sentinel 2 for science workshop - esa...
TRANSCRIPT
26/05/2014
1
1
Virtual constellations, time series, and cloud screening opportunities
for Sentinel‐2 and Landsat
Sentinel‐2 for Science Workshop
20‐22 May 2014
ESA‐ESRIN, Frascati (Rome), Italy
2/102
• Part 1: – Title: Towards a satellite virtual constellation for land characterization: Concept and roles for Sentinel‐2 andLandsat
– Authors: Mike Wulder, Joanne White, Thomas Hilker, Nicholas Coops, Patrick Griffiths, Dirk Pflugmacher, Patrick Hostert, Jeff Masek
• Part 2: – Title: Opportunities for combining Landsat and Sentinel‐2 in time series analysis for monitoring environmental change
– Authors: Curtis Woodcock (sends regrets), Zhe Zhu, Shixiong Wang
26/05/2014
2
4
Context and needs:• Context:
– Inventory, monitoring, climate, deforestation
– Synoptic and comprehensive data sets
– National and international reporting
– UN FAO, GEO, GFOI, REDD+, via ECV, EBV…
• Desired outcomes: – Surface reflectance
– Land cover, Land cover change, events, types, …
– Forest structure
‐‐ All at multiple time periods in a scientifically robust, transparent, and repeatable manner
7/102
7/52Observing the land (optical) better than 100m*
25th July 1973
7th July 1991
11th July 2001
21st July 2005
9th August 2009
25th July 1973
1
6
21
40
Number flying 1st year of each decade
Satellite
Year
* excluding Helios, Yaogan, KH, etc…Graphic: Alan Belward, JRC; See Belward and Skøien, 2014. ISPRS-JPRS
26/05/2014
3
8/102
So, there are lots of satellites…
From a user perspective: • Require a better understanding, framework, for utilizing and incorporating differing satellite measures
• Need free and open access, archive all data, seamless automatable download
• Consistent and transparent processing, “analysis ready” products
• Robust calibration and georadiometric characteristics
• Simplifying strategies to broaden user base
9/102
Virtual Constellation
• The Committee on Earth Observation Satellites (CEOS) defines a virtual satellite constellation broadly as a “set of space and ground segment capabilities that operate in a coordinated manner to meet a combined and common set of Earth Observation requirements”.
• Thematic focus, i.e., oceans, atmosphere, land
http://www.ceos.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=275
26/05/2014
4
10/102
VC for land
• Building upon the CEOS definition
– CEOS, space agency focus
– Revisit with an applications focus
• Challenges:
– differences in bandwidth, number / location of bands, orbital considerations, signal to noise ratio, access, analysis readiness, etc.
• Interoperability is key
11/102
Application Readiness Level (ARL)• Levels of interoperability
• Thematic applications focused VCs are driven by the need of the application and outcome information drivers
– Reporting, science, management, etc.
• Examples focus on land VC related to land cover, land cover change, and vegetation structure
• How similar are measures, can the measures be treat as “the same”, are there calibration approaches, or is the data unique but informative?
26/05/2014
5
12/102
ARL described …2
• ARL‐1. Similar sensors, minimal processing, cross‐calibration, spatial and spectral agreement, surface reflectance (Landsats, Sentinel‐2)– As available
• ARL‐2. Compatible, but fundamentally different spatial / spectral characteristics; different calibration characteristics (national and commercial satellites)– On demand opportunities
• ARL‐3. Auxiliary, not interoperable. Unique information captured (spatially or spectrally); allow for modeling, integration (e.g., radar, lidar, nano‐cube‐swarm‐sats, …)– Utility applications driven
13/102
At ARL‐1, what is possible?
• Landsat 5/7 provide example of what can be done with two well calibrated instruments
• Sentinel‐2: USGS, NASA / ESA efforts on‐going (Masek et al., Vermote et al.)
• Surface reflectance
– Physical value
– Variable for integration
26/05/2014
6
14/102
• Why is it some important to be able to treat Landsat and Sentinel‐2 as interoperable?
