Dear Markus, So I run the command g.region w=179:59:45W e=180:00:15E Now my log now before and after the command g.region w=179:59:45W e=180:00:15E is as follows:
360 degree EW extent is exceeded by 1 cells 360 degree EW extent is exceeded by 1 cells (Tue Aug 20 16:41:45 2019) Command finished (0 sec) (Tue Aug 20 16:43:47 2019) g.region w=179:59:45W e=180:00:15E 360 degree EW extent is exceeded by 1.99983 cells 360 degree EW extent is exceeded by 1 cells (Tue Aug 20 16:43:48 2019) Command finished (0 sec) (Tue Aug 20 16:44:18 2019) g.region -p projection: 3 (Latitude-Longitude) zone: 0 datum: wgs84 ellipsoid: wgs84 north: 75:00:15N south: 65:00:15S west: 179:59:45W east: 180:00:15E nsres: 0:00:30 ewres: 0:00:30 rows: 16801 cols: 43200 cells: 725803200 360 degree EW extent is exceeded by 1.99983 cells (Tue Aug 20 16:44:18 2019) Command finished (0 sec) Now appears to say that is exceeded by 1.99983 cells.... why could this be happening? Thanks a lot Regards Gabriel On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 4:33 PM Gabriel Cotlier <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Markus, > Thanks a lot for your response and explanation. > Changing the region to w=179:59:45W e=180:00:15E, am I not only avoiding > the warning, but also changing the layers to be physically correct, right? > > Thanks again for your help. > regards, > Gabriel > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 4:24 PM Markus Metz <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Dear Gabriel, >> >> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 12:19 AM Gabriel Cotlier <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > Dear Markus, >> > >> > Thanks a lot for the clarification and explanation, your response was >> indeed helpful. >> > >> > I got for all maps in the mapset I used, for both the DMSP original >> raster layers and the intercallibrated rasrer layers the following: >> > >> > r.info map= name_of_raster_map >> > >> > 360 degree EW extent is exceeded by 1 cells >> > 360 degree EW extent is exceeded by 1 cells >> > >> > Which, following what you said before in your response I understand >> makes it correct region, right? >> >> this region is correct considering the resolution with is now exactly 30 >> arc seconds. >> >> this region is not correct considering that 360 degree EW extent is >> exceeded by 1 cell. The first column from 180:00:15W to 179:59:45W and the >> last column from 179:59:45E to 180:00:15E spatially overlap, the first and >> last column of DMSP are duplicates with regard to their location. If you >> want to avoid this warning, you can set the region to w=179:59:45W >> e=180:00:15E. >> >> Markus M >> >> > >> > Another question I wanted to ask is: how to know whether the operation >> of intercallibration was correctly done, for tha I thought maybe thare is >> the a place from where I can corroborate whether the min and max values of >> each intercallibrated raster layer is correct? >> > >> > >> > I'm attaching the log of all the files I got from 'r.info' command in >> it there appears always for the region '360 degree EW extent is exceeded by >> 1 cells' and also the min and max value of each intercallibrated raster >> layer. >> > >> > So as to know if I got all the raster correctly intercallibrated maybe >> checking if the min and max value for each intercallibrated corresponds >> correctly is there a place where I can check that? >> > >> > Maybe according to my attached log file is possible to know if all the >> intercallibration operation was correctly done and thus the layers are >> ready for further study and analysis. >> > >> > >> > Thanks a lot again for your help. >> > Kind regards, >> > Gabriel >> > >> > Virus-free. www.avast.com >> > >> > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 4:41 PM Markus Metz < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 12:05 AM Gabriel Cotlier <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Hello, >> >> > My question is how does it influence the fact that it say: >> >> > 360 degree EW extent is exceeded by 0.999827 cells >> >> >> >> this is caused by the truncated resolution of 0.008333333300000 >> >> with a corrected resolution of 00:00:30, the message is >> >> >> >> > 360 degree EW extent is exceeded by 1 cells >> >> >> >> considering the EW extents of 180:00:15W to 180:00:15E, that means >> that the first column from 180:00:15W to 179:59:45W and the last column >> from 179:59:45E to 180:00:15E spatially overlap, the first and last column >> of DMSP are duplicates with regard to their location. If you want to avoid >> this warning, you can set the region to w=179:59:45W e=180:00:15E. >> >> >> >> Note that the recommended way to set a computational region to a >> raster map is g.region rast=name_of_raster_map. After that, as for DMSP, >> you might want to adjust the computational region to your needs, e.g. a >> smaller region of interest, or restrict it to 360 degrees EW extent in case >> the raster map is exceeding 360 degrees EW extent. >> >> >> >> HTH, >> >> >> >> Markus M >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > while when I loaded a first file I defined a region as >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > which is exactly I suppose the correct region for the DMSP data.... >> then after loading the other layers it appears: >> >> > >> >> > 360 degree EW extent is exceeded by 0.999827 cells >> >> > 360 degree EW extent is exceeded by 1 cells >> >> > >> >> > Thanks a lot >> >> > Gabriel >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 6:54 PM Gabriel Cotlier <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Hello, another