invalid/nodata pixels when processing MODIS data over water using l2gen

Use this Forum to find information on, or ask a question about, NASA Earth Science data.
Post Reply
eccc_modis
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 2:16 pm America/New_York
Answers: 0

invalid/nodata pixels when processing MODIS data over water using l2gen

by eccc_modis » Wed Aug 01, 2018 2:32 pm America/New_York

When process archive MODIS Aqua data with l2gen, the resultant Level 2 product has invalid Rrs at highly productive water.  Any comment is appreciated.  My experiment is given below.Image(MYD01.A2017266.1830.061.2018163171904.hdf; L1B; 667nm)Started from download hdf file, I ran GEO and L1A/B processing (figure above, overlapped with lake boundary in blue lines), then I ran l2gen : l2gen ifile=$l1b_file, geofile=$geo_file, ofile=’rst.L2', maskhilt=0with the results as follows: [URL://drive.google.com/open?id=1fPScBhDtb13VisQNZT7YMjWpggYMrEW6 ] resultant Rrs is nodata or -0.01553sr-1 for the high chlorophyll region in the lake (such as red circled). I expect some positive, varied Rrs in the same area, considering no saturation in the L1B data as shown above. I tried different mask combinations, such as additional maskcloud=0, maskstlight=0, maskland=0, same invalid regions.In addition, artificial lines like horizontal strips exist in the resultant map, what is the cause?

Tags:

OB.DAAC - SeanBailey
User Services
User Services
Posts: 1358
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2019 6:15 pm America/New_York
Answers: 1

invalid/nodata pixels when processing MODIS data over water using l2gen

by OB.DAAC - SeanBailey » Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:52 pm America/New_York

The problem is that there *are* saturated data.  The 869nm and 748nm bands both saturate over that region.  Since these two are the bands used by default in the aerosol selection, the processing fails.  You can choose an alternative atmospheric correction algorithm that does not employ these bands (but you'll also have to select an alternate band for cloud masking, since it uses 869nm by default as well... 

MODIS has multiple detectors per scan.  The stripes you are seeing are at the scan boundaries.  We do our best to mitigate this calibration artifact, but it will never be completely eliminated.  That said it is not as evident when I process the scene.  Are you using the latest calibration?

Sean

eccc_modis
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 2:16 pm America/New_York
Answers: 0

invalid/nodata pixels when processing MODIS data over water using l2gen

by eccc_modis » Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:47 pm America/New_York

Hi Sean, Thank you for the reply.I tried options for aer_opt, the best (with least nodata/invalid pixel) result comes from:aer_opt=-8, aer_wave_short=2130, aer_wave_long=2130as an approach you mentioned in a previous post: https://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/forum/oceancolor/topic_show.pl?pid=27608;hl=l2gen%20aer_optIt still has a small portion of invalid pixels in the Rrs748nm band. I used "cloud_wave=1240".I tried aer_opt=-2, -3, both are not ideal, even changing the "aer_wave_short,aer_wave_long". And I am not sure which wavelengths would be correct to assign to them.  Then my followup question is, what is the BEST choice of atmospheric correction for MODIS Aqua image at highly productive inland water?Or, what is a safe approach with l2gen that at least give me valid Rrs over the entire region, esp at areas with dense algae? I think the closest answer I can find is what you gave in previous posts: https://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/forum/oceancolor/topic_show.pl?pid=24442;hl=l2gen%20aer_opt and here: https://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/forum/oceancolor/topic_show.pl?pid=23729;hl=l2gen%20aer_opt"When the issues are relate to the pixel-by-pixel aerosol determination - particularly in small regional studies - you may have success with a fixed aerosol implementation. If you have a priori knowledge of the aerosol type, you can simply choose a single aerosol model.  You could also take an iterative approach, using valid aerosol retrievals in a first run to select the aerosol model to use in as second, fixed aerosol run (an approach described by Hu et al., 2000 [URL: //dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0034-4257(00)00080-8) ]. "But I am not very familiar with AC, more details about the implementation in seadas would be very helpful. such as how "iterative approach" using l2gen?Thank you and really appreciate your help.Chui,

