I performed the H-Alpha classification based on ALOS-2 data and found a mismatch between the class descriptions:
This is the Plot:
These are the class numbers according to the help file:
Accoording to the plot, 9 should be 0%
According to the help, 3 should be 0%
None of them fits the data. Can anyone clarify this? Maybe I am missing an important aspect.
Thanks. We’ll have a look into it.
Apparently the zone definition in the H-Alpha Plane Plot and colour table follows PolSARpro convention while the one in the on-line help follows Lee-Pottier’s convention and this is the cause of the confusion. Now it has been harmonised to use the same zone definition as in PolSARpro. The on-line help has been updated and a short description has been added for each class in the colour table. The fix should be in the next release.
great, thank you so much!
Thank you for your long term support!
Hi, I have a question for interpreting the results. As during the unsupervised Wishart classification the cluster centers are of each class are changed, are the resulting classes still referable to the original H/alpha plane?
Thank you!
Hello ABraun,
I have a confusion about the wishart unsupervised classification method. The classification chart you provided has the images divided into 9 categories (each class has a corresponding percentage, e.g., class_1 has 0.594% ). But, how does this class (i.e., class1-9) correspond to the Z1-Z9 region of H-alpha plane? Are there any books I can refer to?
Look forward to your reply
Best regards
Liu
It is well explained here, but there are other sources as well: Polarimetric Radar Imaging: From Basics to Applications - Jong-Sen Lee, Eric Pottier - Google Books
Hello Abraun,
Great thanks ffor your reply! I will read it carefully.
Best regards
Liu
