I also would like to ask if it is okay to stack 2 SAR images from different frames but from the same path and with the same polarizations. Thank you.
this one? Subsidence map in 3d view
@ABraun, yes! Thank you so much! So basically, with regards to time and distance, the shorter the temporal baseline (days) and perpendicular baseline (meters) the better the coherence. Am I correct? I’ve read some papers while waiting for this graph and the findings are like that.
This is true for the temporal baseline.
The perpendicular baseline is more indifferent. For example, for DEM generation, 150-300 meters are stated most suitable.
Thank you, again! So the effect of perpendicular baseline is indifferent! For my preliminary study, the longest and shortest perpendicular baselines were 97m and 18m, respectively. These do not fall in the range of optimum perpendicular baseline. Will it still be okay? I see some published papers with the same case I have.
For the mean time, I am more focus on the effect of temporal baseline on coherence. Below is a summary showing the relationship between the two I have obtained. Could you tell if this is reasonable? The images I’ve acquired were between October 2014 and December 2016. I have a total of 8 images creating 7 pairs. My master image is the October 2014 SAR image and the slave images have intervals of approximately 3 months from each other.
I also would like to ask if there is any recommended value for coherence to get reliable displacement estimation? Presently, I’ve set mine to 0.50 and above.
Also, can I stack images from the following situations?
- Same path, same polarization, different frame
- Same path, different polarization, different frame
Thank you, and my apologies for asking too many questions.
I explained this in here,
Sentinel-1 doesn’t provide data above 150 m (unfortunately), so this is okay. I’d still say, the longer the better.
Coherence image look reasonable, I think most of the decorrelation (decrease of coherence) happens during the first month.
The SInCohMap project investigates the utility of coherence for mapping landcover: https://sincohmap.org/
On ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/project/SINCOHMAP-Exploitation-of-Sentinel-1-Interferometric-Coherence-for-Land-Cover-and-Vegetation-Mapping
Let me ask you beforehand, Does the P01-P20 represents the selected points? Or Do they represent the coherence of each the whole processed stacked pair?
In general, yes it is reasonable, it reflects the de-correlation of your AOI, which leads to decrease the coherence with time,
I think the threshold of coherence could be coherence >= 0.4 means the 0.4 is included, it’s also depends on the technique you’d like to implement of InSAR for instance PSI, SBAS, et.al,
For this please take a look at the previous post,
I think this is not supported by SNAP at the moment if you mean VV-VH in case this is what you’re looking for. …
P01-P20 were selected points in my AOI. I’ve selected these points or pixels that showed high coherence (0.50 and above) from my previous set of images (from another path with same frames and polarization which is VV). But I was surprised when I used another set of images and analysis schedule. I did coherence mask and those points (almost all) were gone for temporal baseline greater than 96 days. But of course, I’ve managed to get the coherence values less than 0.50 as well as the corresponding displacement of these selected pixels. Below is my displacement vs temporal baseline summary. Zero (0) baseline is my single master image. I just do not know yet if this graph is ‘interpretable’.
I see. So mine is high in this case. I’ve read some papers and the lowest limitation of coherence I saw was 0.10. I think this is very low and will not give reliable results.
In general as I mentioned before these results are reasonable, but according to statistics method the neutrality should be taken in account in order to selecting samples, the best way of that is the random selections (of course there are many methods for sample selecting) But in your case here you decided to select the coherence > 0.5 , ,
I’d suggest to you to compare the coherence of the whole interfereograms, in that case when you’ll get similar to the results you got, this will promote your work.
Would you please to add up the reference in here, But basically the <=0.35 is not coherent, I think in case you mentioned, the researchers tried up to retrieve the coherence as much as they could. Furthermore because of the low coh. in their AOI, But please add up the reference in here.
I have acquired 17 images between 2014-10 and 2016-12, Path 127, Frame 120, VV, Ascending Orbit.
I also have acquired 6 images between 2015-11 and 2016-04, Path 127, Frame 119, VV, Ascending Orbit. These 6 images actually fill the big gap that I have between 2014-10 and 2016-12.
I also have acquired 1 image on 2016-07 which also is in the gap also, Path 127, Frame 117, VV+VH, Ascending Orbit.
I will try to stack two images from different frames and see how if it works. Or would you tell me already if it will work?
I will not try stacking images with different polarizations.
It was a proceeding paper in 2016. Land Subsidence Detection using Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) in Sidoarjo Mudflow Area by Yulyta et al.
Please make your answer within one post, to be easier to follow, and also, would you please to add the link of this article,
I see. Thank you so much! You and especially @falahfakhri are very patient in responding to my queries. Thank you so much. I really appreciate your help.
Would you please to add up the identifier name of these two different frame images!
These images cover my AOI.
Path 127, Frame 119
Path 127, Frame 120
As I explained to you, it is not possible to process different frames images, because it is not possible to get the identical bursts of AOI form both within the same sub-swath,
These are your images,
Similarly to the case I explained in here,
Or it is possible in case of corresponding bursts of both frames The bursts are aligned to start at the same position along the orbit at millisecond-level.