Calibration Report for Radarsat ScanSAR Wide A on the

ScanSAR Processor

By Wade Albright
Alaska SAR Facility
March 04
 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................... 3
NEED FOR CALIBRATION ............................................................................................................................. 3
DATASET IDENTIFICATION .................................................................................................................. 3

METHODS.................................................................................................................................................... 4
RADIOMETRIC CALIBRATION ...................................................................................................................... 4
PRODUCT VERIFICATION SUBSYSTEM ANALYSIS......................................................................................... 5
Image Quality ......................................................................................................................................... 5
Radiometric Analysis.............................................................................................................................. 5
RESULTS...................................................................................................................................................... 6

DISCUSSION................................................................................................................................................ 7
RADIOMETRIC ERROR .................................................................................................................................. 7
ABSOLUTE LOCATION ACCURACY ............................................................................................................... 7
NOISE FLOOR ISSUES ................................................................................................................................... 8
CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................................. 8
INTRODUCTION

This document summarizes the calibration of the Alaska SAR Facility’s ScanSAR Processor (SSP) for the
ScanSAR Wide A (SWA) beam mode of Radarsat-1 as of March 2004.

NEED FOR CALIBRATION

Radiometric calibration is necessary to remove the effects of errors introduced at different points in signal
collection and processing. Signal received at the antenna is greatly affected by the antenna gain pattern.
Thermal noise bias of the signal intensity also may introduce errors. Gain in the system is unknown, and
therefore, image brightness is indeterminate for uncalibrated products. The Technical Services Office
(TSO) at the Alaska Satellite Facility (ASF) radiometrically calibrates products, correcting for the above
effects, to yield products that reflect truth to within specifications and to as narrow a statistical distribution
as possible.

DATASET IDENTIFICATION
Two types of ground targets were used for calibration and analysis: corner reflectors for impulse response
measurements and rainforest for radiometric analysis. ASF maintains an array of corner reflectors in Delta
Junction, Alaska for the purpose of measuring impulse response functions. These corner reflectors supply a
bright target of known quantity for image quality analysis.

Table 1. Dataset Analysis

Target Ordering Gain Measurements

Analysis Target Type Location Resolution Setting Performed on Data
Corner
Reflectors Delta Resolution, PSLR,
Impulse Response (point) Junction, AK Full Low Geolocation, RCS

Rainforest
Radiometric (distributed) Borneo Low Normal Gamma Naught

Normally for a radiometric calibration effort the Amazon rainforest is used for distributed target analysis,
because it has isotropic backscatter, γ0 is well known (-6.5 ±1 dB), it is stable temporally and spatially, and
it is relatively uniform. However, until recently, there has not been a receiving ground station with the
Amazon rainforest within its mask. Historically we have been able to get around this problem by putting
the data on RADARSAT’S onboard recorder (OBR). Unfortunately, SWA is too large to fit on the
recorder, therefore we were unable to obtain Amazon rainforest data to perform the calibration. After an
analysis of the ASF archive, we found a useful dataset over the rainforests of Borneo received from the
Singapore ground station. While the site in Borneo is not as large or quite as uniform as the Amazon, we
found it was useful when used in conjunction with calibrated ScanSAR Wide B (SWB) data over the same
area.

The datasets identified in Table 2 represent the images used in the SWA calibration effort. Ideally the
radiometric dataset would include at least three independent images per direction (ascending and
descending). Regrettably, the unusual size of an SWA image restricted our feasible datasets to the images
listed below. While not perfect, we believe that the calibration derived from these images represents a
suitable approximation of the radiometric variances due to the satellite’s antenna.
Table 2. Calibration Dataset

Radiometric Analysis Impulse Response Measurements

Absolute Orbit Frame ID Absolute Orbit Frame ID
14168 449 10849 290
14168 451 18516 160
14611 448 18595 290
14611 451 20996 290
14611 455 24061 160
14175 895 25169 290
14175 896 29714 290
29735 160
31650 160

METHODS
RADIOMETRIC CALIBRATION

Radiometric calibration is centered on the equation that converts the processor’s output digital numbers
(DN) to the target radar backscatter coefficient σ0 (in dB units):
(Equation 1)
σ0 = 10 log10[a2(DN2 – a1Nr)]

Where DN is the digital number, Nr is the noise offset as a function of range, a1 and a2 are adjustable
parameters, called the Noise Scale Factor and the Linear Conversion Factor, respectively.