• Some context and examples
15
Change in understandingPixel based approaches
• Think of pixels rather than images• Set criteria, then use best available pixel
– Merging databases with image processing• Orthorectification, Geometric matching• Radiometric calibration• Cloud and shadow screening• Assign pixels with quality flags• (Griffiths / Hostert, HU, talk forthcoming)
• Large projects have had emphasis reversed– Change first, cover later
26/05/2014
7
16
Time series notes
• Increased knowledge on the nature of changes:– Magnitude, persistence, type
– Trends not only maps
• Labelling of change– Attribution of change important for inferring process,
impact (e.g., deforestation vs harvesting)
– Transitions informative on cover, succession
• Temporal information explanatory of structural development (disturbance through to regeneration, recovery; biomass, volume)
17/102
1988 2012
• Free and open access to the data• Standardized, robust image products (L1T)• Automated bulk processing tools (LEDAPS, Fmask)• Increasing computing capacity
Scene‐based Pixel‐based
Paradigm Shift
Within year Between year
R. Kennedy, graphic
26/05/2014
8
18/102
19/102
Composite typeTypical compositing
periodTypical rule‐base
Annual BAP Target DOY ± 30 days (for a single year)
1. DOY (relative to a target DOY, i.e., Aug 1)
2. Distance to cloud and cloud shadow3. Sensor4. Atmospheric opacity
Multi‐year BAP For a given target year and target DOY ± 30 days(± 1 or 2 years )
1. Year (relative to a target year)2. DOY (relative to a target DOY, i.e.,
Aug 1)3. Distance to cloud and cloud shadow4. Sensor5. Atmospheric opacity
Proxy value composite
Same as per annual BAP Areas of no data or anomalous values are assigned a proxy value by examining a temporal trajectory of pixel values at the same or neighbouring pixel locations.
A lexicon of pixel‐based image composites
26/05/2014
9
20/102
BAP annual composite (2003)Aug 1 ± 30 days, 2003
Areas of NO DATA shown in white
21/102
2002
August 1 ± 30 days
Annual composite
26/05/2014
10
22/102
2003
August 1 ± 30 days
Annual composite
23/102
2004
August 1 ± 30 days
Annual composite
26/05/2014
11
24/102
BAP multi‐year composite (target year = 2003)
Aug 1 ± 30 days, 2002–2004
Areas of NO DATA persist despite using multiple years of imagery
25/102
2003Proxy value composite
Areas with persistent no data are assigned a synthetic value, which is determined using a trajectory of available values for the pixel.
26/05/2014
12
26/102
• Less than 1% of pixels have 14+ years of data
• 52% of pixels have 10+ years of data
• ALL pixels have at least 3 years of data
YearsCumulative proportion
15 0.12
14 0.92
13 6.19
12 16.50
11 32.57
10 52.37
9 71.26
8 85.49
7 94.14
6 98.30
5 99.65
4 99.96
3 100.00
2 100.00
1 100.00
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Proportion of pixels
Number of years Observation yield for Newfoundland
27/102
• 29% of pixels have 15 years of data
• 74% of pixels have 13+ years of data
• ALL pixels have at least 7 years of data
YearsCumulative proportion
15 28.66
14 54.91
13 74.43
12 87.36
11 94.97
10 98.56
9 99.74
8 99.98
7 100.00
6 100.00
5 100.00
4 100.00
3 100.00
2 100.00
1 100.00
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Proportion of pixels
Number of years
Observation yield for Saskatchewan
26/05/2014
13
28/102
Percentage and origin of data gaps in the study area for the target years 2000‐2010, and (b) cumulative histogram and (c) spatial distribution of both pixel‐scoring and noise‐detection data gaps along the study area for the whole time series 1998‐2012 (note that water bodies are masked).
30/102
Different phases of image compositing process for the years 2004‐2007. First and second lines respectively show the data gaps resulting from the BAP scoring (included buffered clouds, shadows and haze, e.g., 2006) and noise removal processes (including residual clouds or smoke, e.g., 2004). Third line shows the final image composites infilled with the proxy values.
Txomin Hermosilla, Nicholas, UBC
26/05/2014
14
31
• What happens when a disturbed area is captured in different time periods?
32/102
Different phases of image compositing process for the years 2000‐2003. First lines show the data gaps resulting from both BAP scoring and noise removal processes. Second line shows the disturbances detected after the analysis of the pixel series (temporal domain), and after performing the contextual analysis (spatial domain). Third line shows the final image composites infilled with the proxy values.
Txomin Hermosilla, Nicholas, UBC
26/05/2014
15
36/102
Multi‐year BAP (2009‐2011)L5 and L7
37/102
Best‐Available Pixel (BAP) Composite for Saskatchewan
2010 source images 2010 BAP composite Disturbance history 2000‐2010
26/05/2014
16
38/102
39/102
Trend descriptors for the 3 indices (NBR, TCA and TCG):
• Trend type• RMSE• Trend magnitude difference• Trend slope
• Greatest disturbance year• Greatest disturbance duration• Greatest disturbance magnitude
• Pre and post greatest disturbance magnitude• Pre and post greatest disturbance duration• Pre and post greatest disturbance slope
• Pre and post greatest disturbance monotonic segment magnitude• Pre and post greatest disturbance monotonic segment duration• Pre and post greatest disturbance monotonic segment slope
• Disturbances after and before the greatest disturbance
* Metrics suitable as products or model inputs *
26/05/2014
17
42/102
Disturbed trends
Greatest disturbance year
Hermosilla, UBC
43/102
Disturbed trends
Persistance of disturbance event
26/05/2014
18
44/102
Disturbed trends
Greatest disturbance magnitude
50/102
Disturbed trends
Post disturbance slope
26/05/2014
19
59/102
60
Closing the disturbance loop
• Characterization of post‐disturbance recovery.
– Classification (herb to shrub)
– Regeneration success
– Biomass uptake
Txomin Hermosilla, Nicholas, UBC
26/05/2014
20
61/102
Cloud screening
• Critical to automated, rule‐based, compositing
• Fmask, developed by Zhe Zhu, Woodcock, BU– https://code.google.com/p/fmask/
• Based upon spectral (optical and thermal), spatial (objects), and angular information.– Masks cloud, shadow, water, land, snow/ice
• So, what can we expect from S2 for cloud screening?
62/102
Comparison of the Sentinel 2 observing scenario with legacy Landsat for cloud and cloud shadow
detection
• Work done by Zhe Zhu, Shixiong Wang, and Curtis Woodcock, Boston University
• S2, 1375 nm for cirrus detection
• optical + thermal vs optical + OLI cirrus
Graphic: Drusch et al. RSE, 2012
26/05/2014
21
63/102
p45r30
p223r61
p7r5
p196r44
p135r25
p92r86
p199r26AsiaAsia
Antarct icaAntarct ica
Afr icaAfr ica
EuropeEuropeNorthNorth
Amer icaAmer ica
SouthSouth
Amer icaAmer icaAust ral iaAust ral ia
OceaniaOceania
Seven sites located from a variety of landscape and different parts of the world
64/102
Oregon p45r30Band 5, 4, and 3 composites
26/05/2014
22
65/102
Thermal Band
66/102
Cirrus Band
Cirrus band TOA reflectance: 0‐0.01 0.01‐0.03 0.03‐0.04 0.04‐1
26/05/2014
23
67/102
“TM/ETM+” Fmask results
Clear Cloud Shadow Snow/Ice Cloud
68/102
“Sentinel” Fmask results
Clear Cloud Shadow Snow/Ice Cloud
26/05/2014
24
69/102
How heritage Landsat Fmask results differ from “Sentinel” results
Sentinel
TM/ETM+Clear Land Clear Water Cloud Shadow Snow/Ice Cloud
Clear Land 66.00% 0.00% 1.23% 0.06% 15.61%
Clear Water 0.00% 1.25% 0.02% 0.00% 0.10%
Cloud Shadow 1.20% 0.01% 0.86% 0.38% 0.54%
Snow/Ice 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 1.63% 0.01%
Cloud 2.16% 0.01% 0.56% 1.64% 6.74%
70/102
Paris p199r26Band 4, 3, and 2 composites
26/05/2014
25
71/102
Thermal Band
72/102
Cirrus Band
Cirrus band TOA reflectance: 0‐0.01 0.01‐0.03 0.03‐0.04 0.04‐1
26/05/2014
26
73/102
“TM/ETM+” Fmask results
