2000
DOI: 10.1117/12.410341
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Status of atmospheric correction using a MODTRAN4-based algorithm

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
103
0
4

Year Published

2010
2010
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
5
5

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 218 publications
(108 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
1
103
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…The best results were obtained for the moderately turbid waters of Type B. This can be explained by several reasons: (i) a large error is induced by atmospheric correction in cloud-shadowed (Matthew et al, 2000) and hazy regions which prevail offshore the Berau estuary; (ii) relatively large errors are induced by model parameterization and inversion in turbid waters; (iii) an error can be induced by model parameterization and inversion in clear water areas affected by bottom reflectance. The relative contribution of these different error components to the total uncertainty in derived IOP was estimated for the same model as used in this study and MERIS sensor to be about 46-50% for atmosphere correction, 40-45% for model parameterization-inversion, and 5-13% for sensor noise (Salama & Stein, 2009).…”
Section: Colored Dissolved Organic Matter (Cdom)mentioning
confidence: 82%
“…The best results were obtained for the moderately turbid waters of Type B. This can be explained by several reasons: (i) a large error is induced by atmospheric correction in cloud-shadowed (Matthew et al, 2000) and hazy regions which prevail offshore the Berau estuary; (ii) relatively large errors are induced by model parameterization and inversion in turbid waters; (iii) an error can be induced by model parameterization and inversion in clear water areas affected by bottom reflectance. The relative contribution of these different error components to the total uncertainty in derived IOP was estimated for the same model as used in this study and MERIS sensor to be about 46-50% for atmosphere correction, 40-45% for model parameterization-inversion, and 5-13% for sensor noise (Salama & Stein, 2009).…”
Section: Colored Dissolved Organic Matter (Cdom)mentioning
confidence: 82%
“…Other Landsat and SPOT images were atmospherically corrected and converted into surface reflectance with the Fast Line-of-sight Atmospheric Analysis of Spectral Hypercubes (FLAASH, Matthew et al, 2000) method using ENVI 5.1. For coherence within the time series, the same FLAASH parameters (US atmospheric model, 40 km initial visibility, maritime aerosol model) were applied.…”
Section: Data Processing 231 Satellite Data Processingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Atmospheric correction was carried out using the Fast Line-of-sight Atmospheric Analysis of Spectral Hypercubes (FLAASH) method [56]. The FLAASH model corrects wavelengths in the visible-mid infrared spectra and it includes an updated MODTRAN4 radiation transfer module [57]. The FLAASH atmospheric correction used the average height at each of the study sites within each image, and day visibility values derived from the nearest meteorological station (airport of Bogotá El Dorado, about 30 km distance from the plots) as inputs.…”
Section: Data Pre-processingmentioning
confidence: 99%