If the ground target area, represented in σ0, is converted to projected area (from the satellite’s point of
view), then the backscatter coefficient is constant for isotropically scattering targets. Tropical rainforests,
particularly the Amazon Rainforest, have proven to be stable isotropic targets. This backscatter
coefficient, γ0, can be calculated by:

(Equation 2)
γ0 = σ0 - 10 log10(cos ϕ)

where ϕ is the incidence angle.

To correct for antenna pattern effects, a file called the “Calibration Parameter File” is supplied to the
processor, which contains a1, a2, and the antenna pattern correction. Data containing isotropic targets are
processed by the SSP and analyzed as a distributed target. The average γ0 for uniform areas within the
images is calculated as a function of range, and then the antenna pattern correction is adjusted until γ0 is
nearly constant. The linear conversion factor, a2, is varied such that the γ0 value is equal to the accepted
value for the target.

The parameter a1 scales the noise vector N(r), so that thermal noise bias or noise floor can be removed. The
noise floor has the shape of the antenna pattern correction because, although the noise floor is range
independent in the raw data, the processor multiplies the raw data by the inverse of the antenna pattern
correction. The parameter a1 is found by selecting targets as dark as possible, such as lakes or calm ocean,
then solving for a1= DN2 / Nr for the lowest DN values as a function of range.

In the case of SWA however, the noise vector is hard coded into the processor. So there is no benefit to
calculating the actual noise vector since the information will not be passed on to the user. Therefore, a1
was set to 0, so no false scaling is applied to the data. It is hoped that future development will allow this
situation to be rectified.

PRODUCT VERIFICATION SYSTEM ANALYSIS

Image Quality

The Product Verification System (PVS) was used to perform the image quality calculations. These
calculations include: resolution, peak to side-lobe ratio (PSLR), absolute location error, and radar cross-
section (RCS). The data from these analyses were imported into Microsoft Excel where the averages and
standard deviations were calculated.

Radiometric Analysis

The PVS was used to verify the antenna pattern calibration. Multiple scenes, or images, were analyzed and
the γ0 vs. range values for each available scene were collated. The Amazon rainforest is used for
radiometric calibration because it is an isotropic target with a well-defined backscatter, which remains
constant over time (-6.5dB). As described in the Dataset Identification section, for SWA the Borneo
rainforest was used as an alternative to the Amazon rainforest.

Radiometric calibration has two standards, which must be met for a product to be deemed calibrated:
absolute and relative radiometric accuracy. The absolute radiometric accuracy represents how close the
image values are to the real world measurements. For instance the Amazon rainforest has an accepted
backscatter of –6.5±1dB gamma naught. For a SAR image over the Amazon, with a target value of –6.3dB
gamma naught, the absolute radiometric accuracy would be 0.2dB. The overall relative radiometric
accuracy represents how much the accepted target varies from scene to scene and within a single scene.
The radiometric results were calculated from the following:

ytotal = Average of all γ0 values for the beam from the analyzed images.
stotal = Standard deviation of all γ0 values for the beam from the analyzed images.

Absolute radiometric error is the value of ytotal, less the accepted γ0 value for the target, nominally –6.5 dB
for the Amazon rainforest. The overall relative radiometric is the stotal .

Absolute Radiometric Error = ytotal -(-6.5).

Overall Relative Radiometric Error (1 σ) = stotal

However, since a distributed target with a known backscatter was not available for SWA radiometric
calibration, a cross calibration with a beam mode known to be radiometrically accurate was performed.
The beam mode chosen for this cross calibration was SWB, due to its similar properties to SWA. We must
account for the error inherent in the SWB calibration. So our composite error, includes these errors, added
to the errors of the SWA calibration. Below is a mathematical representation of the error propagation.

∆γ swa = γBswa − γBswb + ∆γ swb

σ ∆ γswa = σ γB swa
2
+ σ γBswb + σ ∆ γswb
2 2

∆γswa = absolute offset of SWA

γBswa = average gamma naught of SWA Borneo rainforest
γBswb = average gamma naught of SWB Borneo rainforest
γ∆swb = published absolute offset of SWB (calibrated from Amazon rainforest)
σ∆γswa = overall relative radiometric accuracy of SWA
 Noise Analysis

Noise analysis was not performed for SWA due to the hard coding of the noise vector in the SSP.

