4.7 Article

Radiometric Re-Compensation of Sentinel-1 SAR Data Products for Artificial Biases due to Antenna Pattern Changes

期刊

REMOTE SENSING
卷 15, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/rs15051377

关键词

synthetic aperture radar (SAR); Sentinel-1; radar backscatter; radiometric accuracy; SAR system calibration

向作者/读者索取更多资源

SAR data products for Sentinel-1 have been freely available since 2014, and this paper introduces a method for correcting changes due to updates without reprocessing SAR data products. The method was applied to data acquisitions at the DLR calibration site and showed improved radiometric accuracy for almost five years.
SAR data products for Sentinel-1 have been freely available and delivered operationally on behalf of the European Space Agency since the routine operation of Sentinel-1A in 2014. These products were delivered using the best knowledge at their processing time, in particular with respect to the radiometric calibration. As reprocessing of SAR data products is not foreseen in the nominal processing chain of Sentinel-1, changes of applied processing parameters impact the SAR data quality and can be a disturbing factor for long-term monitoring of radiometric features. In particular, antenna pattern updates produce artificial radiometric steps which are visible in radar backscatter time series, especially in case of monitoring radiometric stable reference targets. This paper introduces a method for correcting changes due to such updates without the need of reprocessing SAR data products. The method was applied to long-lasting time series of data acquisitions which are used to monitor the radiometric performance with reference targets at the DLR calibration site. It has been shown that artificial steps due to antenna pattern updates disappear in backscatter timelines after correct application. Furthermore, the derived absolute radiometric accuracy was improved for the joint observation period of S1A and S1B for almost five years until December 2021.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据