4.7 Article

Sub-aperture phase error stitching for full aperture airborne SAL data processing method based on azimuth deramp

Journal

OPTICS AND LASER TECHNOLOGY
Volume 136, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.optlastec.2020.106708

Keywords

SAL; Error stitching; Full aperture; Azimuth deramp; MEA

Funding

  1. National Major in High Resolution Earth Observation [GFZX0403260313, 11-H37B02-9001-19/22]
  2. National key RD plan [2018YFA0701903]
  3. Open Research Fund of State Key Laboratory of Pulsed Power Laser Technology [SKL2018KF06]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The paper proposed a method for processing full-aperture airborne SAL data based on azimuth deramp to improve imaging quality. By estimating the phase error of each sub-aperture and stitching them to obtain the full-aperture phase error, better image resolution and SNR can be achieved.
Synthetic Aperture Ladar (SAL) is a combination of synthetic aperture and lidar. At present, sub-aperture stitching with PGA algorithm is used to realize SAL imaging. However, this algorithm has a low rate of data utilization, resulting in a worse image SNR and resolution. For solving this problem, a method of sub-aperture phase error stitching for full aperture airborne SAL data processing based on azimuth deramp is proposed in this paper. The data is divided into a sequence of sub-apertures and the standard Standard Minimum Entropy Autofocus (MEA) is used to estimate the phase error of each sub-aperture. Then all the phase errors of the subapertures are stitched to obtain the full-aperture phase error. After the compensation of the full-aperture phase error, the full-aperture image is obtained by deramp. Compared with the SAL image obtained by sub-aperture algorithm, the method we proposed can offer better resolution and SNR. Finally, the imaging results of airborne SAL real data verify the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available