213 
J-M distance 
the minimum 
ria were 
ation if 2,3, 
analysis. 
t 2,3,4 and 5 
chosen. For 
ne 25 samples 
responses of 
ig statistics 
rea using a 
e. image 
on: (1) 
ification 
, and (4) 
error by the 
the best 
on was 
. coefficients 
vestigated. 
iund among 
nd between 
l. The NIR 
wider spread 
:ion content 
tnces are 
hen to the 
ind triplets 
hout the 
ndependent to 
l was the most 
ig. The second 
5 and the 
:e the band 
issigned 
variances; in 
) middle-IR 
both middle- 
iion, then red 
id 7. Visual 
Image monitor 
\?ed that when 
id triplet 
lands or band 
are similar, 
/er any one 
iventional 
j blue to band 
to any of the 
irovement in 
Under this 
lured over the 
lal training 
ace relations 
ran the 512x 
L-specific. 
using 
1 combination 
igation. 
is 
, when 2,3,4 
sis, are 
bilities of 
that the 
mination had 
results are 
evious studies 
(1984). No 
J-M mean. or 
e-and four- 
ided in digital 
2-4-5 and 
Table 1 - Correlation Matrix for LANDSAT—5 Thematic 
Happen Subscene 
Table 3 - Ranked Results for Discrimination Using 
2,3,4 or 5 Bands. 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
7 
2 
0.94 
3 
0.70 
0-74 
4 
-0-07 
-0.23 
-0.50 
5 
0.22 
0.10 
-0.22 
0.75 
7 
0.30 
0.31 
0-08 
0.21 
0.63 
X 
67.81 
30.61 
27.12 
115.30 
84.48 
19.91 
a 2 
10.12 
21.60 
76.23 
1082.08 
604.26 
86.10 
*n = 512x512 pixels 
Table 2 - Ranked Results for the selection of 
Band Triplet to form color corposite 
Rank 
Entropy 
Gaussian 
with 
assumption 
Entropy 
Gaussian 
without 
assumption 
B* 
G 
R 
B 
G 
R 
1 
2 
4 
5 
7 
4 
5 
2 
3 
4 
5 
1 
4 
5 
3 
1 
4 
5 
3 
4 
5 
4 
7 
4 
5 
2 
4 
5 
5 
2 
4 
7 
1 
4 
7 
6 
7 
4 
3 
3 
4 
7 
* Colors are assigned according to variances. 
B = Blue G = Green R = Red 
2-4-5-7 respectively. Classification performances of 
both combinations for the training areas were similar 
based on percentages of correct classification, 
average onission and commission error. The maximum 
upper bound of the probability of classification 
error was 9% for com and sugarcane using the 
three-band and 7% for the four-band combination 
(Table 4). Comparison of alphanumeric printonts 
showed that no significant difference was found for 
soybeans, sugarcane and com fields. The computer 
time consumed using the three-band combination for 
this 512x512 pixels area was five seconds shorter 
than the four-band's. This means a eleven-minute 
difference in computer processing time for a full 
frame classification which may not be crucial, but 
another advantage that has to be taken into 
consideration is the smaller data storage volume if 
three-bands are used in digital analysis. For 
example, for a quadrant scene only one CCT (computer 
carpactable tape) is needed, while for four-band 
analysis 2 CCTs are required. Thus, we concluded 
that for crop discrimination of the study area TM 
bands 2,4 and 5 should be used in digital 
analysis. 
4. CONCLUSIONS 
IANDSAT TM data of an agricultural area were studied 
to select the best band combinations for color 
composition and digital analysis. The following 
conclusions are found: 
- According to the entropy criterion band 4, band 
5 and one band from either the visible or band 7 
should be used as the triplet for color composition. 
However, no apparent improvement in visual 
discrimination of agricultural cover types was 
observed on the FCC, formed using the entropy 
criterion, comparing to the conventional FCC (bands 
2,3, and 4). Thus, considering the well-established 
color-surface relations, which is known by most 
photointerpreters, the conventional FCC is selected 
RANK 
MAX. 
J-M 
mean 
2 Bands 
3 Bands 
4 Bands 
5 Bands 
1 
4,5 
2,4,5 
2,4,5,7 
2,3,4,5,7 
2 
2,4 
3,4,5 
2,3,4,7 
1,2,4,5,7 
3 
3,4 
2,4,7 
1,2,4,5 
1,2,3,4,5 
4 
4,7 
1,4,5 
3,4,5,7 
1,3,4,5,7 
5 
3,5 
3,4,7 
2,3,4,7 
1,2,3,4,7 
6 
2,5 
2,3,4 
1,3,4,5 
1,2,3,5,7 
RANK 
MAX. 
. J-M . 
min. 
2 Bands 3 Bands 
4 Bands 
5 Bands 
1 
2,4 2,4,5 
2,4,5,7 
2,3,4,5,7 
2 
4,7 2,4,7 
2,3,4,5 
1,2,4,5,7 
3 
3,5 3,4,5 
1,2,4,5 
1,2,3,4,5 
4 
1,5 3,4,7 
3,4,5,7 
1,3,4,5,7 
5 
4,5 2,5,7 
1,3,4,5 
1,2,3,5,7 
6 
2,5 2,3,4 
2,3,4,7 
1,2,3,4,7 
Table 
4 - Classification performance of the 
training areas using TM band combinations 
2,4,5 and 2,4,5 and 7. 
TM BAND COMBINATION 
2,4,5 
2,4,5,7 
Average corret 
Classification 
99.1% 
99.1% 
Average Omission 
error 
0.2% 
0.1% 
Average Commission 
error 
0.7% 
0.8% • 
Upper band of the 
probability of error 
9% 
7% 
Computer processing 4min 25sec 
time 
4min. 30sec. 
Fig. 1 - Separability of the best TM band 
canbination selected by J-M distance.