RESULTS
Table 3. Impulse Response Measurements using Delta Junction Corner Reflectors.
Average σ
Resolution (meters)
Range 103 17
Azimuth 66 4

PSLR (dB)
Range -15.3 2.7
Azimuth -16 3.6

Geolocation (meters) Out of Spec. - Investigation ongoing

Radar Cross Section (dB) 44 3.6

Radiometric Accuracy 0.04 dB +/- 0.47 dB(1 s)

Graph 1. Radiometric flattening results for Borneo rainforest test area.

SWA Radiometry Results

-4.5
15 20 25 30 35 40 45
-5.0
14168_449
Gamma Naught (dB)

-5.5 14168_451
-6.0 14611_448
14611_451
-6.5
14611_455
-7.0 14175_895
-7.5 14175_896
Average Gamma0
-8.0
-8.5
Look Angle (deg)
Graph 2. SWA Borneo radiometric return, compared to SWB Borneo radiometric return.

SWA vs SWB

-4.5
15 20 25 30 35 40 45
-5
Gamma Naught (dB)

-5.5
-6
SWB Borneo Average
-6.5
SWA Borneo Average
-7
-7.5
-8
-8.5
Look Angle (deg)

DISCUSSION
RADIOMETRIC ERROR

As mentioned previously, we were unable to obtain Amazon rainforest data for SWA due to the limitations
of the satellite on-board recorder. Therefore an alternative target was used on the island of Borneo. The
tropical rainforests of Borneo appear to have similar properties to those in the Amazon, but with a bit more
topographic relief. To prevent having the calibration based on the assumption that Borneo’s rainforests and
the Amazon’s rainforests respond equally to SAR transmissions, we also performed a cross calibration with
SWB. The SWB mode had been calibrated using the Amazon rainforest and meets the science
specifications for radiometric accuracy. So, if we take into account the error in SWB, and compare it’s
results over the same targets in Borneo to SWA, we can obtain a more accurate representation of SWA’s
radiometric accuracy. Unfortunately, we could not acquire a large enough dataset to have great statistical
confidence, however we are confident the data we did use was representative of the Borneo rainforest and
the cross calibration with the Amazon rainforest is valid.

Using the data available to us, the relative radiometric accuracy looks very good to the naked eye.
However, due to the error inherent in cross calibration, the relative radiometric accuracy for SWA looks
rather large (0.47 dB @ 1 σ). It would be very interesting to perform a recalibration of SWA if Amazon
data ever became available to us, and see how accurate a representation we were able to get using Borneo
data. The absolute radiometric accuracy in contrast looks very good on paper (0.04 dB @ 1 σ), but this
number is very small due in part to the small size of the dataset.

GEOLOCATION ACCURACY

During the calibration we noticed some geolocation issues that seemed to point towards an error in our
PVS. Upon further investigation it appears that all ScanSAR products fall out of specification in regards to
geolocation accuracy. The numbers are consistent and indicate an absolute offset may exist in the data.
We are still investigating the exact nature of the error, and will report on it, and a possible solution
sometime in the near future.
NOISE FLOOR ISSUES

All products output by the SSP have the noise vector hard coded into the product metadata. Therefore the
actual noise vector for each individual image is not reflected in its associated leader file. To compensate
for this, ASF modified the tool “calibrate” to have the ability to calculate a nominal noise vector for any
SWB product based on the antenna pattern used to correct the data. Calibrate does not have this capability
for SWA products. Knowing this is the case, the noise scalar (a1) was set to 0. The belief that it is better to
not apply any scalar than to apply an incorrect scalar led us to this decision. It is hoped that in the future
either the SSP will be capable of calculating the correct noise vector for each individual image, or that the
calibrate tool will be modified to handle other ScanSAR products as well.

CONCLUSION
ScanSAR was introduced on RADARSAT as an experimental product. As such, the science requirements
for it were fewer and less restrictive, than for strip mode SAR sensors. ScanSAR Wide A on the ScanSAR
Processor meets the science requirements for radiometric accuracy. The only other requirement levied
against ScanSAR is for geolocation accuracy. Unfortunately, the SSP does not currently produce products
that meet these geolocation requirements. This problem is under investigation, and it is hoped that a
solution will soon be identified and implemented. Until such time, ScanSAR products may continue to be
used in the same manner that they have been since their introduction in 1995. Particularly for SWA, its
products may now be used for consistent radiometric analysis. Since SWB received new code to improve
data quality issues, such as improved Doppler determination and beam mosaicing, and can be acquired with
the on-board recorder, it should remain the beam mode of choice, over SWA, if the option is available.