1 / 39

Topographic correction of Landsat ETM-images

Topographic correction of Landsat ETM-images. Markus Törmä Finnish Environment Institute Helsinki University of Technology. Background. CORINE2000 classification of whole Finland Forested and natural areas are interpreted using Landsat ETM-image mosaics. Background.

razi
Download Presentation

Topographic correction of Landsat ETM-images

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Topographic correction of Landsat ETM-images Markus Törmä Finnish Environment Institute Helsinki University of Technology

  2. Background • CORINE2000 classification of whole Finland • Forested and natural areas are interpreted using Landsat ETM-image mosaics

  3. Background • Estimation of continuous variables like tree height and crown cover • Continuous variables are transformed to discrete CORINE-classes using IF-THEN-rules • According to the test classificatios, there is need for a SIMPLE topographic correction method in Lapland

  4. Background • Landsat ETM 743, Kevo and digital elevation model

  5. Background Tested methods: • Lambertian cosine correction • Minnaert correction • Ekstrand correction • Statistical Empirical correction • C-correction Tests: • Maximum Likelihood-classification to land cover classes • Comparison of class statistics between and within classes • Linear regression to estimate tree height, tree crown cover and vegetation cover • Estimation of tree crown cover and height using Proba-software (VTT)

  6. Topografic correction • Imaging geometry changes locally causing unwanted brightness changes • E.g. deciduous forest looks like more bright on the sunny side that the shadow side of the hill • Reflectance is largest when the slope is perpendicular to the incoming radiation

  7. Topografic correction • Intensities of image pixels are corrected according to the elevation variations, other properties of the surface are not taken into account • The angle between the surface normal and incoming radiation is needed  ”Illumination image”

  8. Example • Landsat ETM (RGB: 743) and digital elevation model made by National Land Survey

  9. Example • Landsat ETM (RGB: 743) and Illumination image

  10. Example • Correlation between pixel digital numbers vs. illumination varies between different channels

  11. Lambert cosine correction • It is supposed that the ground surface is lambertian, i.e. reflects radiation equal amounts to different directions LC = LO COS(sz) / COS(i) • LO: original digital number or reflectance of pixel • LC: corrected digital number • sz: sun zenith angle • i: angle between sun and local surface normal

  12. Lambert cosine correction • Original and corrected ETM-image • Note overcorrection on the shadow side of hills

  13. Minnaert correction • Constant ksimulates the non-lambertian behaviour of the target surface LC = LO [ COS(sz) / COS(i) ]k • Constant k is channel dependent and determined for each image

  14. Minnaert correction • Original and corrected ETM-image • Still some overcorrection

  15. Ekstrand correction • Minnaert constant k varies according to illumination LC = LO [ COS(sz) / COS(i) ]k COS(i)

  16. Ekstrand correction • Original and corrected ETM-image

  17. Determination of Minnaert constant k • Linearization of Ekstrand correction equation: -ln LO = k cos i [ ln (cos(sz) / cos(i)) ] – ln LC • Linear regression • Line y = kx + b was adjusted to the digital numbers of the satellite image y = -ln LO x = cos i [ln(cos(sz) / cos(i))] b = -ln LC

  18. Minnaert constant k • Samples were taken from image • Flat areas were removed from samples • In order to study the effect of vegetation to the constant, samples were also stratified into classes according to the NDVI-value

  19. Minnaert constant k • NDVI classes and their number of samples

  20. Minnaert constant k • Correlation between pixel digital numbers vs. illumination varies between different NDVI-classes on the channel 5

  21. Determination of Minnaert constant k • Determined constants k and corresponding correlation coefficients r for different channels

  22. Statistical-Empirical correction • Statistical-empirical correction is statistical approach to model the relationship between original band and the illumination. LC = LO– m cos(i) m: slope of regression line • Geometrically the correction rotates the regression line to the horizontal to remove the illumination dependence.

  23. Statistical-Empirical correction • Original and corrected ETM-image

  24. C-correction • C-correction is modification of the cosine correction by a factor C which should model the diffuse sky radiation. LC = LO [ ( cos(sz) + C ) / ( cos(i) + C ) ] • C = b/m • b and m are the regression coefficients of statistical-empirical correction method

  25. C-correction • Original and corrected image

  26. Determination of slope m and intercept b • Regression coefficients for Statistical-empirical and C-correction were determined using linear regression • Slope of regression line m and intercept b were determined using illumination (cos(i)) as predictor variable and channel digital numbers as response variable

  27. Determination of slope m and intercept b • Slopes m and correlation coefficients r for different channels

  28. Maximum Likelihood-classification • Ground truth: Lapland biotopemap

  29. Maximum Likelihood-classification • Accuracy measures: overall accuracy (OA), users’s and producer’s accuracies of classes for training (tr) and test (te) sets • Original image: Oatr 57.2%, Oate 48.2% • Cosine correction: Oatr 60.9%, Oate 51.9%

  30. Maximum Likelihood-classification • In the case of test set, the correction methods usually increased classification accuracy compared to original image • Stratification using the NDVI-class increases classification accuracy of test pixels in the cases of Ekstrand and Statistical-Empirical correction.

  31. Comparison of class statistics • Jefferies-Matusita decision theoretic distance: distance between two groups of pixels defined by their mean vectors and covariancematrices • Distances were compared between classes and within individual classes

  32. Comparison of class statistics Between-class-comparison • 14 Biotopemapping classes • separability should be as high as possible Within-class-comparison • 7 Biotopemapping classes • classes were divided into subclasses according to the direction of the main slope • separability should be as low as possible

  33. Comparison of class statistics Between-class-comparison • Cosine correction and original image best Within-class-comparison • Statistical-Empirical correction best, Cosine correction and original image worst • The effect of correction is largest for mineral soil classes and smallest for peat covered soils. • Stratification using the NDVI-class decreases the separability of subclasses

  34. Linear regression • Estimate tree height, tree crown cover and vegetation cover Ground survey • 300 plots in Kevo region, Northern Lapland • Information about vegetation and tree crown cover, tree height and species

  35. Linear regression Tree height • Statistical-Empirical best • Stratification decreases the correlation a little Tree crown cover • Cosine and C-correction best • Stratification decreases the correlation a little Vegetation cover • C- and Minnaert correction best

  36. Estimation of tree crown cover and height • Proba-software (Finnish National Research Center) • Training (3386) and test (1657) compartments from Lapland Biotopemap, compartmentwise averages • Tree height and crown cover were estimated for image pixels and compartment averages computed • Error measures: Bias, Root Mean Squared Error, Correlation Coefficient

  37. Estimation of tree crown cover and height Tree height • C-correction best • Topographic correction and stratification decreases estimation error Tree crown cover • Ekstrand correction best • Topographic correction and stratification decreases estimation error

  38. Conclusion • Topographic correction improves classification or estimation results • But methods perform differently and their performence depends on task at hand • In some cases correction even make results worse so it is difficult to choose the best method

  39. Conclusion • The best correction methods seem to be C-correction and Ekstrand correction • The stratification according to the NDVI-class improves results in some cases, depending on the used experiment

More Related