W3605_PUB2 07/02/2016 12:50:1 Page 1
REMOTE SENSING GEOMETRIC CORRECTIONS 2. SPATIAL RESOLUTION, SPATIAL SAMPLING,
1. INTRODUCTION
Satellite remote sensing data have become an essential tool
in many applications, mainly environmental monitoring at
a global scale. The geometric processing of remote sensing
data is an essential element in scientific and operational
applications based on multisource data integration into
models or management tools using geographical informa-
tion systems (GISs). Although remote sensing techniques
have been applied in many different fields, the operational
use has been increasing with the improvements in the
adequacy of preprocessing steps, particularly the geometric
processing of the data (1). This is particularly true when
using time series of data, or spatial mosaics containing
multiple scenes, or even more when using multisource data
information from several satellite systems for a given
application. New applications and increased possibilities
are becoming possible with the operational availability of
high spatial resolution data at a global scale with a perio-
dicity of few days, and new series of advanced sensors with
improved spatial, spectral, and angular sampling capabili-
ties, requiring accurate and automatic method for the
geometrical processing of the data (2).
Satellite images are becoming essential for scientific
research, cartographic mapping, and everyday usage for
practical applications, together with satellite navigation.
In all the cases, the geometrical processing of the data to
convert the raw satellite information into usable geograph-
ical maps is necessary because original data are acquired in
a geometry that does not correspond to the geometry used
in Earth maps due to panoramic view distortions, satellite
motion, and Earth rotation (3). The problem becomes more
critical as the spatial resolution of the data increases.
Currently, satellite images are acquired with resolutions
up to about 0.5 m, and the accuracy requirements to match
pixel-level accuracy in the final resulting products is really
challenging. Fortunately, as the geometric precision and
accuracy requirements have been increasing, the capabili-
ties of space technologies to deliver more and more accu-
rately positioned data have also increased with enhanced
satellite positioning methods and improved satellite abso-
lute orientation methods and pointing capabilities (4). The
increase in systematic spatial coverage, improved spatial
resolution, and free and easy availability of the data for the
users has transformed the level of usability of remote
sensing data.
There is a need for spectral and radiometric calibration
and removal of technical anomalies (dead pixels, striping
resulting from pixel nonuniformity, etc.) (1), particularly
for automatic techniques based on image correlation
approaches, but we will not discuss such preprocessing
aspects in this article and assume that all technical radio-
metric anomalies have been removed from the data, or at
least compensated, before geometrical processing is per-
formed using the techniques described in the following
sections (Figure 1).
J. Webster (ed.), Wiley Encyclopedia of Electrical and Electronics Engineering. Copyright  2016 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
DOI: 10.1002/047134608X.W3605.pub2
AND GEOMETRICAL PROPERTIES OF AN IMAGE
Geometrical properties of remote sensing images must be
well understood and properly considered in the usage of
such data, particularly for cartographic and land mapping
applications. In the geometrical processing of remote sens-
ing data, the spatial resolution of the images and the
spatial sampling distance both play a critical role (5). These
two different concepts must be clearly distinguished. The
spatial sampling distance – often called “pixel size” – is just
the distance (in the given geometry) between two consecu-
tive pixels. Such pixel size or sampling distance is usually
different along track (scanning along the orbital path) and
across track (instantaneous field of view for a given image
line). Moreover, the sampling distances may vary, even
within an image, and the magnitude and type of such
variations is closely linked to the image acquisition princi-
ple, which is assumed to be known for each given image.
