Dear all,
could someone tell me if work out sigma0 band from the “calibration” processor is better than working out it from the “terrain correction” processor or not?
Thank you so much.
Piero
ABraun
March 3, 2017, 8:47pm
#2
please have a look here - i compared the results:
I did a few tests because I still wonder about the best pre-processing parameters for Sentinel-1.
I therefore downloaded a Scene from 12.09.2016 which covers Cyprus (GRD and SLC). I chose this area due to its topographic complexity and the little vegetation cover.
S1AIW_GRDH_1SDV_20160912T035113_20160912T035136_013014_0149C4_6E2F_ S1AIW_SLC__1SDV_20160912T035112_20160912T035136_013014_0149C4_CF51_
I wanted to see the change in the result if different input data and modules are applied. Th…
Especially lvecis answer is interesting for your case:
Andreas, thanks for the comparison. Indeed the terrain flattening should replace the radiometric normalization. The normalization has been there since NEST. I'm not sure if there is any advantage to leave in the software multiple ways of doing similar things with new methods added in over time. I suppose each user could determine which works best for their particular scenario and data. However, if something is clearly replaced by a better method then we should remove the obsolete method.
That looks interesting! Thank you!