4.3 Article

Validation of Airborne Hyperspectral Imagery from Laboratory Panel Characterization to Image Quality Assessment: Implications for an Arctic Peatland Surrogate Simulation Site

Journal

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF REMOTE SENSING
Volume 45, Issue 3-4, Pages 476-508

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/07038992.2019.1650334

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. European Space Agency (ESA) Sensor Performance, Products and Algorithms (SPPA) element of the Earth Observation ground segment

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Calibration/validation (cal/val) practices applied to airborne hyperspectral imagery of Arctic regions were developed and assessed as an integrated up-scaling methodology that considers: (i) calibration of a laboratory reflectance reference panel; (ii) cross-calibration of multiple field panels; (iii) quality assurance checks of field spectroscopy data; and, (iv) comparison of results with airborne hyperspectral imagery. Overall errors of up to 27% were reduced to <4% using these methods. Calibration results of the laboratory panel provided an improvement of 1% in the visible, near and lower shortwave infrared regions with respect to best estimates achievable using manufacturer supplied calibration data. This improvement was transferred to field panels using an in-house cross-calibration approach that also allowed panels to be assessed for degradation that occurs during field deployment. Comparison of the field spectroscopy results of four cal/val targets with hyperspectral imagery following atmospheric correction identified discrepancies from 1% to 4% (absolute) between 450 nm and 1050 nm, with errors as high as 27% at lower wavelengths. Application of scene-based refinements using two cal/val targets reduced this error across the entire spectral range (<4%) with the most significant improvements below 500 nm. These methods also have important implications to satellite image analysis, especially in Arctic and northern regions.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available