The concept of “spatial resolution” is more complex and
difficult to be expressed by a single number. In fact, a
system is defined by the so-called point spread function
(PSF), which defines how a point source is transformed
through the whole imaging system and provides complete
information about spatial resolution. To express the “spa-
tial resolution” as a single number, the PSF function is
often approximated (or fitted) to a simple function such a
Gaussian, and the full-width-half-maximum (FWHM) of
the Gaussian is assumed as the spatial resolution of the
image. Obviously, FWHM provides only a rough indication
of the spatial resolution, but the ratio FMWH over the
sampling distance gives an idea of the image quality. Such
a ratio tends to be slightly over 1 and is selected to
guarantee sharp images while avoiding aliasing as much
as possible. More sophisticated approaches to analyze the
spatial properties of an image are based on the Fourier
transform and use concepts such as the modulation trans-
fer function (MTF), but for the geometrical processing of
remote sensing images, it is often assumed that a detailed
knowledge of image optical properties is usually not neces-
sary. However, a resampling process in which images have
to be resampled to other geometries, the PSF/MTF con-
cepts play a key role in preserving image resolution prop-
erties; therefore, it is important to know the PSF of the
instrument for a proper geometrical processing of the
images.
In the case of synthetic-aperture radar (SAR) data, the
concept of spatial resolution is also somehow confusing,
since the resolution depends on the way the original raw
data are processed. Typical available systems can provide a
resolution of only few meters. However, this resolution
cannot be used in regular applications due to the presence
of noise (or undesired signals). Two approaches are fol-
lowed: spatial averaging and multilooking, which reduces
the spatial resolution by increasing pixel spacing, and local
filtering, which reduces the spatial resolution but main-
tains the same pixel spacing. In both the cases, the local
filtering or average is performed over a window determined
from the local level of noise. If the statistical properties of
the data are so that the local entropy can be determined,
W3605_PUB2 07/02/2016 12:50:2 Page 2
2 Remote Sensing Geometric Corrections
Figure 1. Geometrical processing of multiangular acquisitions from CHRIS/PROBA over one target along the orbital track. The five
consecutive acquisitions along the orbital path (a) are combined in one single multiangular dataset (b).
optimal resolutions can be established. Otherwise, the
effective resolution can be critical for accomplishing the
requirements of the selected applications. Spatial resolu-
tion considerations play a significant role in the case of SAR
data processing, especially in those approaches that are
based on statistical analysis.
3. INPUT IMAGE ACQUISITION GEOMETRY
The input image for the geometrical processing is the one
resulting from the acquisition process, which is thus dis-
torted by several factors. Images are acquired from moving
platforms (satellites), where changes are not only in the
position of the observing platform but also in the orienta-
tion angles and pointing toward the target being observed.
On the other side, targets are always moving due to Earth’s
rotation, so remote sensing images are always acquired in a
situation where both the acquisition platform and observed
target are in relative motion, which automatically causes
geometric distortions in the images. Moreover, to increase
the usefulness of the images and the repetition of observa-
tions, most images are acquired under large angular view-
ing angle, either due to large observed swath, observations
outside nadir to cover more areas, or multiangular views
over the same area. Because Earth is not flat but approxi-
mately ellipsoid, all observations are affected by panoramic
distortions. The presence of topographic effects (defined as
variable target height over the reference Earth ellipsoid)
introduces additional perturbations over the angular pan-
oramic distortions. Angular effects produce a change in the
effective spatial resolution of the data. For an instrument
with a large swath, the spatial resolution near nadir is
much better than at the extreme oblique viewed conditions
for each given image line. Images are usually acquired line
by line, where detectors provide simultaneously a full line
of the image, and the satellite motion along the orbital
track produces the successive lines forming the final image.
The result is that all images are somehow geometrically
distorted by the combination of all such effects, and a good
knowledge and characterization of such perturbations in
the resulting images is the key for an adequate geometrical
processing of the data.
Apart from pure geometrical effects, other technical
distortions (data noises, detectors nonuniformity, etc.)
