<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear Markus,</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks a lot for the clarification and explanation, your response was indeed helpful.<br></div><div><br></div><div>I got for all maps in the mapset I used, for both the DMSP original raster layers and the intercallibrated rasrer layers the following:</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://r.info">r.info</a> map=
name_of_raster_map
<br></div><div><br></div><div>360 degree EW extent is exceeded by 1 cells<br>360 degree EW extent is exceeded by 1 cells <br></div><div><br></div><div>Which, following what you said before in your response I understand makes it correct region, right?</div><div><br></div><div>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?</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>
I'm attaching the log of all the files I got from '<a href="http://r.info">r.info</a>' 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.</div><div><br>
</div><div>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?</div><div><br></div><div>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. <br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Thanks a lot again for your help.</div><div>Kind regards,</div><div>Gabriel</div></div><div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br>
<table style="border-top:1px solid #d3d4de">
<tr>
<td style="width:55px;padding-top:13px"><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon" target="_blank"><img src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif" alt="" width="46" height="29" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;"></a></td>
<td style="width:470px;padding-top:12px;color:#41424e;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;line-height:18px">Virus-free. <a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link" target="_blank" style="color:#4453ea">www.avast.com</a>
</td>
</tr>
</table><a href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1" height="1"></a></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 4:41 PM Markus Metz <<a href="mailto:markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com">markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><br><br>On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 12:05 AM Gabriel Cotlier <<a href="mailto:gabiklm01@gmail.com" target="_blank">gabiklm01@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>><br>> Hello, <br>> My question is how does it influence the fact that it say:<br><div>> 360 degree EW extent is exceeded by 0.999827 cells</div><div><br></div><div>this is caused by the truncated resolution of 0.008333333300000</div><div>with a corrected resolution of 00:00:30, the message is</div><div><br></div>> 360 degree EW extent is exceeded by 1 cells<br><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>HTH,</div><div><br></div><div>Markus M<br></div><div><br></div><div>></div>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> while when I loaded a first file I defined a region as <br>> <br>><br>> which is exactly I suppose the correct region for the DMSP data.... then after loading the other layers it appears: <br>><br>> 360 degree EW extent is exceeded by 0.999827 cells<br>> 360 degree EW extent is exceeded by 1 cells <br>><br>> Thanks a lot<br>> Gabriel <br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 6:54 PM Gabriel Cotlier <<a href="mailto:gabiklm01@gmail.com" target="_blank">gabiklm01@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>>><br>>> 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?<br>>> Thanks a lot.<br>>> Gabriel <br>>><br>>> On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 4:54 PM Gabriel Cotlier <<a href="mailto:gabiklm01@gmail.com" target="_blank">gabiklm01@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>>>><br>>>> Dear Nikos. <br>>>> 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.<br>>>> However in addition my routing also has a for loop which does not work ok as well.<br>>>> I would appreciate a lot of you can give it a look and tell me how to make it work...<br>>>> Thanks a lot in advance<br>>>> Kind regards,<br>>>> Gabriel<br>>>> #####-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>>>> # complete routine for intercalliration of DSMP/OLS light stable product<br>>>><br>>>> import grass.script as gscript<br>>>> import os<br>>>> import os,glob<br>>>><br>>>> # get working directory<br>>>> print os.getcwd()<br>>>><br>>>> # change working directory where raster files are<br>>>> os.chdir('C:\\Users\\Gabriel\\Documents\\grassdata\\lights')<br>>>><br>>>> # see files in directory<br>>>> ls<br>>>><br>>>> # import all raster files to grass --- here is a kind of problem...???<br>>>> for tif_file in glob.glob("*.tif"):<br>>>> new_rast = os.path.splitext(tif_file)[0]<br>>>> grass.run_command("r.in.gdal", flags="a", input=tif_file, output=new_rast)<br>>>><br>>>> # get info of one of the imported raster<br>>>> <a href="http://r.info" target="_blank">r.info</a> map=F121996<br>>>><br>>>> # run intercalliration algorithm<br>>>> 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<br>>>><br>>>> # correct general region adjust to raster file --- here the region is exactly 30 arc for the raster as I could see.... <br>>>> g.region raster=F121996<br>>>><br>>>> # cerate a list of rasters in the mapset<br>>>> # rastlist=grass.read_command("g.list",type="rast").split()<br>>>> rasters = grass.read_command('g.list', type='raster').splitlines()<br>>>> <br>>>> # change working directory<br>>>> os.chdir('C:\\Users\\Gabriel\\Desktop\\out')<br>>>> <br>>>> # save rasters in mapset to file<br>>>> for raster in rasters:<br>>>> grass.run_command('r.out.gdal', input=raster, output=raster + '.tiff', format='GTiff')<br>>>><br>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:06 AM Gabriel Cotlier <<a href="mailto:gabiklm01@gmail.com" target="_blank">gabiklm01@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>>>>><br>>>>> Dear Nikos,<br>>>>><br>>>>> Thanks a lot for your answer and the orientation.<br>>>>> The information and the link are very useful.<br>>>>> Kind regards,<br>>>>> Gabriel<br>>>>><br>>>>><br>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 5:19 AM Nikos Alexandris <<a href="mailto:nik@nikosalexandris.net" target="_blank">nik@nikosalexandris.net</a>> wrote:<br>>>>>><br>>>>>> * Gabriel Cotlier <<a href="mailto:gabiklm01@gmail.com" target="_blank">gabiklm01@gmail.com</a>> [2018-08-21 12:00:24 -0300]:<br>>>>>><br>>>>>> >Dear Nikos and GRASS users,<br>>>>>> ><br>>>>>> >I would like to ask if nonetheless the effect due to "stray light" the<br>>>>>> >*i.landsat8.swlst* code for split window is still applicable to Landsat 8<br>>>>>> >data and whether these error is specially visible on water bodies? and<br>>>>>> >whether band 10 is better than band 11 in terms of correction processing<br>>>>>> >for Level -1 data products?<br>>>>>> ><br>>>>>> >Thanks a lot.<br>>>>>> ><br>>>>>> >Kind regards,<br>>>>>> >Gabriel<br>>>>>><br>>>>>> Dear Gabriel,<br>>>>>><br>>>>>> for details and references, refer to<br>>>>>><br>>>>>> <a href="https://landsat.gsfc.nasa.gov/landsat-8-thermal-data-ghost-free-after-stray-light-exorcism/" target="_blank">https://landsat.gsfc.nasa.gov/landsat-8-thermal-data-ghost-free-after-stray-light-exorcism/</a><br>>>>>><br>>>>>> Make sure you use the newest Level-1 Collection 1 Landsat 8 products.<br>>>>>><br>>>>>> I use `i.landsat8.swlst` and plan to improve it further.<br>>>>>><br>>>>>> However, whether to prefer a Split-Window based approach, or another<br>>>>>> Single-Channel one, depends on what you want to do. Think of spatial<br>>>>>> extent and coverage of various land (cover) types, temporal extent<br>>>>>> and more.<br>>>>>><br>>>>>> Thermal remote sensing is hard(er) also because it's hard to get<br>>>>>> ground-truth data sets so as to validate LST estimations.<br>>>>>><br>>>>>> Nikos</div>
</blockquote></div>