<div dir="ltr">Dear Markus,<div>Thanks a lot for your response and explanation. </div><div>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?</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks again for your help.</div><div>regards,</div><div>Gabriel</div><div> </div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 4:24 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">Dear Gabriel,<br><br>On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 12:19 AM Gabriel Cotlier <<a href="mailto:gabiklm01@gmail.com" target="_blank">gabiklm01@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>><br>> Dear Markus,<br>><br>> Thanks a lot for the clarification and explanation, your response was indeed helpful.<br>><br>> I got for all maps in the mapset I used, for both the DMSP original raster layers and the intercallibrated rasrer layers the following:<br>><br>> <a href="http://r.info" target="_blank">r.info</a> map= name_of_raster_map <br>><br>> 360 degree EW extent is exceeded by 1 cells<br>> 360 degree EW extent is exceeded by 1 cells<br>><br><div>> Which, following what you said before in your response I understand makes it correct region, right?</div><div><br></div><div>this region is correct considering the resolution with is now exactly 30 arc seconds.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>Markus M</div><div><br></div><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?<br>><br>><br>> I'm attaching the log of all the files I got from '<a href="http://r.info" target="_blank">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.<br>><br>> 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?<br>><br>> 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>><br>><br>> Thanks a lot again for your help.<br>> Kind regards,<br>> Gabriel<br>><br>> Virus-free. <a href="http://www.avast.com" target="_blank">www.avast.com</a><br>><br>> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 4:41 PM Markus Metz <<a href="mailto:markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com" target="_blank">markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>>><br>>><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>>> > 360 degree EW extent is exceeded by 0.999827 cells<br>>><br>>> this is caused by the truncated resolution of 0.008333333300000<br>>> with a corrected resolution of 00:00:30, the message is<br>>><br>>> > 360 degree EW extent is exceeded by 1 cells<br>>><br>>> 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.<br>>><br>>> 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.<br>>><br>>> HTH,<br>>><br>>> Markus M<br>>><br>>> ><br>>> ><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>