×

You are using an outdated browser that does not fully support the intranda viewer.
As a result, some pages may not be displayed correctly.

We recommend you use one of the following browsers:

Full text

Title
Remote sensing for resources development and environmental management
Author
Damen, M. C. J.

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.