CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 10Calibration and Measurement TechniquesSatellite Image Processing and PhotogrammetryRemote Sensing in Agriculture

Cross Calibration of Formosat-2 Remote Sensing Instrument (RSI) Using Terra Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER)

Kamei, Akihide, Nakamura, Kazuki, Yamamoto, Hirokazu, Nakamura, Ryosuke, Tsuchida, Satoshi, Yamamoto, Naotaka, Sekiguchi, Satoshi, Kato, Soushi, Liu, Cheng-Chien, Hsu, Kuo-Hsien, Wu, An-Ming·2012·IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing
DOI 10.1109/tgrs.2012.2194155
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The present paper describes the cross calibration of the Remote Sensing Instrument (RSI) onboard Formosat-2 using the Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) onboard Terra as a reference, which has been continuously calibrated by means of the onboard and vicarious calibration methods. The data integration system for multi-satellite sensor databases on the Global Earth Observation Grid (GEO Grid) is used in order to find pairs of images acquired by both satellite optical sensors over the radiometric calibration sites on the same days. Radiative transfer simulations that consider different imaging conditions using the Second Simulation of a Satellite Signal in the Solar Spectrum (6S) code are performed based on the Moderate-resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) atmosphere and land products, and the optimum methodology for this cross calibration is discussed under the assumption of no ground-based measurements. The derived calibration coefficients are normalized by the values of preflight calibration and are compared with the results of in-flight cross calibration by the Centre National d'Études Spatiales (CNES) and vicarious calibration described in our previous paper. The average degradations of sensor sensitivity since preflight calibration until 2009 are estimated to be 10% (Band2), 11% (Band3), and 8% (Band4). The derived long-term degradation trends are almost consistent with the results of our vicarious calibration within the precision. The cross-calibration methodology used in the present paper facilitates the in-flight radiometric calibration of satellite optical sensors.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tgrs.2012.2194155

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Calibration methods suffer from a reduction in accuracy, possible errors in the calibration coefficients, and increased frequency of recalibration due to sensor degradation.

    “Calibration methods suffer from a reduction in accuracy (Sun & Xiong, 2020;Yu & Wu, 2009), possible errors in the calibration coefficients (Kamei, Nakamura, Yamamoto, Nakamura, Tsuchida, Yamamoto and Wu, 2012), and increased frequency of recalibration (Aldrin, Medina, Allwine, QadeerAhmed, Fisher, Knopp and Lindgren, 2007).”

    From Impact of Sensor Degradation on Measurement Uncertainty in Prognostics and Maintenance Decision-Making: (2025) · cites this paper as Kamei, Nakamura, Yamamoto, Nakamura, Tsuchida, Yamamoto and Wu, 2012

  • Sensitivity degradation is associated with optical sensors.

    “It was mentioned to be associated with optical sensors (Kamei et al., 2012).”

    From Impact of Sensor Degradation on Measurement Uncertainty in Prognostics and Maintenance Decision-Making: (2025) · cites this paper as Kamei et al., 2012

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. strahler, 1999, MODIS BRDF/Albedo product Algorithm theoretical basis document version 5 0
  2. hubanks, 2008, MODIS atmosphere L3 gridded productAlgorithm theoretical basis document
  3. 10.1364/AO.45.006762 · DOI
  4. 10.1109/IGARSS.2010.5649178 · DOI
  5. 10.1016/0034-4257(92)90080-4 · DOI
  6. 10.1109/TGRS.2003.813211 · DOI
  7. seemann, 2006, MODIS atmospheric profile retrievalAlgorithm theoretical basis document
  8. gao, 1998, The MODIS near-IR water vapor algorithm product ID MOD05Total precipitation water
  9. levy, 2009, Algorithm for Remote Sensing of Tropospheric Aerosol Over Dark Targets From MODIS Collections 005 and 051 Revision 2
  10. 10.1364/AO.46.004455 · DOI
  11. 10.1109/TGRS.2003.813210 · DOI
  12. 10.1016/0034-4257(94)90145-7 · DOI
  13. 10.1109/LGRS.2004.831202 · DOI
  14. 10.1109/TGRS.2009.2025270 · DOI
  15. 10.1109/TGRS.2009.2018118 · DOI
  16. 10.1109/TGRS.2010.2048714 · DOI
  17. 10.1109/TGRS.2007.907426 · DOI
  18. 10.1109/TGRS.2009.2013206 · DOI
  19. 10.1109/JPROC.2009.2035355 · DOI
  20. 2002, RSI radiometric performance test report
  21. 2007, CNES Absolute Calibration of Formosat-2 Using Desert Site
  22. teillet, 2007, Prime candidate Earth targets for the post-launch radiometric calibration of space-based optical imaging instruments, Proc SPIE, 6677, 66770s-1
  23. 10.1016/0034-4257(87)90026-5 · DOI
  24. 10.1109/JSYST.2008.925976 · DOI
  25. 10.1109/36.763266 · DOI
  26. 10.1364/AO.38.004649 · DOI
  27. 10.1016/S0263-7863(99)00020-4 · DOI
  28. 10.1016/0034-4257(90)90060-Y · DOI
  29. 10.1109/TGRS.2008.920966 · DOI
  30. 10.1016/S0034-4257(01)00248-6 · DOI
  31. 10.1016/S0034-4257(98)00111-4 · DOI
  32. 10.1016/S0034-4257(00)00168-1 · DOI
  33. 10.1109/36.700990 · DOI
  34. 10.1029/2001JD900103 · DOI
  35. liu, 2010, Vicarious calibration of the Formosat-2 remote sensing instrument, IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens, 48, 2162, 10.1109/TGRS.2009.2033179 · DOI
  36. 10.1364/AO.35.002672 · DOI
  37. 10.1175/1520-0426(1996)013<0321:PAIFCP>2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  38. 10.1109/36.700991 · DOI
  39. 10.1016/S0034-4257(98)00031-5 · DOI
  40. 10.1109/TGRS.2005.857887 · DOI
  41. 10.1016/S0034-4257(01)00211-5 · DOI
  42. 10.1109/36.701023 · DOI
  43. 10.1016/j.rse.2007.03.003 · DOI
  44. 10.1109/TGRS.2008.928730 · DOI
  45. huffman, 2011, TRMM and other data precipitation data set documentation
  46. 10.1109/TGRS.2005.850392 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kamei, A., Nakamura, K., Yamamoto, H., Nakamura, R., Tsuchida, S., Yamamoto, N., Sekiguchi, S., Kato, S., Liu, C.-C., Hsu, K.-H., & Wu, A.-M.
Affiliations
  • National Institute for Environmental Studies (JP)
  • Nihon University (JP)
  • National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (JP)
  • National Cheng Kung University (TW)
  • Taiwan Space Agency (TW)
ORCID
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing
Publisher
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
Published
2012-11
Volume
50
Issue
11
Pages
4821-4831
ISSN
  • 0196-2892 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-0644
DOI
10.1109/tgrs.2012.2194155
OpenAlex
W2071826692
Cited by
10
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
1.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Aerospace Engineering › Calibration and Measurement Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Satellite Image Processing and Photogrammetry
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Remote Sensing in Agriculture
Keywords
cross-calibration, FORMOSAT-2, remote sensing instrumentation, ASTER, Terra, radiometric calibration, sensor degradation, in-flight calibration, vicarious calibration, radiative transfer modeling, 6S model, satellite optical sensors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review