OB.DAAC - SeanBailey
User Services
User Services
Posts: 1358
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2019 6:15 pm America/New_York
Answers: 1

invalid/nodata pixels when processing MODIS data over water using l2gen

by OB.DAAC - SeanBailey » Fri Aug 03, 2018 10:09 am America/New_York

There is no "best" approach for dealing with water conditions that violate the basic assumptions (or stretch them to their limits) of the various atmospheric correction approaches. 
What may work for you may not work for someone else's favorite neck of the kelp forest.  In fact, what works for you today, may not work six months from now.

That said, the fixed AOT approach is a decent choice, but as you found even that doesn't resolve all the "problems".  Your ROI is pretty close to land, yes geographically, but I mean optically. 
You could try using the rhos product, which does not employ an aerosol correction.

Try using 2130 for the cloud_wave and lower the cloud_thresh to 0.018.

The "iterative approach" is described in the Hu paper...it's a manual method.

Sean

eccc_modis
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 2:16 pm America/New_York
Answers: 0

invalid/nodata pixels when processing MODIS data over water using l2gen

by eccc_modis » Fri Jan 11, 2019 9:55 am America/New_York

Hello Sean,Still want some further comments on this topic.My goal is to use MODIS aqua [667,678,748]nm bands to calculate florescence line height (FLH) and test its relation to chlorophyll concentration. I obviously want the **maximum valid** coverage in each MODIS image. But I have the above mentioned band saturation issue. So I used l2gen and other approaches to generate different levels of MODIS products (L1B, rhos, L2, etc) and evaluate which one is the best for my work.1. Considering the MODIS bands are saturated when sensed as delivered in L1 product, is that suggesting all the derived products have the same extent of valid pixels?(L1B preview of the MODIS file mentioned before) [URL: //drive.google.com/open?id=1HNCeLSIrLDIOgMEltdE40YdzWnSdCe2j2 ]. If bands are saturated from beginning, is there any way to recover (expend) the extent of valid pixels? such as by interpolation or build look-up-table to fill the saturated pixels with reasonable (thought not observed) values?3. Also, how to exploit the value of "_lo" and "_hi" bands, or what separate value each of them provide? (I notice low and high bands saturated in L1B products at different values: EV_1KM_RefSB_14hi: 0.0559; 14low:0.15316;  13hi: 0.7134; 13lo:0.14981;)Thank you,

OB.DAAC - SeanBailey
User Services
User Services
Posts: 1358
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2019 6:15 pm America/New_York
Answers: 1

invalid/nodata pixels when processing MODIS data over water using l2gen

by OB.DAAC - SeanBailey » Mon Jan 28, 2019 2:49 pm America/New_York

Saturation, however, is not something that can be overcome.  The l2gen code reads the low gain variants of bands 13 and 14 (more data would be saturated if we read the high gain datasets).

BTW, FLH is a standard product in our Level-2 Ocean Color data for the  MODIS instruments.

Regards,
Sean

lianfeng619
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed May 22, 2019 11:13 am America/New_York
Answers: 0

invalid/nodata pixels when processing MODIS data over water using l2gen

by lianfeng619 » Wed May 22, 2019 7:45 pm America/New_York

Dear Sean,

Just a follow up question for this comment. When using fixed AOT approach, L2gen need to specify a AOT value for the entire image. Don't know if there is way to use pixel-specific AOT (i.e., a AOT image with several bands instead of a single value)? The aerosol conditions may very over a large area.

Thanks.

Leon

OB.DAAC - SeanBailey
User Services
User Services
Posts: 1358
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2019 6:15 pm America/New_York
Answers: 1

invalid/nodata pixels when processing MODIS data over water using l2gen

by OB.DAAC - SeanBailey » Fri May 24, 2019 3:43 pm America/New_York

The fixed AOT option is just that, a fixed AOT.  If you want per-pixel aerosol retrieval, use another method...like the default :grin:

Sean

Post Reply