[GRASS-user] question on Stray light Landsat 8 data
Gabriel Cotlier
gabiklm01 at gmail.com
Tue Aug 20 13:34:18 PDT 2019
Dear Markus,
My grass version is : GRASS GIS 7.6.1
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 5:13 PM Markus Metz <markus.metz.giswork at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Dear Gabriel,
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 9:50 PM Gabriel Cotlier <gabiklm01 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Markus,
> > So I run the command g.region w=179:59:45W e=180:00:15E
> >
> > Now my log now before and after the command g.region w=179:59:45W
> e=180:00:15E is as follows:
> >
> > 360 degree EW extent is exceeded by 1 cells
> > 360 degree EW extent is exceeded by 1 cells
> > (Tue Aug 20 16:41:45 2019) Command finished (0 sec)
>
> > (Tue Aug 20 16:43:47 2019)
>
> > g.region w=179:59:45W e=180:00:15E
>
> > 360 degree EW extent is exceeded by 1.99983 cells
> > 360 degree EW extent is exceeded by 1 cells
> > (Tue Aug 20 16:43:48 2019) Command finished (0 sec)
>
> > (Tue Aug 20 16:44:18 2019)
>
> > g.region -p
>
> > projection: 3 (Latitude-Longitude)
> > zone: 0
> > datum: wgs84
> > ellipsoid: wgs84
> > north: 75:00:15N
> > south: 65:00:15S
> > west: 179:59:45W
> > east: 180:00:15E
> > nsres: 0:00:30
> > ewres: 0:00:30
> > rows: 16801
> > cols: 43200
> > cells: 725803200
> > 360 degree EW extent is exceeded by 1.99983 cells
> > (Tue Aug 20 16:44:18 2019) Command finished (0 sec)
>
> With GRASS 7.6, I can not reproduce this message.
> g.region -p n=75:00:15N s=65:00:15S w=179:59:45W e=180:00:15E res=00:00:30
>
> gives me
> projection: 3 (Latitude-Longitude)
> zone: 0
> datum: wgs84
> ellipsoid: wgs84
> north: 75:00:15N
> south: 65:00:15S
> west: 179:59:45W
> east: 180:00:15E
> nsres: 0:00:30
> ewres: 0:00:30
> rows: 16801
> cols: 43200
> cells: 725803200
>
> without any messages that 360 degree EW extent is exceeded. Which GASS
> version are you using? I tested with GRASS 7.6 and GRASS 7.9.
>
> Markus M
>
> >
> > Now appears to say that is exceeded by 1.99983 cells.... why could this
> be happening?
> > Thanks a lot
> >
> > Regards
> > Gabriel
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 4:33 PM Gabriel Cotlier <gabiklm01 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear Markus,
> >> Thanks a lot for your response and explanation.
> >> Changing the region to w=179:59:45W e=180:00:15E, am I not only
> avoiding the warning, but also changing the layers to be physically
> correct, right?
> >>
> >> Thanks again for your help.
> >> regards,
> >> Gabriel
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 4:24 PM Markus Metz <
> markus.metz.giswork at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Dear Gabriel,
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 12:19 AM Gabriel Cotlier <gabiklm01 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > Dear Markus,
> >>> >
> >>> > Thanks a lot for the clarification and explanation, your response
> was indeed helpful.
> >>> >
> >>> > I got for all maps in the mapset I used, for both the DMSP original
> raster layers and the intercallibrated rasrer layers the following:
> >>> >
> >>> > r.info map= name_of_raster_map
> >>> >
> >>> > 360 degree EW extent is exceeded by 1 cells
> >>> > 360 degree EW extent is exceeded by 1 cells
> >>> >
> >>> > Which, following what you said before in your response I understand
> makes it correct region, right?
> >>>
> >>> this region is correct considering the resolution with is now exactly
> 30 arc seconds.
> >>>
> >>> this region is not correct considering that 360 degree EW extent is
> exceeded by 1 cell. The first column from 180:00:15W to 179:59:45W and the
> last column from 179:59:45E to 180:00:15E spatially overlap, the first and
> last column of DMSP are duplicates with regard to their location. If you
> want to avoid this warning, you can set the region to w=179:59:45W
> e=180:00:15E.
> >>>
> >>> Markus M
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> > Another question I wanted to ask is: how to know whether the
> operation of intercallibration was correctly done, for tha I thought maybe
> thare is the a place from where I can corroborate whether the min and max
> values of each intercallibrated raster layer is correct?
