Thread View: sci.image.processing
2 messages
2 total messages
Started by simon
Tue, 01 Sep 1992 21:54
image processing
Author: simon
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1992 21:54
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1992 21:54
5 lines
452 bytes
452 bytes
Is there anybody there who has done compression with radar data ? Thanks, Simon
Re: image processing
Author: Peter G. Ford
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1992 02:53
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1992 02:53
50 lines
3149 bytes
3149 bytes
In article <simon_wing-010992180153@wings-mac.jhuapl.edu> simon_wing@spacemail.jhuapl.edu (simon ) writes: >Is there anybody there who has done compression with radar data ? You must be more specific: "radar data" can mean anything from the raw signal to SAR range-Doppler images, quad-polarization vector images, cartographic maps, altimeter profiles, etc. etc. Each can usually be compressed if you're willing to spend CPU time or sacrifice resolution, or both. A raw SAR signal can usually be compressed since its SNR is greatly increased during subsequent processing (range and azimuth compression). The Magellan radar uses a 4:1 compression based on a "block floating- point quantization" algorithm -- data sampled as 8-bit numbers are split into 8-bit binary exponents and 2-bit mantissae; since the exponents are expected to vary more slowly than the mantissae, blocks of data are normalized to an average exponent. Although this appears to reduce the dynamic range of the resulting imaged from 256:1 to 4:1, this is subsequently restored by the averaging that takes place during range compression and multi-look summation. 4-polarization radar images, i.e. those that combine all senses of transmit and receive polarization, are usually compressed into 10- element symmetric Stokes matrix pixels, and then compressed as if they were simple images. It is quite difficult to devise an automatic method of compressing simple images of radar backscatter cross-section. Since they are usually computer-generated, their pixel dimension and DN range are likely to be chosen to maximize information content. Secondly, the dominant noise source is usually "speckle" and is proportional to the local image intensity. If an 8-bit image appears "sharp" and "gritty" to the eye, you probably won't get much reduction in size from a lossless algorithm such as Huffman or Lempel-Ziv. If you are prepared to take the loss, run the image through a small median filter and then use Lempel-Ziv -- but make sure that you aren't throwing away anything important (e.g. the image of a corner-reflector that you'll need to calibrate the image intensity!) This same discussion applies equally to other coherent-source images, e.g. sonar. Two of the largest imaging datasets currently published on CD-ROM, the Magellan Venus mapping project and the Gloria side-scan sonar ocean floor survey, have both elected not to compress their products. I'd be very interested to hear from anyone who is working on this problem. Regards, Peter Ford MIT and Magellan Project
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads