cency & 
Scan 
lot 
  
  
x 
CALIBRATION SITE 
ng MTF Plots 
. between 4 
measured in 
s expected to 
in computed 
m —3.3 m to 
using DGPS 
outed in TES 
ection within 
, of the order 
5 
Table 11: Comparison of the computed & known dimensions in 
meters. 
5.7 Radiance at sensor: The at-sensor radiance and ground 
measured reflectance is shown in Table 12. The 11” Dec data 
was subjected to atmospheric correction. The estimated 
radiance for 3 targets compares well with the at-sensor 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
radiance. 
Date Bitu.Black Gray Bare Soil 
(39mx39m) | (35mx35m) | (52m x 52m) 
Count 
11-Dec-01 63 114 80 
7-Apr-02 91 138 98 
17-Apr-02 92 162 118 
24-Apr-02 103 166 130 
  
At-sensor Radiance (Estimated Radiance) 
11-Dec-01 | 4.03 (3.5) 7.29 (7.71) 5.11 (4.99) 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
7-Apr-02 5.82 8.82 6.26 
17-Apr-02 5.88 10.36 7.54 
24-Apr-02 6.58 10.61 8.31 
Reflectance 
11-Dec-01 4.80 35.50 15.70 
7-Apr-02 9.50 37.30 17.40 
17-Apr-02 9.50 37.30 17.40 
24-Apr-02 9.50 37.30 17.40 
  
Table:12 Multi-temporal Target Parameters 
       
  
  
  
  
= id ] |E11-Dec-01 
2 M1 luir-apro2 
16.00 
= 
m 14.00 
5 uw 
= 40.00 + 
E am 4j 
v ; . £f 
$ 500 d 3.11 uum 
5 : 4.ni 
Z^ am 
$ 2004 | 
e E Fs usd 
0.00 4 i — 
Bitu Black Bare Soil Gray Lime 
Target 
Fig 13 Comparison of Sensor Measured Radiance 
6.0CONCLUSION 
Table-14 summarizes TES PAN sensor performance. The multi- 
temporal analysis on Chharodi site with artificial and natural 
targets shows consistent radiometric performance. Image 
parameters viz. Along/Across SWR, MTF, Sample-scene phase, 
re-constructed PSF, GSD are meeting engineering design 
specification of TES PAN camera. 
IAPRS & SIS, Vol.34, Part 7, “Resource and Environmental Monitoring”, Hyderabad, India,2002 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Sr.No. | Parameter Value 
| SWR at Nyquist frequency 
erence Between L Along scan 0.14 
Across Scan 0.25 
MTF Along Scan 0.14 
a&c la&dic& d 2 MTF Across scan 5 
0:7 0.811.530 3 | S/N Ratio 2127 
-0.9 |-5.6 | 4.67 Ground sampling Distance 
0.21 |-4.5 | 4.71 4 Along scan 2 5m 
0.6 10.1 10.50 Across Scan 1.0m 
0.52 | 2.2 |-1.70 
-0.3 | 1.9 |-2.24 Tabel: 14 Summary of TES PAN Sensor Performance 
  
-0.3 | 0.7 |-1.01 
  
-1.06 
  
  
  
  
REFERENCES 
Robert F Rauchniller, Robert A Schowengerdt, April 
1988,Measurement of the Landsat Thematic Mapper 
Modulation Transfer Function using an array of point 
sources, Optical Engineering, Vol. 27 No.4 
Magdeleine Dinguirard and Philip N Slater November 
1999, Calibration of Space-Multi Spectral Imaging 
Sensors, A Review: Remote . Sensing and 
Environment,68:194-205 
Robert A Schowengerdt, 1997, Remote Sensing Models and 
Methods of Image Processing pp 67-111 
Technical reports prepared by Project Team of TES 
Payload System, Data Product System, Data Quality 
Evaluation System and IRS-TES Mission System 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 
The authors wish to thank Dr. George Joseph, Distinguished 
Scientist, Dr. AKS Gopalan, Director, SAC, Dr.KL Majumdar, 
Group Director, SIIPA for their encouragement and guidance 
during their visit to the site. The authors gratefully acknowledge 
the support received by Mr. Krishna Swamy, Project Director, 
TES, Mr Keshav Raju, Mission Director, TES and Mr DM Rao, 
Ground Segment Co-ordinator. We also acknowledge Mr.AK 
Shukla for his tremendous effort in the development of test site 
designing and deploying artificial targets in time as a team 
member. We are also grateful to Mr.AS Kirankumar, Group 
Director, EOSG for all his valuable suggestion and discussion.