Closed gerritholl closed 6 years ago
This also needs a "K"-value, i.e. the right hand of the harmonisation, estimating the expected difference for any matchup pair, based on the spectral response functions. The original ones or the new ones?
There is also an uncertainty associated with K. Is this just random or also systematic?
This can possibly be derived from the local standard deviation using the window of HIRS pixels around it.
Needs to have additional fields pointing to calibration parameters that went into the calculation for each radiance. Q: Does this make sense for full FCDR as well?
Needs something that makes sure the harmonisation process doesn't fall over. Will need the right parameters.
Table:
C_S C_IWCT C_E R_IWCT R_self …
u_r
u_s
NB, this does not correspond completely to data in the L1B file, but to values at some level in the measurement equation, as deep as needed to include explicitly the fundamental calibration parameters, but no deeper.
And additionally:
K
u_K_s
--> from SRFs
u_K_r
--> from matchups, see #108
Does not contain radiances or fundamental calibration parameters (but those are input to function)
See also on CEMS, /group_workspaces/cems2/fiduceo/Data/Matchup_Simulated/Data/Harm_RealData/…
for examples of how it may look like as for the example of AVHRR.
This follows Sams document on the wiki (20171211-FIDUCEO-SH-Harmonisation_Input_File_Format_Definition-v6.pdf)
For the harmonisation as performed by NPL, need to write a script that adds telemetry information to HIRS-HIRS matchups and applies the FIDUCEO measurement equation.