Citation: | Han-qiu XU. Evaluation of Two Absolute Radiometric Normalization Algorithms for Pre-processing of Landsat Imagery. Journal of Earth Science, 2006, 17(2): 146-150, 157. |
In order to evaluate radiometric normalization techniques, two image normalization algorithms for absolute radiometric correction of Landsat imagery were quantitatively compared in this paper, which are the Illumination Correction Model proposed by Markham and Irish and the Illumination and Atmospheric Correction Model developed by the Remote Sensing and GIS Laboratory of the Utah State University. Relative noise, correlation coefficient and slope value were used as the criteria for the evaluation and comparison, which were derived from pseudo-invariant features identified from multitemporal Landsat image pairs of Xiamen (厦门) and Fuzhou (福州) areas, both located in the eastern Fujian (福建) Province of China. Compared with the unnormalized image, the radiometric differences between the normalized multitemporal images were significantly reduced when the seasons of multitemporal images were different. However, there was no significant difference between the normalized and unnormalized images with a similar seasonal condition. Furthermore, the correction results of two algorithms are similar when the images are relatively clear with a uniform atmospheric condition. Therefore, the radiometric normalization procedures should be carried out if the multitemporal images have a significant seasonal difference.
Chander, G., Markham, B., 2003. Revised Landsat-5 TMRadiometric Calibration Procedures and Postca libration Dynamic Ranges. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience andRemote Sensing, 41 (11): 2674 -2677. doi: 10.1109/TGRS.2003.818464 |
Chavez, P. S. Jr., 1996. I mage-Based At mospheric Correc-tions—Revisited and Revised. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 62 (9): 1025 -1036. |
Goward, S. N., Davis, P. E., Fleming, D., et al., 2003. Empirical Comparison of Landsat 7 and IKONOS Multi-spectral Measurements for Selected Earth ObservationSystem (EOS) Validation Sites. Remote Sensing of Environment, 88 (1): 80 -99. |
Heo, J., Fitz Hugh, T. W., 2000. A Standardized Radiomet-ric Normalization Method for Change Detection Using Re-motely Sensed I magery. Photogrammetric Engineering & ;Remote Sensing, 66 (2): 173 -181. |
Homer, C., Huang, C., Yang, L., et al., 2003. Development of a 2001 National Landcover Database for the United States. http://landcover.usgs.gov/pdf/NLCD-pub-august.pdf. |
Irish, R., 2001. Landsat 7 Science Data Users Handbook. http://ltpwww.gsfc.nasa.gov/IAS/handbook/handbook-toc.html. |
Lowry, J., Kirby, J., Langs, L., 2004. SWReGAP LandCover Mapping Methods Documentation. http://earth.gis.usu.edu/swgap/data/landcover/map-methods/UT/UT5-Methods.pdf. |
Markham, B. L., Barker, J. L., 1986. Landsat MSS and TMPost-Calibration Dynamic Ranges, Exoat mospheric Reflec-tances and At-Satellite Temperatures. EOSAT Landsat Technical Notes, (1): 3-8. |
Ramsey, R. D., Wright, D. L. Jr., McGinty, C., 2004. Evaluating the Use of Landsat 30 m Enhanced ThematicMapper to Monitor Vegetation Cover in Shrub-Steppe Envi-ronments. Geocarto International, 19 (2): 39 -47. doi: 10.1080/10106040408542305 |
Wu, W., 2004. Environmental Change Monitoring—A CaseStudy in the Region of Yinchuan, Ningxia, China. MapAsia Conference 2004. http://www.gisdevelopment.net/application/environment/conservation/ma04031c.htm. |