also play a role. Such effects can be corrected or compen-
sated; for the geometrical processing of the data, we
assume that technical anomalies have been previously
removed. A significant part of the errors resulting in the
geometric processing of remote sensing data comes from
the disregard of some effects, approximations made, and
neglected disturbances, most of which are related to the
geometry of image acquisition. Effects introduced by angu-
lar variability, surface reflectance anisotropy, and topo-
graphical distortions, as introduced by image acquisition
geometry, will determine the appearance of initial images
to be later geometrically processed, and such distortions
cannot be properly removed later if the effects are not well
accounted for in the processing algorithms. For instance, a
particular issue for very high spatial resolution mapping,
particularly in oblique observations, is the role of atmo-
spheric refraction. The variation in the refraction index of
the atmospheric constituents as a function of the path
inside the atmosphere can usually be neglected, but it
plays a role at the level of precision in which remote sensing
observations are currently available. Due the fact that
oblique off-nadir acquisitions are quite common by tilting
the whole satellite or using the angular observation capa-
bilities of the instrument in the platform, to avoid cloudy
areas near nadir, such changes in the light path through
the atmosphere influence the geometry of the acquired
images. Thus, such distortions caused by atmospheric
refraction effects must also be accounted for in the geomet-
ric processing of the data.
W3605_PUB2 07/02/2016 12:50:3 Page 3
4. OUTPUT IMAGE PROJECTION GEOMETRY
While the input image for the geometrical processing of the
data is given by acquisition geometry, the output image
resulting from the geometrical processing depends on the
user application, as there is no universal cartographic
mapping projection that is optimal for all applications,
depending mainly of the scale (global, continental, regional,
local) and the geographical location of the target area, as
different cartographic projections are usually defined for
different latitude ranges.
When images have to be transformed from the original
acquisition geometry (typically not useful for most applica-
tions) to some cartographic reference, a specific map projec-
tion has to be chosen. Local maps available for each area
define the type of cartographic projection, which are differ-
ent in each country. The Universal Transverse Mercator
(UTM) is often selected because of its good geometrical
properties for most areas, but the best projection to be
used for a given particular problem is difficult to identify.
Even for global mapping, the selection of a given projection
depends on several criteria, like fidelity of pixel correspon-
dence to actual surface area, but several options exist. In
many cases, data are simply projected to a latitude–longi-
tude grid, where the latitude–longitude relative factor is
compensated to make the resulting pixel (in surface area)
almost square. This is only possible for some reference
latitude, which is chosen as the latitude of the central point
in the reference area. One advantage of this projection, apart
from the simplicity, is that most applications require com-
putation of derived quantities that are given as functions of
latitude and longitude, so that computations are easy if a
latitude–longitude grid is used. The usage of ancillary infor-
mation, like digital elevation models (DEMs) or boundary
cartographic elements (e.g., coast line, rivers, political divi-
sions), often implies a selection of a given cartographic
projection to represent the output data.
In principle, changing the image from one cartographic
projection to another is just a matter of a known mathe-
matical transformation, and computational tools are avail-
able that allow transfer of data between cartographic
projections by means of given mathematical transforma-
tions. The problem is then of the resampling of the data.
Each time the geometry of the data is changed, resampling
is needed, with the unavoidable loss of some information
and introduction of interpolation artifacts. Single-step pro-
cedures from the original acquisition geometry to the final
cartographic product, by using a single resampling of the
data, are always preferable.
5. GEOMETRICAL TRANSFORMATION MODELS
Many different approaches have been described in the
literature for geometric registration or geocoding of
remotely sensed data (6–8). Some of them are quite sen-
sor-specific, but the trend is to adopt general approaches
applicable to almost every satellite case, using adequate
parameters for each given case.
The geometrical transformation from raw image acqui-
sition to the final cartographic output is determined by the
Remote Sensing Geometric Corrections 3
knowledge of the satellite position and orientation angles
for each instantaneous acquisition in a proper geometrical
reference frame linked to the target location. If this is the
case, geometrical processing of the data is almost straight-
forward and can be implemented by using readily informa-
tion, in an automatic way, without dependence on or usage
of any image or external reference.
The usage of ground control points (GCPs) to increase
the accuracy in the determination of the geometrical trans-
formation from raw image geometry to output cartographic
reference depends primarily on the spatial resolution of the
data being processed. For lower resolution sensors (i.e.,
>100 m resolution), automatic registration is possible with
subpixel accuracy using only orbital/ephemeris informa-
tion from the satellite, platform position, and attitude and
instrument pointing information that can be always con-
sidered available. For very high spatial resolution systems
(i.e., <5 m resolution), the precision of single-image posi-
tioning and orientation is not enough to directly achieve
subpixel accuracy from known image acquisition informa-
tion and, therefore, some additional tools are needed to
achieve the required accuracy, either GCPs or multiple
images of the same area in a composite-geometry strategy
(block bundle adjustment techniques).
