Interferometry experiments using ICEYE data

hi all
I’ve been studying on the forum for a while now and I really enjoy the various discussions about SAR. I tried interferometry with ICEYE data and it worked fine… Below are the results of the interferometry experiments, any discussion and suggestions would be greatly appreciated :smile:

Dataset provided by ICEYE here[Beyond Change Detection: Measuring the Changes that Matter]
Below are two images for interferometry (preprocessed for viewing only, SLC required for interferometry)


I used SNAP for data processing, the steps are the same as regular interferometry steps; InSAR stack information:


and the the coherence plot and the interferometric phase plot:


(It should be noted that the flat-earth phase has been removed from the interferometric phase)

In regions of high coherence, the interferometric phase has good continuity

4 Likes

Looks great! Can you share the workflow you used to create the data?

I tried to create a stack and coregister it using CreateStack but it have errors saying something about an empty or null string somewhere.

Try DEM-assisted co-registation instead.

thanks :grin: sure
My processing steps are consistent with the ESA “Interferometry Tutorial with Radarsat-2” manual, and I used “Radar—— Coregistration——Coregistration”


The processing steps and the obtained products catalog are as follows:
image
Hope it helps you :wink:

The initial results are not so good when I try to use DEM-assisted co-registration. Perhaps because ICEYE is a high resolution SAR and the free DEMs are not so compatible due to wavelength/resolution differences. But I will keep trying with it.

Is it possible to declare this as a possible bug @mengdahl ? I’m able to run the coregistration process if it’s using the SNAP GUI as mentioned by Nijat but this means that I have no way of automating this process due to errors with the graph. I’m using SNAP Sentinel-1 Toolbox 9.0.2.

@Nijat Do you mind sharing the parameters you’ve used for the workflow? I just tried it with default parameters and it’s not so good.

When I try to process ICEYE, my coherence is only up to 0.4 and the coherence map is really unreadable. But I see your coherence map is really good.

EDIT: I got better results once I used the April 6 and April 7 pair. April 5 and April 6 don’t seem to work that well. Here are the results with completely default settings following the workflow you shared.

Sure. :grin: the coherence between April 5 and April 6 pair is really not good.
The following are the registration parameters (April 6 and April 7 pair)

and the Multilook parameters:

the coherence map: