZM[red ]= 9.1 m
All Ras Hatibah ETM and TM images
were processed using this way:
this yields depths
1.4 times deeper than option B We'll see then!! |
 | option B Another way to alleviate the problem is: - relocate WL[green] at 578.4 nm
- keep WL[red] at 658.5 nm at mid waveband
This yields - ZM[blue ]=33.3 m
- ZM[green]=18.4 m
- ZM[red ]= 6.9 m
All Tanzania TM and ETM images
were processed using this way,
with the result that depths
were underestimated
by a factor of 1.5! |
The same is observed
with ETM images
| The same is observed
with ETM images |
