Earth observation guideProducts

Processing levels

A satellite sends down numbers, and a chain of processing turns them into something you can use.

The basics

A satellite does not send down a photograph. It sends down numbers, and a chain of processing turns them into something you can use. The further along the chain, the less specialist work is left for the user. Flour, dough and bread make a fair comparison. Raw data is the flour, a calibrated and mapped image is the dough, and a corrected surface product or a crop map is the loaf. When you order imagery the product description names the level it comes at. Read it, because the same scene is offered at several levels and the right one depends on how much processing you want to do yourself.

Why it matters

The level decides how much work is left for you. A raw level suits specialists who want control over every step. A corrected, analysis-ready product lets you compare scenes straight away. A derived map answers the question directly but carries the method someone else chose. Reading the level in a product description before you order saves buying the wrong one.

412398577601455380702655390Raw numbersA calibrated,mapped imageAn answer,such as a crop map
From numbers to an answer. Raw measurements become a calibrated image placed on the map, and that image becomes a result such as a crop map.

In depth

Agencies describe the chain in levels, which Figure 1 summarises. Level 0 holds the raw measurements as downlinked. Level 1 converts them to physical units, such as radiance or top-of-atmosphere reflectance for optical sensors, and attaches position. Level 2 derives a geophysical property of the surface, such as surface reflectance. Level 3 maps or composites that property on a regular grid, and level 4 is the output of models or analysis. The numbering is a convention and sub-levels vary, so the product specification is the authority.

  1. Level 0Raw measurements as downlinked from the satellite.Needs specialist software to use.
  2. Level 1Calibrated to physical units and placed on the map.Optical: top-of-atmosphere reflectance. Radar: detected or complex images.
  3. Level 2Atmosphere or terrain effects removed, giving a property of the ground.Optical: surface reflectance. Radar: terrain-corrected backscatter.
  4. Level 3Combined over time or space on a regular grid.Cloud-free monthly composites, mosaics.
  5. Level 4Derived by models or analysis into a result.A crop map, a flood extent, a yield estimate.

Closer to the sensorCloser to the answer

Figure 1. Processing levels from raw data to derived information. Names and sub-levels vary between providers.

Two steps do most of the work between levels 1 and 2 for an optical image. The first is orthorectification, which removes the displacement caused by relief. A point at height hh viewed at an angle θv\theta_v from the vertical is displaced on the image, relative to its true map position, by about

δ≈h tan⁡ θv\delta \approx h\,\tan\,\theta_v
(1)

where δ\delta is the displacement of the point on the image from its true map position, measured on the ground, in m\mathrm{m}; hh is the height of the point above the reference surface of the elevation model, in m\mathrm{m}; and θv\theta_v is the viewing angle from the vertical at that point.

so a 50 m building viewed 20 degrees off the vertical is displaced by about 18 m, and the correction needs an elevation model [1]. The Sentinel-2 level 1C product is orthorectified and reports top-of-atmosphere reflectance [2]. The second step is atmospheric correction. It inverts equation 3 on the optical imaging page for the surface reflectance, using estimates of the path radiance, transmittance and ground irradiance from radiative transfer models and from the aerosol and water vapour content of the scene.

ρ=π (L−Lp)τ Eg\rho = \frac{\pi\,(L - L_p)}{\tau\,E_g}
(2)

where ρ\rho is the surface reflectance, without unit; LL is the spectral radiance at the sensor and LpL_p the path radiance, both in W m−2 sr−1 μm−1\mathrm{W\,m^{-2}\,sr^{-1}\,\mu m^{-1}}; τ\tau is the transmittance of the atmosphere from the ground to the sensor, a fraction without unit; EgE_g is the spectral irradiance reaching the ground, in W m−2 μm−1\mathrm{W\,m^{-2}\,\mu m^{-1}}; and π\pi, in sr\mathrm{sr}, relates the radiance of a surface that scatters equally in all directions to the irradiance it reflects.

The widely used 6S code is one such radiative transfer model [3], and the processor that produces Sentinel-2 level 2A surface reflectance, with a scene classification that flags cloud and shadow, is Sen2Cor [4]. For radar the sequence is similar. Single look complex products keep the phase needed for interferometry, detected products are projected to the ground and averaged to reduce speckle, and terrain-corrected products use an elevation model to correct the geometry and the brightness [5, 6].

Analysis-ready data takes the sequence a step further. The idea is to process imagery to a minimum common set of requirements, with consistent calibration, geolocation and masks, so that users can work with it directly and compare scenes without doing the corrections themselves [7].

References

  1. Toutin, T. (2004) Review article: Geometric processing of remote sensing images: models, algorithms and methods. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 25(10), 1893-1924. https://doi.org/10.1080/0143116031000101611
  2. Gascon, F., Bouzinac, C., Thépaut, O. et al. (2017) Copernicus Sentinel-2A Calibration and Products Validation Status. Remote Sensing, 9(6), 584. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs9060584
  3. Vermote, E., Tanre, D., Deuze, J., Herman, M. and Morcette, J. J. (1997) Second Simulation of the Satellite Signal in the Solar Spectrum, 6S: an overview. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 35(3), 675-686. https://doi.org/10.1109/36.581987
  4. Main-Knorn, M., Pflug, B., Louis, J. et al. (2017) Sen2Cor for Sentinel-2. Image and Signal Processing for Remote Sensing XXIII. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2278218
  5. Torres, R., Snoeij, P., Geudtner, D. et al. (2012) GMES Sentinel-1 mission. Remote Sensing of Environment, 120, 9-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2011.05.028
  6. Moreira, A., Prats-Iraola, P., Younis, M. et al. (2013) A tutorial on synthetic aperture radar. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine, 1(1), 6-43. https://doi.org/10.1109/MGRS.2013.2248301
  7. Dwyer, J. L., Roy, D. P., Sauer, B. et al. (2018) Analysis Ready Data: Enabling Analysis of the Landsat Archive. Remote Sensing, 10(9), 1363. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10091363