Slope-Shaded LiDAR DEM(clipped, projected, ft->m, resampled to 4m)
-----------------------------------------ASP_Bay Data-------------------------------------------
Slope-Shaded ASP_Bay_4m_WV01_DEM
Vertical difference map (Lidar-ASP_Bay), liner scale between -2m (red) and -6m (blue)
It looks like a northward horizontal shift in the ASP image would improve things.
Histogram of above difference map. Range from -2 to -6.,
Std. Deviation = +/-1.5 with mean of -4.3m
As Paul says, "Wow."
-----------------------------------------ASP_Par Data-------------------------------------------
Slope-Shaded ASP_Par_4m_WV01_DEM
(edge due to limited DEM extent)
Vertical difference map (Lidar-ASP_Par), liner scale between -4m (red) and -10m (blue)
Note that there is an East-West horizontal shift issue with this image.
If the ASP-Par image was shifted west, you would get much better results
Histogram of above difference map. Range from -4 to -10.,
Std. Deviation = +/-9.1 with mean of -7.8m
These statistics would be better if the image was shifted west.
-----------------------------------------SETSM Data-------------------------------------------
PLEASE NOTE: SETSM DEMs are beta versions not final.
Upcoming SETSM DEMs will reduce artifacts like the abrupt height change at mosaic boundaries.
Slope-Shaded LiDAR DEM(clipped, projected, ft->m, resampled to 2m)
Slope-Shaded SETSM_2m_DEM
(note abrupt change in surface roughness at east-west running seam)
Vertical difference map (Lidar-SETSM), liner scale between -0m (red) and -4m (blue)
Note the East-West seam between input images.
South of the seam, there is a clear need for a southward shift in SETSM relative to the LiDAR.
Hard to say what kind of shift is needed in the upper image. Same?
Histogram of above difference map. Range from 0 to -4.
Std. Deviation = +/-1.0 with mean of -1.9m
These statistics would be better if the image was shifted south.
Again,
As Paul says, "Wow."











No comments:
Post a Comment