Comparison of Topographic Correction Methods
A comparison of topographic correction methods is conducted for Landsat-5 TM, Landsat-7 ETM+, and SPOT-5 imagery from different geographic areas and seasons. Three successful and known methods are compared: the semi-empirical C correction, the Gamma correction depending on the incidence and exitance...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2009-07-01
|
| Series: | Remote Sensing |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/1/3/184/ |
| _version_ | 1818775415214309376 |
|---|---|
| author | Rudolf Richter Tobias Kellenberger Hermann Kaufmann |
| author_facet | Rudolf Richter Tobias Kellenberger Hermann Kaufmann |
| author_sort | Rudolf Richter |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | A comparison of topographic correction methods is conducted for Landsat-5 TM, Landsat-7 ETM+, and SPOT-5 imagery from different geographic areas and seasons. Three successful and known methods are compared: the semi-empirical C correction, the Gamma correction depending on the incidence and exitance angles, and a modified Minnaert approach. In the majority of cases the modified Minnaert approach performed best, but no method is superior in all cases. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-18T10:56:40Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-1ea711783c7d41e7ad35cd64f44070d9 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2072-4292 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-18T10:56:40Z |
| publishDate | 2009-07-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Remote Sensing |
| spelling | doaj.art-1ea711783c7d41e7ad35cd64f44070d92022-12-21T21:10:18ZengMDPI AGRemote Sensing2072-42922009-07-011318419610.3390/rs1030184Comparison of Topographic Correction MethodsRudolf RichterTobias KellenbergerHermann KaufmannA comparison of topographic correction methods is conducted for Landsat-5 TM, Landsat-7 ETM+, and SPOT-5 imagery from different geographic areas and seasons. Three successful and known methods are compared: the semi-empirical C correction, the Gamma correction depending on the incidence and exitance angles, and a modified Minnaert approach. In the majority of cases the modified Minnaert approach performed best, but no method is superior in all cases.http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/1/3/184/topographyCGammaand modified Minnaert methodsmulti-sensor imagery |
| spellingShingle | Rudolf Richter Tobias Kellenberger Hermann Kaufmann Comparison of Topographic Correction Methods Remote Sensing topography C Gamma and modified Minnaert methods multi-sensor imagery |
| title | Comparison of Topographic Correction Methods |
| title_full | Comparison of Topographic Correction Methods |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of Topographic Correction Methods |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Topographic Correction Methods |
| title_short | Comparison of Topographic Correction Methods |
| title_sort | comparison of topographic correction methods |
| topic | topography C Gamma and modified Minnaert methods multi-sensor imagery |
| url | http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/1/3/184/ |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT rudolfrichter comparisonoftopographiccorrectionmethods AT tobiaskellenberger comparisonoftopographiccorrectionmethods AT hermannkaufmann comparisonoftopographiccorrectionmethods |