5.1. Direct and Inverse Space Projection Methods
The mathematical transformation model from image acqui-
sition geometry to the output cartographic projection can
be formulated in two complementary ways, each one with
its corresponding advantages and disadvantages in each
case. The “direct” space projection method starts from the
initial acquisition geometry and makes use of the knowl-
edge of the physical acquisition geometry and platform/
instrument dynamics during image acquisition to project
the initial image into the output geometry. The “inverse”
projection methods starts from the output cartographic
image geometry and identifies for each point (pixel) of
the output image the corresponding point in the input
image.
The geometrical processing steps are illustrated in
Figure 2, and the correlation between direct and inverse
mapping strategies is illustrated through the way of estab-
lishing the mathematical relationship between the two
lower boxes in the diagram. For the mathematical trans-
formation itself, the choosing of direct or inverse transfor-
mation method is arbitrary and the two approaches can be
used without any special preference. However, when image
pixels have to be resampled from one geometry to the other,
the inverse method has some better properties, as will be
discussed in a later section in this article.
5.2. Physical Models of Image Acquisition
The preferred geometrical processing scheme is the one in
which the mathematical transformation from original
geometry to output cartographic projection (Figure 2) is
fully defined through a known, well-defined, and fully
deterministic equation. Of course, the knowledge will never
be absolutely perfect, but if the accuracy in the knowledge
of such mathematical transformation is enough to provide
W3605_PUB2 07/02/2016 12:50:3 Page 4
4 Remote Sensing Geometric Corrections
Figure 2. General scheme of the geometrical processing of remote
sensing data showing both the direct and inverse transformation
approaches.
an error in the resulting image within a given range
(typically less than one pixel size in the output image),
then the mathematical transformation can be assumed in
the geometrical processing without any additional restric-
tion or adjustment needed to compensate potential errors.
Otherwise, some error compensation method should be
introduced, as described later.
In this case, it is extremely important that accurate
positioning and knowledge of the instantaneous observa-
tion angles and three-dimensional (3D) surface models is
available, which is not always the case, but the current
trend in Earth observation is to have a mathematical model
of the observation and the needed onboard tools to compute
the relevant geometrical parameters, so that such geomet-
ric processing of the data can be implemented by using a
physical model of image acquisition.
The mathematical transformation from input geometry
to output coordinates is not a simple formula but a complex
transformation that can be better formulated as a combi-
nation of multiple transformations from successive refer-
ence frames describing in each step the image geometrical
properties in each one of such reference frames.
Several different reference frames should be considered
when describing image acquisition in remote sensing sys-
tems. The inertial reference frame is somehow a preferred
reference frame where Newton’s inertial law applies. This
frame has its axes fixed relative to the distant starts,
assumed fixed. In practice, like in the International Celes-
tial Reference Frame (ICRF), the axes are determined with
respect to the position of several hundred distant extra-
galactic sources of radio waves, determined by very long
baseline interferometry. The origin of the ICRF is at the
center of mass of the solar system.
The spacecraft body reference frame is defined by an
origin in some reference point (i.e., center of mass or optical
bench) of the spacecraft body, typically used to align the
spacecraft components and instruments. Instruments are
mounted in this reference frame with fixed viewing angles
with respect to this reference, although thermo-elastical or
mechanical effects may change slightly such orientation
angles with respect to the spacecraft body reference and
thus must also be taken into account, particularly for very
high spatial resolution systems.
The Earth-centered/Earth-fixed reference frame has the
origin at the center of mass of the Earth and rotates with
the Earth. The rotation angle defines the Greenwich Mean
Sidereal Time (GMST). This frame is closely related with
the Geocentric Inertial Frame but does not rotate with
Earth but has one axis with the vernal equinox (intersec-
tion of the Earth’s equatorial plane with the plane of the
Earth’s orbit around the Sun), at a given epoch, and is not
inertial.