Clear Cloud Shadow Snow/Ice Cloud
74/102
“Sentinel” Fmask results
Clear Cloud Shadow Snow/Ice Cloud
26/05/2014
27
75/102
How heritage Landsat Fmask results differ from “Sentinel” results
Sentinel
TM/ETM+Clear Land Clear Water Cloud Shadow Snow/Ice Cloud
Clear Land 25.00% 0.00% 6.11% 0.00% 36.06%
Clear Water 0.00% 0.03% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Cloud Shadow 0.33% 0.00% 0.61% 0.00% 4.03%
Snow/Ice 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Cloud 0.17% 0.00% 0.04% 0.00% 27.61%
76/102
Amazon p233r61Band 4, 3, and 2 composites
26/05/2014
28
77/102
Thermal Band
78/102
Cirrus Band
Cirrus band TOA reflectance: 0‐0.01 0.01‐0.03 0.03‐0.04 0.04‐1
26/05/2014
29
79/102
“TM/ETM+” Fmask results
Clear Cloud Shadow Snow/Ice Cloud
80/102
“Sentinel” Fmask results
Clear Cloud Shadow Snow/Ice Cloud
26/05/2014
30
81/102
How heritage Landsat Fmask results differ from “Sentinel” results
Sentinel
TM/ETM+Clear Land Clear Water Cloud Shadow Snow/Ice Cloud
Clear Land 45.13% 0.00% 2.48% 0.00% 28.35%
Clear Water 0.00% 0.84% 0.04% 0.00% 0.11%
Cloud Shadow 0.14% 0.01% 1.17% 0.00% 1.88%
Snow/Ice 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Cloud 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.00% 19.84%
88/102
Section conclusions
• Based on a limited sample, the “Sentinel 2” observing scenario (optical + a cirrus band) is superior to the legacy Landsat observing scenario (optical plus thermal) for finding clouds and cloud shadows
26/05/2014
31
89/102
“Sentinel” Fmask results
Clear Cloud Shadow Snow/Ice Cloud
Paris p199r26
90/102
“OLI/TIRS” Fmask results
Clear Cloud Shadow Snow/Ice Cloud
26/05/2014
32
91/102
Percentage of Fmask difference
OLI/TIRS
SentinelClear Land Clear Water Cloud Shadow Snow/Ice Cloud
Clear Land 39.15% 0.00% 0.59% 0.00% 5.54%
Clear Water 0.00% 0.83% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01%
Cloud Shadow 0.77% 0.03% 1.80% 0.00% 1.10%
Snow/Ice 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Cloud 1.11% 0.08% 0.20% 0.00% 48.79%
92/102
Dense time series derived water mask product
• Each image that we ingest for processing has a mask created that indicates: clear land pixel, cloud, shadow, water, snow/ice (fmask).
• Using this mask, we can overlay all pixels and interrogate by these classes, such as presence of water. All images are eligible, not just the images used in final composites (many images per year and between years)
• A fine resolution water mask is the output• created a circa 2010 water bodies map for Canada• It will be of the greatest spatial detail generated to‐date. Binary maps and likelihood maps are envisioned.
• Preliminary results follow:
26/05/2014
33
93/102
94/102
26/05/2014
34
95/102
Land surface water ca. 2010
96/102
Messages
• Virtual constellations:– Role for space agencies; opportunities for commercial programs– Land constellation and satellites focused on information needs
• Integration, ARL‐1, reflectance– Ideally S2 / Landsat can be integrated seamlessly– Landsat could effectively become a shared historical archive for S2– Temporal density of imagery, increased revisit offered by S2 will
support rule based compositing, as well as, unique attributes (e.g., automated lake mapping)
• Promise for S2 in cloud screening demonstrated• Not just about clouds,
– Inter‐year – change, state– Intra‐year – phenology, compound evidence
• Free and open access critical. Global coverage. Analysis ready, automate‐able into processes. Ready to use.
26/05/2014
35
97/10297/8097
97/52
Thank you!Contact Information:
Mike [email protected]
Publications:
http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/authors/read/11091