[GRASS-user] question on Stray light Landsat 8 data
Gabriel Cotlier
gabiklm01 at gmail.com
Tue Aug 20 12:49:30 PDT 2019
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)
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/20190820/66bdf4e4/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the grass-user
mailing list