The local-vertical/local-horizontal reference frame is
referenced to the spacecraft’s orbit, with one of the axis
pointing along the nadir vector, directed toward the
Earth’s center, and another axis pointing along the space-
craft’s orbital velocity vector. Such frame (attitude refer-
ence frame) serves to define the line of sight according to
instrument pointing characteristics and then derive the
angular conditions under which the image is acquired
(Figure 3).
Combining such different reference frames through
the knowledge of the spacecraft position and attitude
angles at each time instant, the spacecraft attitude and
instrument pointing angles, and thus the line of sight
from the instrument to the Earth for each time instant
along the observation period, it is possible to compute the
observation point of Earth’s surface for each acquisition
point and then to register each observation over a given
specific point location on Earth for each pixel of the
acquired image.
To do such geometric transformation properly, it is
necessary in addition to have a good 3D model of the Earth
surface to account for topographic distortions (Figure 4).
Basically, the mathematical transformation from input
image geometry provides a line of sight from the satellite
to the Earth surface. The exact point where such line of
sight from the satellite, for each pixel of the image, inter-
sects the Earth surface determines the output image.
Obviously, Earth cannot be assumed flat unless for some
Figure 3. Angular deformations in the image due to different
angular views.
W3605_PUB2 07/02/2016 12:50:4 Page 5
Figure 4. Geometrical distortions introduced by topography on
remote sensing images: first row in red indicates the “nominal”
pixels for a flat surface and second row in blue indicates the actual
pixels acquired due to surface topography, with irregular sampling
distance.
specific areas, so at least an ellipsoidal shape model
must be assumed for the Earth surface. Although there
are general ellipsoid models globally applicable to the
whole Earth volume, in many cases, local ellipsoid models
more suitable to the local Earth shape over a limited
geographical area are used. This is not a problem provided
the surface coordinates in any Earth ellipsoid model can
be related to the satellite coordinates where the input
image is defined. Even if a proper ellipsoid model is
used, still the geometrical processing requires, in addition,
Figure 5. Radiometric effects due to varying viewed area, changes in local illumination angle, and multiple light reflections over adjacent
slopes in rugged terrain (b) as opposite to the case of flat surfaces (a) due to perturbations introduced by topography.
Remote Sensing Geometric Corrections 5
the topographic structure of the local Earth surface over
the reference ellipsoid. Fortunately, today, there are global
DEMs available everywhere in the world with accuracy
acceptable for most mapping applications. When the accu-
racy of such global DEMs is not enough for regional map-
ping, usually there are other DEMs with local coverage but
more detailed and with better accuracy to be used in such
areas. With the availability of airborne lidar 3D mapping
capabilities, DEMs with high accuracy (even with submeter
resolution) are becoming common in many places. One
issue that must be taken into account when using very
high resolution digital 3D surface model is that at such
high resolutions the concept of “surface” is not well defined
and the surface representing the top level of objects (trees,
buildings) is different from the surface representing the
bottom level (soil under vegetation, streets). Differences
can be of tens of meters in some cases, so the geometrical
processing of the data must take into account where the
“surface level” is defined.
Geometrical and radiometric distortions introduced by
topography (Figure 5) can be taken into account in a
consistent manner in the geometric processing of the
data if an appropriate 3D model of the surface is available.
However, some topographic effects introduce severe image
distortions and even the impossibility to see some surface
areas, or view areas under quite different illumination
conditions (cast shadows), in some cases, making the deter-
mination of the output image in a cartographic projection
very difficult. Multiple angular views of the same surface
are the only way of producing consistent maps of topo-
graphically structured areas.
5.3. Parametric Statistical Models
Since the full physical transformation model can be math-
ematically very complex, and the accurate knowledge of
time variations in each geometrical parameter is not
always available with enough precision, alternative meth-
ods are needed. Such methods should be able to make some
approximations or simplifications over the full accurate
mathematical transformation model but still provide
acceptable results in most cases.
