[GRASS-user] A problem with i.gensigset.
joel dinis
dinis.joel at gmail.com
Tue Apr 6 15:59:14 EDT 2010
NO NO NO!
I have 30 CORINE land cover classes to classify.
The number 512, for example, means 5.1.2, is a
nominal number, IS NOT an classe id.
But may be right: may be the way the classes are
represented in the system cause that problem. I'll test
that..
Thanks
JD
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Micha Silver <micha at arava.co.il> wrote:
> joel dinis wrote:
>
> Hello Micha,
>>
>> I put r.info <http://r.info/> -r amostras
>>
>> as sugested, get the following:
>> min=112
>> max=512
>>
>> So, if I understand correctly, you are trying to classify into 400
> separate classes?!
> I'm a beginner with image classification, and others with more experience
> will know better, but I'll bet that's your problem. There must be many
> separate training areas (with different cat values) with a very similar
> spectral signature, and the algorithm is not able to differentiate between
> them.
>
> (This values are index to my classes.)
>>
>> JD
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Micha Silver <micha at arava.co.il <mailto:
>> micha at arava.co.il>> wrote:
>>
>> Nikos Alexandris wrote:
>>
>> (sorry for re-sorting the message, just to keep it easy to
>> follow-up)
>>
>> joel dinis:
>>
>> > I trying to classify remote sensing imagery, and
>> > I thought to try the i.smap module, but
>> > when I run the i.gensigset,
>>
>>
>> Nikos Alexandris:
>>
>> Please, could you copy-paste the exact command you
>> used?
>> Does the "maxsig=" (e.g. maxsig=20) make any
>> difference?
>>
>>
>> joel dinis:
>>
>>
>> In fact, I put maxsig=30.
>> i.gensigset trainingmap=amostras group=grupo subgroup=subgrupo
>> signaturefile=assinaturas maxsig=30
>>
>>
>> What about smaller maxsig's, like:
>>
>> - maxsig=25
>> - maxsig=20
>> - maxsig=15
>>
>> ?
>>
>> Nikos
>>
>>
>> Also it might help to know what is contained in the trainingmap. i.e:
>> r.info <http://r.info> -r amostras
>>
>>
>>
>> > I always
>> > get the same problem:
>> > ...
>> > Removed a singular subsignature number 1 (9 remain)
>> > Removed a singular subsignature number 1 (8 remain)
>> > Removed a singular subsignature number 1 (7 remain)
>> > Removed a singular subsignature number 1 (6 remain)
>> > Removed a singular subsignature number 1 (5 remain)
>> > Removed a singular subsignature number 1 (4 remain)
>> > Removed a singular subsignature number 1 (3 remain)
>> > Removed a singular subsignature number 1 (2 remain)
>> > Removed a singular subsignature number 1 (1 remain)
>> > Unreliable clustering. Try a smaller initial
>> number of
>> clusters
>> > Removed a singular subsignature number 1 (-1 remain)
>> > Unreliable clustering. Try a smaller initial
>> number of
>> clusters
>> > Number of subclasses is 0
>> > Clustering class 12 (184 pixels)...
>> > Removed a singular subsignature number 1 (9 remain)
>> > Removed a singular subsignature number 1 (8 remain)
>> > Removed a singular subsignature number 1 (7 remain)
>> > Removed a singular subsignature number 1 (6 remain)
>> > Removed a singular subsignature number 1 (5 remain)
>> > Removed a singular subsignature number 1 (4 remain)
>> > Removed a singular subsignature number 1 (3 remain)
>> > Removed a singular subsignature number 1 (2 remain)
>> > Removed a singular subsignature number 1 (1 remain)
>> > Unreliable clustering. Try a smaller initial
>> number of
>> clusters
>> > Removed a singular subsignature number 1 (-1 remain)
>> > Unreliable clustering. Try a smaller initial
>> number of
>> clusters
>> > Number of subclasses is 0
>> > i.gensigset complete.
>> >
>> > And afterwards the signature file doesn't have any
>> > spectral information. I really don't understand whats
>> happening
>> > and the cause to this outcome.
>> >
>> > Can anyone solve this "enigma"?
>> >
>> > Ps: I don't know if this information is important: I
>> collected
>> > about 450 samples distributed by 10 classes. I
>> may also
>> > add that the average number of pixels per sample
>> is around
>> 50.
>> >
>> > And thanks list, for the previous tips: they were
>> very
>> useful.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> grass-user mailing list
>> grass-user at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:grass-user at lists.osgeo.org>
>>
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-user
>>
>> This mail was received via Mail-SeCure System.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- Micha Silver
>> Arava Development Co. +972-52-3665918
>> http://www.surfaces.co.il
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This mail was received via Mail-SeCure System.
>>
>
>
> --
> Micha Silver
> Arava Development Co. +972-52-3665918
> http://www.surfaces.co.il
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-user/attachments/20100406/d7472f97/attachment.html
More information about the grass-user
mailing list