topographic correction of landsat etm-images

Download Topographic correction of Landsat ETM-images

Post on 13-Jan-2016




0 download

Embed Size (px)


Topographic correction of Landsat ETM-images. Markus Törmä Finnish Environment Institute Helsinki University of Technology. Background. CORINE2000 classification of whole Finland Forested and natural areas are interpreted using Landsat ETM-image mosaics. Background. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • Topographic correction of Landsat ETM-images Markus TrmFinnish Environment InstituteHelsinki University of Technology

  • BackgroundCORINE2000 classification of whole FinlandForested and natural areas are interpreted using Landsat ETM-image mosaics

  • BackgroundEstimation of continuous variables like tree height and crown coverContinuous variables are transformed to discrete CORINE-classes using IF-THEN-rulesAccording to the test classificatios, there is need for a SIMPLE topographic correction method in Lapland

  • BackgroundLandsat ETM 743, Kevo and digital elevation model

  • BackgroundTested methods:Lambertian cosine correctionMinnaert correctionEkstrand correctionStatistical Empirical correctionC-correction

    Tests:Maximum Likelihood-classification to land cover classesComparison of class statistics between and within classesLinear regression to estimate tree height, tree crown cover and vegetation coverEstimation of tree crown cover and height using Proba-software (VTT)

  • Topografic correctionImaging geometry changes locally causing unwanted brightness changesE.g. deciduous forest looks like more bright on the sunny side that the shadow side of the hill Reflectance is largest when the slope is perpendicular to the incoming radiation

  • Topografic correctionIntensities of image pixels are corrected according to the elevation variations, other properties of the surface are not taken into accountThe angle between the surface normal and incoming radiation is needed Illumination image

  • ExampleLandsat ETM (RGB: 743) and digital elevation model made by National Land Survey

  • ExampleLandsat ETM (RGB: 743) and Illumination image

  • ExampleCorrelation between pixel digital numbers vs. illumination varies between different channels

  • Lambert cosine correctionIt is supposed that the ground surface is lambertian, i.e. reflects radiation equal amounts to different directions

    LC = LO COS(sz) / COS(i)

    LO: original digital number or reflectance of pixelLC: corrected digital numbersz: sun zenith anglei: angle between sun and local surface normal

  • Lambert cosine correctionOriginal and corrected ETM-image Note overcorrection on the shadow side of hills

  • Minnaert correctionConstant k simulates the non-lambertian behaviour of the target surface

    LC = LO [ COS(sz) / COS(i) ]k

    Constant k is channel dependent and determined for each image

  • Minnaert correctionOriginal and corrected ETM-imageStill some overcorrection

  • Ekstrand correctionMinnaert constant k varies according to illumination

    LC = LO [ COS(sz) / COS(i) ]k COS(i)

  • Ekstrand correctionOriginal and corrected ETM-image

  • Determination of Minnaert constant kLinearization of Ekstrand correction equation:-ln LO = k cos i [ ln (cos(sz) / cos(i)) ] ln LC

    Linear regressionLine y = kx + b was adjusted to the digital numbers of the satellite imagey = -ln LOx = cos i [ln(cos(sz) / cos(i))] b = -ln LC

  • Minnaert constant kSamples were taken from imageFlat areas were removed from samplesIn order to study the effect of vegetation to the constant, samples were also stratified into classes according to the NDVI-value

  • Minnaert constant kNDVI classes and their number of samples

    ClassNDVINumber of samplesALL-1 < NDVI < 1162601-1 < NDVI < 0.03520.0 < NDVI < 0.16630.1 < NDVI < 0.280540.2 < NDVI < 0.3259450.3 < NDVI < 0.4925360.4 < NDVI < 0.52780870.5 < NDVI < 0.64411080.6 < NDVI < 0.74567690.7 < NDVI < 0.821014100.8 < NDVI < 0.958

  • Minnaert constant kCorrelation between pixel digital numbers vs. illumination varies between different NDVI-classes on the channel 5

  • Determination of Minnaert constant kDetermined constants k and corresponding correlation coefficients r for different channels

    Ch1 kCh1 rCh2 kCh2 rCh3 kCh3 rCh4 kCh4 rCh5 kCh5 rCh7 kCh7 rALL0.0584 0.06950.22900.19830.2491 0.11421.1042 0.49720.9846 0.38100.7099 0.2243NDVI

  • Statistical-Empirical correctionStatistical-empirical correction is statistical approach to model the relationship between original band and the illumination.

