4.6 Article

Performance of Three Reflectance Calibration Methods for Airborne Hyperspectral Spectrometer Data

Journal

SENSORS
Volume 9, Issue 2, Pages 794-813

Publisher

MOLECULAR DIVERSITY PRESERVATION INTERNATIONAL-MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/s90200794

Keywords

Reflectance retrieval; hyperspectral reflectance; airborne remote sensing; sensor calibration; radiometry

Funding

  1. NASA EOS [NNG04GL88G, NNX08AC52A]
  2. NASA [NNX08AC52A, 102978] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, the performances and accuracies of three methods for converting airborne hyperspectral spectrometer data to reflectance factors were characterized and compared. The reflectance mode (RM) method, which calibrates a spectrometer against a white reference panel prior to mounting on an aircraft, resulted in spectral reflectance retrievals that were biased and distorted. The magnitudes of these bias errors and distortions varied significantly, depending on time of day and length of the flight campaign. The linear-interpolation (LI) method, which converts airborne spectrometer data by taking a ratio of linearly-interpolated reference values from the preflight and post-flight reference panel readings, resulted in precise, but inaccurate reflectance retrievals. These reflectance spectra were not distorted, but were subject to bias errors of varying magnitudes dependent on the flight duration length. The continuous panel (CP) method uses a multi-band radiometer to obtain continuous measurements over a reference panel throughout the flight campaign, in order to adjust the magnitudes of the linear-interpolated reference values from the preflight and post-flight reference panel readings. Airborne hyperspectral reflectance retrievals obtained using this method were found to be the most accurate and reliable reflectance calibration method. The performances of the CP method in retrieving accurate reflectance factors were consistent throughout time of day and for

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available