Coregistration - Comparison gts2-client / Science Hub
Dear Hannes,
as I promised I compared the images I get from the gts2-client with images I downloaded from the Science Hub:
########################################################
Data sets I used:
-
data from gts2-client without coregistration (05.10.2017, request: ./gts2_client.py -o /misc/gts2-data/Katharina/Demmin -r demmin_ohnecoreg -m stack -k 12.87502 -l 53.78887 -j 13.39469 -i 54.08536 -a S2A -t L2A -v 0.12 -b B02_B03_B04_B05_B06_B07_B08_B8A -s 20170301 -e 20170801 -c False -z 0.9 -f 0.3)
-
data from gts2-client with coregistration (05.10.2017, request: ./gts2_client.py -o /misc/gts2-data/Katharina/Demmin -r demmin_mitcoreg -m stack -k 12.87502 -l 53.78887 -j 13.39469 -i 54.08536 -a S2A -t L2A -v 0.12 -b B02_B03_B04_B05_B06_B07_B08_B8A -s 20170301 -e 20170801 -c True -z 0.9 -f 0.3)
-
data from Science Hub (Processing level: Level-2Ap)
########################################################
I created several GIFs to compare the absolute and relative position of the images. Images from the three single data sets are directly comparable among each other since they fit quite good to each other:
- gts2-client with coregistration
- Science Hub
But as you can already see by comparing the boundary of the field shapefile with the images, the absolute geographical position differs among the different data sets. Images from the science hub seem to fit best to the field boundaries, whereas images from the gts2-client without coregistration seem to fit worst.
The field shapefiles fit perfectly to a digital orthophoto with a spatial resolution of 40cm, therefore I take them as basis for comparison.
Here you can see images from all three data sets from 2017-05-27:
I hope this helps, if you need some more information, just let me know!
Best, Katharina
PS: You can find all single images here: /misc/gts2-data/Katharina/sen2_coreg