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > I'm attaching the log of all the files I got from 'r.info' command
> in it there appears always for the region '360 degree EW extent is exceeded
> by 1 cells' and also the min and max value of each intercallibrated raster
> layer.
> >>> >
> >>> > So as to know if I got all the raster correctly intercallibrated
> maybe checking if the min and max value for each intercallibrated
> corresponds correctly is there a place where I can check that?
> >>> >
> >>> > Maybe according to my attached log file is possible to know if all
> the intercallibration operation was correctly done and thus the layers are
> ready for further study and analysis.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > Thanks a lot again for your help.
> >>> > Kind regards,
> >>> > Gabriel
> >>> >
> >>> > Virus-free. www.avast.com
> >>> >
> >>> > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 4:41 PM Markus Metz <
> markus.metz.giswork at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 12:05 AM Gabriel Cotlier <
> gabiklm01 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > Hello,
> >>> >> > My question is how does it influence the fact that it say:
> >>> >> > 360 degree EW extent is exceeded by 0.999827 cells
> >>> >>
> >>> >> this is caused by the truncated resolution of 0.008333333300000
> >>> >> with a corrected resolution of 00:00:30, the message is
> >>> >>
> >>> >> > 360 degree EW extent is exceeded by 1 cells
> >>> >>
> >>> >> considering the EW extents of 180:00:15W to 180:00:15E, that means
> that the first column from 180:00:15W to 179:59:45W and the last column
> from 179:59:45E to 180:00:15E spatially overlap, the first and last column
> of DMSP are duplicates with regard to their location. If you want to avoid
> this warning, you can set the region to w=179:59:45W e=180:00:15E.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Note that the recommended way to set a computational region to a
> raster map is g.region rast=name_of_raster_map. After that, as for DMSP,
> you might want to adjust the computational region to your needs, e.g. a
> smaller region of interest, or restrict it to 360 degrees EW extent in case
> the raster map is exceeding 360 degrees EW extent.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> HTH,
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Markus M
> >>> >>
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > while when I loaded a first file I defined a region as
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > which is exactly I suppose the correct region for the DMSP
> data.... then after loading the other layers it appears:
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > 360 degree EW extent is exceeded by 0.999827 cells
> >>> >> > 360 degree EW extent is exceeded by 1 cells
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > Thanks a lot
> >>> >> > Gabriel
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 6:54 PM Gabriel Cotlier <
> gabiklm01 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> Hello, another question, regarding
> i.nightlights.intercalibration, can I run this code as python
> package/lbrary loading it from Spyder or Jupiter Notebook instead of using
> GRASS interface, if so how is a convenient way to install
> i.nightlights.intercalibration in python using Spyder?
> >>> >> >> Thanks a lot.
> >>> >> >> Gabriel
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 4:54 PM Gabriel Cotlier <
> gabiklm01 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >> >>>
> >>> >> >>> Dear Nikos.
> >>> >> >>> After a long time I'm trying to reproduce a routine I have for
> doing intercallibratrion of DMSP 1992-2012 but for some reason It doesn't
> work to me. I think is because the problem between the region of the layers
> 30 arc sec should resolution be from 0.008333333300000 to
> 0.008333333333333, i.e. exactly 30 arc-seconds? and the computational
> region be the same ? I got stuck on how to set it to work... from the side
> of the region setting.
> >>> >> >>> However in addition my routing also has a for loop which does
> not work ok as well.
> >>> >> >>> I would appreciate a lot of you can give it a look and tell me
> how to make it work...
> >>> >> >>> Thanks a lot in advance
> >>> >> >>> Kind regards,
> >>> >> >>> Gabriel
> >>> >> >>>
> #####-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> >> >>> # complete routine for intercalliration of DSMP/OLS light
> stable product
> >>> >> >>>
> >>> >> >>> import grass.script as gscript
> >>> >> >>> import os
> >>> >> >>> import os,glob
> >>> >> >>>
> >>> >> >>> # get working directory
> >>> >> >>> print os.getcwd()
> >>> >> >>>
> >>> >> >>> # change working directory where raster files are
> >>> >> >>> os.chdir('C:\\Users\\Gabriel\\Documents\\grassdata\\lights')
> >>> >> >>>
> >>> >> >>> # see files in directory
> >>> >> >>> ls
> >>> >> >>>
> >>> >> >>> # import all raster files to grass --- here is a kind of
> problem...???