    LC = LO m cos(i)

    m: slope of regression lineGeometrically the correction rotates the regression line to the horizontal to remove the illumination dependence.

  • Statistical-Empirical correctionOriginal and corrected ETM-image

  • C-correctionC-correction is modification of the cosine correction by a factor C which should model the diffuse sky radiation.

    LC = LO [ ( cos(sz) + C ) / ( cos(i) + C ) ]

    C = b/m b and m are the regression coefficients of statistical-empirical correction method

  • C-correctionOriginal and corrected image

  • Determination of slope m and intercept bRegression coefficients for Statistical-empirical and C-correction were determined using linear regressionSlope of regression line m and intercept b were determined using illumination (cos(i)) as predictor variable and channel digital numbers as response variable

  • Determination of slope m and intercept bSlopes m and correlation coefficients r for different channels

    Ch1 mCh1 rCh2 mCh2 rCh3 mCh3 rCh4 mCh4 rCh5 mCh5 rCh7 mCh7 rAll0.0302 0.07710.08510.19200.0799 0.12391.0043 0.54280.7055 0.44970.2768 0.2283NDVI

  • Maximum Likelihood-classificationGround truth: Lapland biotopemap

    ClassTree CrownCover (%)Training compartments, number: pixelsTest compartments,number: pixelsBare rock07: 4687: 487Mineral soil07: 5137: 599Lichen-Twig013: 103012: 930Lichen-Moss-Twig20-3012: 103713: 869Moss-Twig30-4013: 88012: 1101Bogs with trees20-309: 6369: 708Open bogs013: 101012: 885

  • Maximum Likelihood-classificationAccuracy measures: overall accuracy (OA), userss and producers accuracies of classes for training (tr) and test (te) sets

    Original image: Oatr 57.2%, Oate 48.2%Cosine correction: Oatr 60.9%, Oate 51.9%

  • Maximum Likelihood-classificationIn the case of test set, the correction methods usually increased classification accuracy compared to original image

    Stratification using the NDVI-class increases classification accuracy of test pixels in the cases of Ekstrand and Statistical-Empirical correction.

  • Comparison of class statisticsJefferies-Matusita decision theoretic distance:distance between two groups of pixels defined by their mean vectors and covariancematrices

    Distances were compared between classes and within individual classes

  • Comparison of class statisticsBetween-class-comparison14 Biotopemapping classes separability should be as high as possible

    Within-class-comparison7 Biotopemapping classesclasses were divided into subclasses according to the direction of the main slope separability should be as low as possible

  • Comparison of class statisticsBetween-class-comparisonCosine correction and original image best

    Within-class-comparisonStatistical-Empirical correction best, Cosine correction and original image worstThe effect of correction is largest for mineral soil classes and smallest for peat covered soils. Stratification using the NDVI-class decreases the separability of subclasses

  • Linear regressionEstimate tree height, tree crown cover and vegetation cover

    Ground survey300 plots in Kevo region, Northern Lapland Information about vegetation and tree crown cover, tree height and species

  • Linear regressionTree heightStatistical-Empirical bestStratification decreases the correlation a little

    Tree crown coverCosine and C-correction bestStratification decreases the correlation a little

    Vegetation coverC- and Minnaert correction best

  • Estimation of tree crown cover and heightProba-software (Finnish National Research Center)Training (3386) and test (1657) compartments from Lapland Biotopemap, compartmentwise averagesTree height and crown cover were estimated for image pixels and compartment averages computedError measures: Bias, Root Mean Squared Error, Correlation Coefficient

  • Estimation of tree crown cover and heightTree heightC-correction bestTopographic correction and stratification decreases estimation error

    Tree crown coverEkstrand correction bestTopographic correction and stratification decreases estimation error

  • ConclusionTopographic correction improves classification or estimation resultsBut methods perform differently and their performence depends on task at handIn some cases correction even make results worse so it is difficult to choose the best method

  • ConclusionThe best correction methods seem to be C-correction and Ekstrand correction

    The stratification according to the NDVI-class improves results in some cases, depending on the used experiment


View more >