International Workshop on Radiometric and Geometric Calibration - December 2-5, 2003 On-orbit MTF assessment of satellite cameras Dominique Léger (ONERA) Françoise Viallefont (ONERA) Philippe Déliot (ONERA) Christophe Valorge (CNES) Introduction 2 D. LEGER International Workshop on Radiometric and Geometric Calibration December 2-5, 2003 Objective – assessment of SPOT camera MTF • to verify cameras requirements • to compare in-flight and ground measurements • to obtain accurate values to adjust deconvolution filters (SPOT5 THR) Need to focus camera before MTF assessment – due to possible slight defocus • vibrations during launch • transition from air to vacuum SPOT family Overview SPOT1,2,3 • HRV cameras 3 D. LEGER International Workshop on Radiometric and Geometric Calibration December 2-5, 2003 Pa (10m) B1, B2, B3 (20m) SPOT4 SPOT4 SPOT5 • HRVIR cameras M (10m) B1, B2, B3, B4 (20m) • Vegetation camera B0, B2, B3, B4(1km) SPOT2 SPOT5 • HRG cameras HM (5m) B1, B2, B3 (10m), B4 (20m) THR (2,5m) • HRS cameras (10 m) • Vegetation camera B0, B2, B3, B4 (1km) Refocusing SPOT cameras 4 D. LEGER International Workshop on Radiometric and Geometric Calibration December 2-5, 2003 Method – – – – Both cameras image the same landscape One is used as a reference Focusing mechanism of the other is moved Calculation of the ratio of image spectra • integration in band 0.25 fs - 0.35 fs • calculations in row and column directions • result is a function of position p of mechanism – The curve looks like a parabola • a defocus model is fitted on measurements • the vertex gives the best focus – Calculations vs field area • center and edges (SPOT5) Refocusing SPOT cameras 5 D. LEGER International Workshop on Radiometric and Geometric Calibration December 2-5, 2003 Refocusing operation sequence (SPOT5 HRG) – Before launch, the cameras are set on best vacuum mean focus p0 – First stage: slight defocusing around p0 • p0-8, p0+8, p0 (~±10 mm) mechanism validation first focus estimation p1 – Second stage: sufficient defocusing to overpass p1 – Final estimation of best focus • row-wise and columnwise astigmatism • field center and field edges – Setting the focus to best mean position Refocusing SPOT cameras 1.2 HRG1 refocusing (field center - rows) 1.2 HRG1 refocusing (field center - columns) -19.8 1.1 1 1 MTF ratio 1.1 MTF ratio 6 D. LEGER International Workshop on Radiometric and Geometric Calibration December 2-5, 2003 Results of HRG1 refocusing operations (First stage) 0.9 0.8 0.7 -13.7 0.9 Defocus model Measurement Vertex 0.8 0.7 -28 -24 -20 -16 -12 -8 -4 0 4 Focusing mechanism position 8 12 – Vertex outside measurement points • Second stage needed Defocus Model Mesurement Vertex -28 -24 -20 -16 -12 -8 -4 0 4 Focusing mechanism position 8 12 Refocusing SPOT cameras 1.2 1.1 HRG1 refocusing (field center - rows) 1.2 -16.6 HRG1 refocusing (field center - columns) 1.1 -10.0 1 MTF ratio MTF ratio 7 D. LEGER International Workshop on Radiometric and Geometric Calibration December 2-5, 2003 Results of HRG1 refocusing operations (second stage) 0.9 0.8 0.7 1 0.9 Defocus model Measurement Vertex 0.8 0.7 -28 -24 -20 -16 -12 -8 -4 0 4 Focusing mechanism position 8 12 – Best focus (field center): p0-13 • Astigmatism: -7 (one focusing step = 1.2 mm) Defocus Model Mesurement Vertex -28 -24 -20 -16 -12 -8 -4 0 4 Focusing mechanism position 8 12 Refocusing SPOT cameras 8 D. LEGER International Workshop on Radiometric and Geometric Calibration December 2-5, 2003 Best focus and astigmatism vs field area (with respect to p0) HRG1 HRG2 Field area Left Mean -9 -13 -11 2 -7 -11 Astigmatism -7 -7 -4 -2 -3 -7 Final focusing – HRG1: p0-12 – HRG2: p0-7 Center Right Left Center Right Relative MTF measurement method – Both cameras image the same landscape (with and without shift) 9 D. LEGER International Workshop on Radiometric and Geometric Calibration December 2-5, 2003 • Landscapes with a large frequency content (e.g. big cities) – Three kind of imaging 1 HRG1 HRG2 L C R 2 HRG1 HRG2 3 HRG1 HRG2 1 Frequency content comparison between homologous areas • Field centers, field edges 1+ 2 (3) Frequency content comparison in the field of one instrument • e.g. 1+2 HRG1 left edge versus HRG1 center Absolute MTF measurement methods 10 D. LEGER International Workshop on Radiometric and Geometric Calibration December 2-5, 2003 Overview of methods from SPOT1 to SPOT5 – Visual assessment • HRV cameras SPOT1, SPOT2, SPOT3 – Point source method • SPOT3, SPOT4, SPOT5 – Step edge method • Natural target • Artificial target SPOT4 HRVIR & SPOT5 HRS SPOT5 HRG – Bi-resolution • SPOT4 HRVIR (vs airborne) – Periodic target • SPOT5 HRG SPOT4 VGT (vs HRVIR) MTF measurement methods: Visual assessment 11 D. LEGER International Workshop on Radiometric and Geometric Calibration December 2-5, 2003 SPOT1, SPOT2, SPOT3 HRV cameras – Only panchromatic band Aerial imagery of urban sites – 20 sites chosen in the south of France Simulation of the corresponding satellite imagery – For each site, images with decreasing MTF are simulated – The whole set of images is called MTF catalog In-flight, visual comparison of actual and simulated images – MTF of the catalog image nearest to the actual image gives a rough assessment of the in-flight MTF MTF measurement methods: Point source 12 D. LEGER International Workshop on