> >>> >> >>> for tif_file in glob.glob("*.tif"):
> >>> >> >>> new_rast = os.path.splitext(tif_file)[0]
> >>> >> >>> grass.run_command("r.in.gdal", flags="a", input=tif_file,
> output=new_rast)
> >>> >> >>>
> >>> >> >>> # get info of one of the imported raster
> >>> >> >>> r.info map=F121996
> >>> >> >>>
> >>> >> >>> # run intercalliration algorithm
> >>> >> >>> i.nightlights.intercalibration
> image=F101992,F101993,F101994,F121994,F121995,F121996,F121997,F121998,F121999,F141997,F141998,F141999,F142000,F142001,F142002,F142003,F152000,F152001,F152002,F152003,F152004,F152005,F152006,F152007,F162004,F162005,F162006,F162007,F162008,F162009,F182010,F182011,F182012,F182013
> suffix=c model=elvidge2014 -t
> >>> >> >>>
> >>> >> >>> # correct general region adjust to raster file --- here the
> region is exactly 30 arc for the raster as I could see....
> >>> >> >>> g.region raster=F121996
> >>> >> >>>
> >>> >> >>> # cerate a list of rasters in the mapset
> >>> >> >>> # rastlist=grass.read_command("g.list",type="rast").split()
> >>> >> >>> rasters = grass.read_command('g.list',
> type='raster').splitlines()
> >>> >> >>>
> >>> >> >>> # change working directory
> >>> >> >>> os.chdir('C:\\Users\\Gabriel\\Desktop\\out')
> >>> >> >>>
> >>> >> >>> # save rasters in mapset to file
> >>> >> >>> for raster in rasters:
> >>> >> >>> grass.run_command('r.out.gdal', input=raster, output=raster
> + '.tiff', format='GTiff')
> >>> >> >>>
> >>> >> >>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:06 AM Gabriel Cotlier <
> gabiklm01 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >> >>>>
> >>> >> >>>> Dear Nikos,
> >>> >> >>>>
> >>> >> >>>> Thanks a lot for your answer and the orientation.
> >>> >> >>>> The information and the link are very useful.
> >>> >> >>>> Kind regards,
> >>> >> >>>> Gabriel
> >>> >> >>>>
> >>> >> >>>>
> >>> >> >>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 5:19 AM Nikos Alexandris <
> nik at nikosalexandris.net> wrote:
> >>> >> >>>>>
> >>> >> >>>>> * Gabriel Cotlier <gabiklm01 at gmail.com> [2018-08-21 12:00:24
> -0300]:
> >>> >> >>>>>
> >>> >> >>>>> >Dear Nikos and GRASS users,
> >>> >> >>>>> >
> >>> >> >>>>> >I would like to ask if nonetheless the effect due to "stray
> light" the
> >>> >> >>>>> >*i.landsat8.swlst* code for split window is still applicable
> to Landsat 8
> >>> >> >>>>> >data and whether these error is specially visible on water
> bodies? and
> >>> >> >>>>> >whether band 10 is better than band 11 in terms of
> correction processing
> >>> >> >>>>> >for Level -1 data products?
> >>> >> >>>>> >
> >>> >> >>>>> >Thanks a lot.
> >>> >> >>>>> >
> >>> >> >>>>> >Kind regards,
> >>> >> >>>>> >Gabriel
> >>> >> >>>>>
> >>> >> >>>>> Dear Gabriel,
> >>> >> >>>>>
> >>> >> >>>>> for details and references, refer to
> >>> >> >>>>>
> >>> >> >>>>>
> https://landsat.gsfc.nasa.gov/landsat-8-thermal-data-ghost-free-after-stray-light-exorcism/
> >>> >> >>>>>
> >>> >> >>>>> Make sure you use the newest Level-1 Collection 1 Landsat 8
> products.
> >>> >> >>>>>
> >>> >> >>>>> I use `i.landsat8.swlst` and plan to improve it further.
> >>> >> >>>>>
> >>> >> >>>>> However, whether to prefer a Split-Window based approach, or
> another
> >>> >> >>>>> Single-Channel one, depends on what you want to do. Think of
> spatial
> >>> >> >>>>> extent and coverage of various land (cover) types, temporal
> extent
> >>> >> >>>>> and more.
> >>> >> >>>>>
> >>> >> >>>>> Thermal remote sensing is hard(er) also because it's hard to
> get
> >>> >> >>>>> ground-truth data sets so as to validate LST estimations.
> >>> >> >>>>>
> >>> >> >>>>> Nikos
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-user/attachments/20190820/652862d6/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the grass-user
mailing list