2007
DOI: 10.14358/pers.73.4.361
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Comparison of Four Common Atmospheric Correction Methods

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
56
0
1

Year Published

2012
2012
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 124 publications
(60 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
3
56
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…However, the bands in the visible and near-infrared regions indicated a statistically-significant difference in the configuration of the groups of algorithms. These findings are consistent with those reported by Mahiny and Turner [69], who compared the first four bands of the Landsat TM sensor under five radiometric correction methods (two relative approaches: pseudo invariant features (PIF) and radiometric control sets (RCS); and three absolute approaches: COST, 6S and ToA), showing that in most cases, the four bands produced significantly different results.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…However, the bands in the visible and near-infrared regions indicated a statistically-significant difference in the configuration of the groups of algorithms. These findings are consistent with those reported by Mahiny and Turner [69], who compared the first four bands of the Landsat TM sensor under five radiometric correction methods (two relative approaches: pseudo invariant features (PIF) and radiometric control sets (RCS); and three absolute approaches: COST, 6S and ToA), showing that in most cases, the four bands produced significantly different results.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…Raw at-sensor data has been modified by a combination of effects that include surface conditions, atmospheric effects, topographic effects and sensor characteristics [22,23]. These effects obscure the true surface reflectance properties and diminish the capacity to extract accurate quantitative information from remotely sensed imagery.…”
Section: Uav Multispectral Sensorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This method uses only the cosine of the sun zenith angle (cos(TZ)) as an acceptable parameter for approximating the effects of atmospheric gas absorption and Rayleigh scattering, hence the name COST [44]. Similar to Landsat TM sensors, the COST method is effective for HJ-1A/1B satellite CCD images.…”
Section: The Cost (Cosine Of the Sun Zenith Angle (Cos(tz))) Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%