Radiometric and Geometric Calibration December 2-5, 2003 SPOT3 HRV, SPOT4 HRVIR, SPOT5 HRG – Pa and XS bands Image of a spotlight aimed at the satellite – In SPOT5 THR mode, the PSF is sufficiently sampled • MTF is obtained by Fourier transform of the PSF In other modes, two ways to overcome PSF undersampling – To use a MTF model – To combine several images to rebuild sufficiently sampled image • or to use several spotlights MTF measurement methods: Point source 13 D. LEGER International Workshop on Radiometric and Geometric Calibration December 2-5, 2003 Unique point source method – Integrating point image (row-wise or columnwise) • 1D problem – Reference LSF = FT(parametric 1D MTF model) • Two parameters: MTF and phase (versus sampling grid) – Matching LSF samples with reference Value of the MTF parameter • Corresponding MTF = 1D in-flight MTF Value of the phase parameter Stability of MTF – Possibility to mix the various sets of LSF samples • If different phase parameters MTF measurement methods: Point source 14 D. LEGER International Workshop on Radiometric and Geometric Calibration December 2-5, 2003 Two point source method – Simplified version of point source array – Integrating point image (row-wise or columnwise) • 1D problem – Hypothesis MTF is negligible beyond frequency sampling Two points are sufficient – Experiment with two spotlights (SPOT5) MTF measurement methods: Point source 15 D. LEGER International Workshop on Radiometric and Geometric Calibration December 2-5, 2003 Spotlights on a grassy uniform area Xe lamp: 3kW Xe lamp: 1kW S15 25 22 19 16 13 10 7 S8 4 260 240 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1 16 D. LEGER International Workshop on Radiometric and Geometric Calibration December 2-5, 2003 MTF measurement methods: Point source S1 Row-wise MTF (spotlight 17/06/02) 1 MTF P2 fs/2 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.34 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Normalized frequency 0.8 0.9 1 MTF measurement methods: step edge 17 D. LEGER International Workshop on Radiometric and Geometric Calibration December 2-5, 2003 Step edge method – Image of a target (artificial or natural) with a sharp transition between dark and bright area – With a slight edge inclination, we can interleave successive rows (or columns) to rebuild a sufficiently sampled response to Heaviside function • Again, this is not necessary with THR mode – Modulus of ratio of FT (edge response) to FT (edge) = in-flight MTF Two kinds of edge – Natural edge: agricultural fields • Difficulty to find a good one and to validate it – Artificial edge • A checkerboard target has been laid out (Salon-de-Provence in south of France) • 60 x 60 m MTF measurement methods: Natural step edge 18 D. LEGER International Workshop on Radiometric and Geometric Calibration December 2-5, 2003 Fields near Phoenix (SPOT5 HRS2 10/06/02) –Example of an almost horizontal edge along the track measurement MTF measurement methods: Natural step edge Example of result with HRS HRS2 MTF (Mexicali 25/06/02) 1 0.9 0.8 Across track MTF 19 D. LEGER International Workshop on Radiometric and Geometric Calibration December 2-5, 2003 • Method improvement: MTF model is fitted on MTF curve MTF MTF model 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 Frequency (m-1) 0.08 0.1 20 D. LEGER International Workshop on Radiometric and Geometric Calibration December 2-5, 2003 MTF measurement methods: Artificial edge target Salon-de-Provence target (SPOT5 HRG1 26/07/02) MTF measurement methods: Bi-resolution 21 D. LEGER International Workshop on Radiometric and Geometric Calibration December 2-5, 2003 Principle – Same landscape acquired with two spatial resolutions (same spectral band) • High resolution image = reference • Low resolution image = sensor under assessment – In-flight MTF = Modulus of ratio of FT (LR image) to FT (HR image) Two situations – Satellite image versus aerial image • Attempt with SPOT4 HRVIR – Both sensors on the same satellite • Attempt with SPOT4: VGT1 versus HRVIR MTF measurement methods: Periodic target 22 D. LEGER International Workshop on Radiometric and Geometric Calibration December 2-5, 2003 Opportunity to acquire Stennis Space Center radial target with SPOT5 HM (5m) THR (2.5m) MTF measurement methods: Comparison 23 D. LEGER International Workshop on Radiometric and Geometric Calibration December 2-5, 2003 Comparison of SPOT5 HRG1 MTF measurements Direction Spotlight Step edge Radial target Ground Specification Rows 0.35 0.33 0.38 0.31 0.25 Columns 0.32 0.30 Diagonal 0.15 0.18 0.36 0.23 – Close results for different methods – In-flight and ground measurements similar and better than specification MTF measurement : Comments on best methods 24 D. LEGER International Workshop on Radiometric and Geometric Calibration December 2-5, 2003 Artificial step edge – Well suited to high-resolution satellites (GSD < 5 m Salon-de-Provence target) Target building and maintenance expensive Only two measurement directions Spotlight – Suitable to GSD up to 30m – No orientation constraint Needs a team on ground Bi-resolution – Attractive with different GSD cameras aboard the same satellite Radial target – Interest of visual assessment in addition to MTF measurements – No orientation constraint Target building and maintenance expensive