<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.Shkpostityyli18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-ligatures:none;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 2.0cm 70.85pt 2.0cm;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="FI" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Hi,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">In terrestrial applications (thermal cameras) I think I have only seen MWIR and LWIR, and due to the atmospheric windows the first typically means about 3,5-5um and the latter 8-14um.
Such instruments usually support only either MWIR or LWIR. I think it would be good to separate MWIR and LWIR.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">-Jukka Rahkonen-<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Lähettäjä:</b> gdal-dev <gdal-dev-bounces@lists.osgeo.org>
<b>Puolesta </b>Daniel Evans via gdal-dev<br>
<b>Lähetetty:</b> lauantai 31. elokuuta 2024 21.54<br>
<b>Vastaanottaja:</b> Even Rouault <even.rouault@spatialys.com><br>
<b>Kopio:</b> gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org<br>
<b>Aihe:</b> Re: [gdal-dev] Extending GDAL Color Interpretation enumeration for infra-red bands (+ band wavelength) ?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Even,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Firstly, I'll state my bias as someone involved in the production of thermal MWIR EO data (3.5-5um) - unsurprisingly, I'd like some classification that fits my data :-)<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">> classifications...<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The NIR - SWIR - MWIR - LWIR classification scheme is by far the most common I've encountered in earth observation. I've never encountered the CIE scheme or the ISO 20473 scheme in EO - the ISO definition of Mid(wave) Infrared extending
all the way out to 30um is definitely not typical usage.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thermal Infrared (TIR) can be used as a blanket term for MWIR and LWIR. I don't know if GDAL users would find it useful to split the two, or just have a broad TIR classification; MWIR data products are still relatively rare.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I'm not immediately aware of any commonly used Far Infrared (>15um) EO data products.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On the two Github links you shared, some thoughts are:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">- Both lack any entry covering the MWIR (~3-5um)<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">- The "Thermal" definition on the second link is LWIR only, not the more normal MWIR+LWIR definition<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">- The second link in particular is heavily aimed at describing Sentinel and Landsat - not unfair, given that they are the most widely used IR datasets! However, the subclassifications in the second link - "NIR", "NIR 2", "SWIR 1", "SWIR
2", "Thermal 1", "Thermal 2" - are not generic terms in my experience. The terms in the first link (swir16, swir22, lwir11, lwir12) are more familiar if GDAL were to go to that level of detail, but I think you'd still need generic "swir"/"lwir" names to cover
data that don't match the Sentinel/Landsat ecosystem.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">> FWHM and Central Wavelength<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I think this is the most sensible description of a band.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I would be in favour of your suggestion of making them generic across all bands via the IMAGERY metadata, not just IR. The increasing number of multispectral/hyperspectral EO missions mean that simple RGB classifications for optical data
without further description are not always appropriate. The stac-extensions repo already shows the addition of extra terms like "coastal", "green05", and "yellow" to further define optical bands.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">No strong opinions personally on whether that wider definition uses nm or um for the unit, but perhaps others have a strong opinion on "red" being "650nm" vs. "0.65um"?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Cheers,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Daniel<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Sat, 31 Aug 2024 at 15:22, Even Rouault via gdal-dev <<a href="mailto:gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org">gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi,<br>
<br>
The GDAL Color Interpretation enumeration is a good start, but is quite <br>
limited regarding band spectral properties with just Red, Green, Bland, <br>
and nothing for other band wavelengths, particularly for infra-red.<br>
<br>
I was looking a bit at the classifications at <br>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared#Regions" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared#Regions</a> , and there are several
<br>
ones, like the "commonly used subdivision scheme" (NIR, SWIR, MWIR, <br>
LWIR, FIR) or "CIE division scheme" (IR-A, IR-B, IR-C) or "ISO 20743 <br>
scheme" (NIR, MIR, FIR).<br>
<br>
My inclination would rather to re-use the STAC EO classification at <br>
<a href="https://github.com/stac-extensions/eo?tab=readme-ov-file#common-band-names" target="_blank">https://github.com/stac-extensions/eo?tab=readme-ov-file#common-band-names</a>,
<br>
which shows a lot of similarities with <br>
<a href="https://github.com/awesome-spectral-indices/awesome-spectral-indices#expressions" target="_blank">https://github.com/awesome-spectral-indices/awesome-spectral-indices#expressions</a>
<br>
, and has a nice mapping with a few popular instruments.<br>
<br>
While we are it, should we standardize central wavelength and full width <br>
half max (FWHM), has special properties of a bands rather than generic <br>
text-based metadata, like:<br>
<br>
double GDALRasterBand::GetCentralWaveLengthMicrometer() -> NaN if unknown<br>
double GDALRasterBand::GetFWHMMicrometer() -> NaN if unknown<br>
void GDALRasterBand::SetCentralWaveLengthMicrometer(double)<br>
void GDALRasterBand::SetFWHMMicrometer(double)<br>
<br>
Or maybe just standardize a "CENTRAL_WAVELENGTH" and "FWHM" metadata <br>
items in the "IMAGERY" metadata domain: <br>
<a href="https://gdal.org/en/latest/user/raster_data_model.html#imagery-domain-remote-sensing" target="_blank">https://gdal.org/en/latest/user/raster_data_model.html#imagery-domain-remote-sensing</a>
<br>
?<br>
<br>
Thoughts?<br>
<br>
Even<br>
<br>
-- <br>
<a href="http://www.spatialys.com/" target="_blank">http://www.spatialys.com</a><br>
My software is free, but my time generally not.<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
gdal-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>