question, regarding i.nightlights.intercalibration, >> can I run this code as python package/lbrary loading it from Spyder or >> Jupiter Notebook instead of using GRASS interface, if so how is a >> convenient way to install i.nightlights.intercalibration in python using >> Spyder? >> >> >> Thanks a lot. >> >> >> Gabriel >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 4:54 PM Gabriel Cotlier < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Dear Nikos. >> >> >>> After a long time I'm trying to reproduce a routine I have for >> doing intercallibratrion of DMSP 1992-2012 but for some reason It doesn't >> work to me. I think is because the problem between the region of the layers >> 30 arc sec should resolution be from 0.008333333300000 to >> 0.008333333333333, i.e. exactly 30 arc-seconds? and the computational >> region be the same ? I got stuck on how to set it to work... from the side >> of the region setting. >> >> >>> However in addition my routing also has a for loop which does not >> work ok as well. >> >> >>> I would appreciate a lot of you can give it a look and tell me how >> to make it work... >> >> >>> Thanks a lot in advance >> >> >>> Kind regards, >> >> >>> Gabriel >> >> >>> >> #####----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >>> # complete routine for intercalliration of DSMP/OLS light stable >> product >> >> >>> >> >> >>> import grass.script as gscript >> >> >>> import os >> >> >>> import os,glob >> >> >>> >> >> >>> # get working directory >> >> >>> print os.getcwd() >> >> >>> >> >> >>> # change working directory where raster files are >> >> >>> os.chdir('C:\\Users\\Gabriel\\Documents\\grassdata\\lights') >> >> >>> >> >> >>> # see files in directory >> >> >>> ls >> >> >>> >> >> >>> # import all raster files to grass --- here is a kind of >> problem...??? >> >> >>> for tif_file in glob.glob("*.tif"): >> >> >>> new_rast = os.path.splitext(tif_file)[0] >> >> >>> grass.run_command("r.in.gdal", flags="a", input=tif_file, >> output=new_rast) >> >> >>> >> >> >>> # get info of one of the imported raster >> >> >>> r.info map=F121996 >> >> >>> >> >> >>> # run intercalliration algorithm >> >> >>> i.nightlights.intercalibration >> image=F101992,F101993,F101994,F121994,F121995,F121996,F121997,F121998,F121999,F141997,F141998,F141999,F142000,F142001,F142002,F142003,F152000,F152001,F152002,F152003,F152004,F152005,F152006,F152007,F162004,F162005,F162006,F162007,F162008,F162009,F182010,F182011,F182012,F182013 >> suffix=c model=elvidge2014 -t >> >> >>> >> >> >>> # correct general region adjust to raster file --- here the region >> is exactly 30 arc for the raster as I could see.... >> >> >>> g.region raster=F121996 >> >> >>> >> >> >>> # cerate a list of rasters in the mapset >> >> >>> # rastlist=grass.read_command("g.list",type="rast").split() >> >> >>> rasters = grass.read_command('g.list', type='raster').splitlines() >> >> >>> >> >> >>> # change working directory >> >> >>> os.chdir('C:\\Users\\Gabriel\\Desktop\\out') >> >> >>> >> >> >>> # save rasters in mapset to file >> >> >>> for raster in rasters: >> >> >>> grass.run_command('r.out.gdal', input=raster, output=raster + >> '.tiff', format='GTiff') >> >> >>> >> >> >>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:06 AM Gabriel Cotlier < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Dear Nikos, >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Thanks a lot for your answer and the orientation. >> >> >>>> The information and the link are very useful. >> >> >>>> Kind regards, >> >> >>>> Gabriel >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 5:19 AM Nikos Alexandris < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> * Gabriel Cotlier <[email protected]> [2018-08-21 12:00:24 >> -0300]: >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >Dear Nikos and GRASS users, >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >>>>> >I would like to ask if nonetheless the effect due to "stray >> light" the >> >> >>>>> >*i.landsat8.swlst* code for split window is still applicable to >> Landsat 8 >> >> >>>>> >data and whether these error is specially visible on water >> bodies? and >> >> >>>>> >whether band 10 is better than band 11 in terms of correction >> processing >> >> >>>>> >for Level -1 data products? >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >>>>> >Thanks a lot. >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >>>>> >Kind regards, >> >> >>>>> >Gabriel >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Dear Gabriel, >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> for details and references, refer to >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> https://landsat.gsfc.nasa.gov/landsat-8-thermal-data-ghost-free-after-stray-light-exorcism/ >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Make sure you use the newest Level-1 Collection 1 Landsat 8 >> products. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> I use `i.landsat8.swlst` and plan to improve it further. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> However, whether to prefer a Split-Window based approach, or >> another >> >> >>>>> Single-Channel one, depends on what you want to do. Think of >> spatial >> >> >>>>> extent and coverage of various land (cover) types, temporal >> extent >> >> >>>>> and more. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Thermal remote sensing is hard(er) also because it's hard to get >> >> >>>>> ground-truth data sets so as to validate LST estimations. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Nikos >> >
_______________________________________________ grass-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-user
