[ivca-cz]

Thank you. My aCcess to matlab is now more complicated, but i will try to solve it somehow.

I think it is sometimes useful to change the master. There are two reasons why I consider it:

– the temperatures. The master temperature should also be in the middle of the temperatures measured, especially in case where ktemp is neglected (forced to zero), in areas where small values of ktemp are expected, comparable to their accuracy. I think in such a case it is better to neglect the ktemp in processing, but some dilation residuals are expected and I think it is useful to let them be (close to) zero mean.

– accuracy evaluation. For standard deviation evaluation (according to Colesanti03) one needs both temporal and perpendicular baselines to have as high variance as possible, and if one starts with 30 images and updates the dataset progressively, the master is better to be changed due to the fact that it is for sure “out of center” in the time dimension.

regards, Ivana

[ivca-cz]

Hello,
I got probably the same error in the last (20-Dec) version, but i ignored it (without counting the number of images, so maybe one or two could be missing, but maybe not) and everything seemed to be allright… this is the problem of the last version. I only checked the coregistered images and they seemed to be ok

Regards, Ivana

[ivca-cz]

Hi Daniele,
thank you.
I tried points 2 and 3. With point 2, however, I could not see a difference in the reflmap (it seems to me that it is computed from all the images), but the problem was solved with point 3, with no problem (just warnings) with the master image.

Regards, Ivana

[ivca-cz]

Hello Daniele,

thank you for it.

I am sending an error encountered in the geocoding module, repeatedly (updating from older version, at the same time updating the data). The same error got for 4 datasets, and with different background images (if I remember it well, a similar error was connected to the GIS directory…)

Thank you very much, Ivana

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[ivca-cz]

yes, it works now, thank you very much, ivana

[ivca-cz]

unfortunately, the error stays the same even in the newer version, in both problematic tracks.

[ivca-cz]

Yes,

you are right. I noticed this warning, expected that there is a problem with this image and it could not be extracted/coregistered. But I did not put it away, you are right. And after, I could not understand why “37 images could not be extracted” (and lots of extracted images could not be viewed, mostly from 2016) and why there are black areas in two/three of the coregistered images (different from this one (May 2016), I expected problems with this one).

Now, when I put this problematic image away, everything works fine… thank you.

Ivana

[ivca-cz]

ok, once more with a different master

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[ivca-cz]

Yes, you are right, all the problems are solved now.

Thank you, Ivana

[ivca-cz]

Hello,

I am attaching another error I got within the coregistration process, it looks similarly, so maybe it is a kind of general error… I don’t know.

Please let me know if the problem is on my side… but I am encountering it for the first time in two different (coregistration) directories.

Thank you, Ivana

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[ivca-cz]

Hi Dan,

this effect was caused by the fact that the weather download (update) was performed between the small area processing and the display (geocoding), probably after save/load. So, it helped to reprocess it and display again and the lines are already straight.

I am sorry, still getting into the system…

Ivana

[ivca-cz]

Thank you for the explanation.

However, in this case (see the log or the report I attached last time) the coregistration “concluded successfully”. I encountered this problem two times for different masters (there are not many possibilities for master selection due to weather and perp baselines) – and I never encountered it before… So, should I now perform the coregistration again? Probably with the same result?

Thank you, Ivana

[ivca-cz]

Hi Yuxiao,

I am sorry for this error, it is my mistake. I really mixed one ascending image into the descending set. However, the date reported is significantly different from the one it really was: while the ascending image is 20160224, the reported one was 20150329, and then 20150410.

Very sorry for that,

Ivana

[ivca-cz]

normally… attached

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[ivca-cz]

Thank you, it works for my first AOI (I checked only if the model line is fractional or not).

However, in my second AOI, the model line is a straight line for most of the time, however at the end, it gets fractional again.

The weather data is complete here so that I do not understand it. However, as you answered me recently in a different topic, the weather data are downloaded first from a station near the whole image center, and then, when the area is cropped, it is re-downloaded from a station near the AOI. Then, maybe due to different versions used for the initial processing and the updates, the weather data for one AOI are from various stations (up to 3 but it is a different AOI/dataset, so not attached now), situated more than hundred km apart.

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[Author]

Posts