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


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:
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:

The coherence between 05.04 and 06.04. also is not so bad.
Try a larger fineRegistrationWindow. I think the initial
offset between master and slave, calculated based on the orbits,
is larger for this image pair.

my registration parameters:

the multilook parameters:

the coherence map:

statistics of the coherence map:

1 Like