Workflow between SNAP and StaMPS


I tried to use “ps_plot(‘v-do’)” command but I am not getting all the images as I was expecting. What can I do to get all images? (Image attached of v-do)

Good evening, I finally managed to finish the PSI analysis in which I worked with 56 images, take SNAP’s recommendation as a master image. When visualizing the resustados they do not generate confidence, the time intervals between one image and another is 1 month, it is my time series graphs I have very pronounced changes.
Any recommendation?

It depends on your research question how you want to to analyze the results.

Extract from the manual
'w' for wrapped phase
'w-d' for wrapped phase minus smoothed dem error
'w-o' for wrapped phase minus orbital ramps ('w-dm', 'w-do', 'w-dmo')
'p' for spatially filtered wrapped phase
'u' for unwrapped phase
'u-d' for unwrapped phase minus dem error
'u-m' for unwrapped phase minus and master AOE
'u-o' for unwrapped phase minus orbital ramps
'u-a' for unwrapped phase minus topo-correlated atmosphere 
('u-dm', 'u-do', 'u-da', 'u-dmo', 'u-dma', 'u-dms', 'u-dmao', 'u-dmos')
'usb' for unwrapped phase of small baseline ifgs 
('usb-d', 'usb-o', 'usb-a' also 'usb-do','usb-da', 'usb-dao')
'rsb' residual between unwrapped phase of sb ifgs and inverted
'd' for spatially correlated DEM error (rad/m)
'm' for AOE phase due to master
'o' for orbital ramps
's' for atmosphere and orbit error (AOE) phase due to slave
'v' mean LOS velocity (MLV) in mm/yr ('v-d', 'v-o', 'v-a', 'v-do, 
'v-da', 'v-dao')
'vs' standard deviation of MLV (mm/yr) ('vs-d', 'vs-o', also 'vs-do')
'vdrop' MLV calculated from all but current ifg (mm/yr)
'vdrop-o' (also 'vdrop-do')

These might also help:

1 Like

good job! I think intervals of one months are not bad because they allow you to cover large periods with a reasonable amount of images. And despite of single spikes in your graph, you can still detect trends with the third drop-down menu (exemplified here)

You can also exclude large outliers (if the same date is faulty for all points), by removing it from the StaMPS processing by the drop tags described in the manual.

1 Like


I need to do this:

When I plotted ps_plot(‘u’), I got all the unwrapped interferograms (17 for my data) in one image.

I need all the interferograms in one image just like ps_plot(‘u’), but instead of phase angle, I need all values in mm or m. I am trying to get these images just for display purpose. Analysis will be based on time series.


Can you please tell me how did you get time series?

Thank you!

1 Like

Good evening, thank you very much for taking the trouble to reply. I will follow your advice. :slight_smile:

is a viewer created by @thho . Read the thread I provide, it explains everything.

1 Like

how did you solve he problem,can you teach me?please!

@yzxtll: Mehdi’s answer refers to this post - have you considered this?

thank you ,I’v solve the problem successfully even the result is no good.however i have trouble with configuring snappy of SNAP - StaMPS Workflow - 1.1 code(@thho etc.recommanded):when I do step 2.3.1 “Configure snappy SNAP - Python interface” after “1/sudo apt-get update,2/sudo apt-get install python-jpy,3/cd /home/yzx/snap/bin, 4/./snappy-conf /home/yzx/anaconda2/bin/python2,5/cp,6/spyder”,terminal seems frozen ?

Ask for help!
I have finished all the steps of SNAP and StaMPS,and get the plot.But i want use these results to other applications for further analysis.But i don’t know how to convert the format of the result.Please give me some hints,thanks!

Please have a look at this post: The results of Dinsar to Matlab
It describes how to get a shapefile with the average displacement.

If you need more advanced functionalities, there is the StaMPS-Visualizer, SNAP-StaMPS Workflow

Is ESD can increase the precision of PSI about StaMPS to work after pre-processing in SNAP(before deburst after stack)?I read through the forum finding whether or not implement ESD step is ambiguous ,someone is is ingored where other masters recommanded

If you only work with one burst, you don’t apply ESD. If you use more than one bursts, you should apply it after BackGeocoding.

Hi @ABraun, instead I have a doubt about TOPSAR Deburst in the PS processing. Is it better apply it before or after Interferogram formation? I read different points of view about this. Thanks in advance.

I always apply it afterwards.

1 Like

it would depend of the conditions, as @ABraun says, if you work with only 1 burst, you surely do not needed.

From once side, and following your above sentence,… I would ask who is this someone? If masters recommend it, I would trust masters, as they normally do science since decades, and this someone could be introducing error in his and your measurements if his assumptions are wrong.

From other side, if this someone, tried, tested, and published recognised works doing it in that way… then give a try. Again… it depends if you then do any type of check or do post-processing to verify that the assumption taken is valid.

From my understanding when you use several burst and you want a good coregistration for InSAR using Sentinel-1 TOPSAR, you need at 1/1000 pixel accuracy, that can only be reached using ESD over areas with medium/high coherence level. This I have listened from JPL, DLR, ESA and other so-called ‘masters’. So I follow their advice.

However, and depending of what is your goal, you can always try both options and evaluate their implication in the final results, so you can draw your own conclusions. And then share it with the community. :wink:

1 Like

so clear idea is ,as sentinel 1’s dpi is 5m20m,It can increase the precision of 5000mm1/1000pixel=5mm*20mm using ESD ,It is a huge precision improvement in PSI ,am I right?

As explained here by @lveci: TOPSAR Coregistration

Range and Azimuth shift apply the enhanced spectral diversity (see references).
Basically it takes advantage of the overlap between bursts to fine tune the coregistration. Generally the backgeocoding is accurate and the ESD can provide a pixel or sub-pixel shift to improve the coregistration.

P. Prats-Iraola, R. Scheiber, L. Marotti, S. Wollstadt, and A. Reigber, “TOPS interferometry with TerraSAR-X,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 50, no. 8, pp. 3179–3188, 2012

R. Scheiber and A. Moreira, “Coregistration of interferometric SAR images using spectral diversity,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 2179–2191, July 2000

A clear sentence can be found in the abstract of Yuxiao Qin, D. Perissin and Jing Bai:

saying: “In Sentinel-1 TOPS mode, the antenna sweeps in the azimuth direction for the purpose of illuminating the targets with the entire azimuth antenna pattern (AAP). This azimuth sweeping introduces an extra high-frequency Doppler term into the impulse response function (IRF), which poses a more strict coregistration accuracy for the interferometric purpose. A 1/1000 pixel coregistration accuracy is required for the interferometric phase error to be negligible, and the enhanced spectral diversity (ESD) method is applied for achieving such accuracy. However, since ESD derives miscoregistration from cross-interferometric phase, and phase is always wrapped to [ − π , π ) , an initial coregistration method with enough accuracy is required to resolve the phase ambiguity in ESD.

You can go more in detail with it so will get a deeper understanding.
I hope this clarifies your doubts…