W3605_PUB2 07/02/2016 12:50:6 Page 6

6 Remote Sensing Geometric Corrections

For instance, for optical high-resolution sensors with in a simple still accurate way is the usage of rational
rather narrow field of view, the following approximation polynomials instead of simple polynomials, often named
applies for each line of the image: rational polynomial coefficients (RPCs) approach. Such
RPC approach includes assuming the form for the mathe-
m11 X X 0 † ‡ m12 Y Y 0 † ‡ m13 Z Z0 † matical transformation
xˆ f
m31 X X 0 † ‡ m32 Y Y 0 † ‡ m33 Z Z0 †
(1) P 1† X; Y; Z†
m21 X X 0 † ‡ m22 Y Y 0 † ‡ m23 Z Z0 † xˆ
yˆ f P 2† X; Y; Z†
m31 X X 0 † ‡ m32 Y Y 0 † ‡ m33 Z Z0 †
P 3† X; Y; Z†
where x; y† are the output image coordinates and X; Y; Z† yˆ (3)
P 4† X; Y; Z†
are the input image
coordinates,
 f is the focal length of the
instrument, where mij iˆ1;2;3 are the nine elements of the P 5† X; Y; Z†
zˆ
jˆ1;2;3
P 6† X; Y; Z†
3  3† orthogonal rotation matrix that transforms input
geometry to output geometry, together with the translation
where x; y; z† are the coordinates in the image space,
given by the vector X 0 ; Y 0 ; Z0 †.
n Z† are theocoordinates of points in object space,
X; Y;
Rigorously such approximation is only valid for instan-
and P i† X; Y; Z† are third-order polynomial func-
taneous observations, which are then applicable only to iˆ1;2;...;6
tions defined as
frame cameras or single lines of push-broom scanning
sensors. Assuming a model of dynamical motion of the
X
3 X
3 X
3
acquisition platform (both for position and attitude), which P i† X;Y;Z†ˆ Cklm X k Y m Zn
are often assumed also as polynomials over time, the same kˆ0 mˆ0 nˆ0
approach can be applied over the whole image simply by k‡m‡n3 (4)
varying the coefficients of the transformation accordingly
as a function of time. ˆ c1i† ‡ c2i† X ‡ c3i† Y ‡ c4i† X
Y ‡ c5i† X 2 ‡ c6i† Y 2
i† 2 i† 2 i† 2 i† 3
∙∙ ∙ ‡ c17 Y
Z ‡ c18 X
Z ‡ c19 Y
Z ‡ c20 Z
5.4. Polynomial Approximations
Given the difficulties of deriving a rigorous and accurate n o
geometrical transformation model between input and out- cki† being the 20 coefficients usually supplied by
kˆ1;2;...;20
put geometry, simple models based on polynomial approxi- the instrument manufacturer or data distribution company
mations are used in many cases. Such methods can be on an image-by-image basis.
introduced as Taylor’s polynomial expansion of the full Because of the characteristics of remote sensing
mathematical model, although in practice, they are treated images, rational polynomials somehow correspond to a
as simple mathematical models with a number of free kind of perfect sensor model that represents the main
coefficients that are fitted statistically by using some aspect of actual image acquisitions, becoming a preferred
least-square approximation method based on a series of approach for high-resolution images with small swath. In
GCPs defined by correspondence between the input and the most cases, however, the knowledge of satellite position,
output images (9). orientation angles, and pointing geometry from the sat-
The mathematical transformation relating the input ellite system is not enough to provide accurate outputs,
x; y† and the output x´ ; y´ † geometries is given by the poly- and refinement of the RPCs by using external GCPs is the
nomial model, for instance, a two-degree model given by adopted approach (11).
X2 X2
x´ ˆ Akm xk ym ˆ a0 ‡ a1 x ‡ a2 y ‡ a3 x
y ‡ a4 x2 ‡ a5 y2
kˆ0 mˆ0
k‡m2 5.6. Automatic Identification of Reference Points
in the Image
X
2 X
2
y´ ˆ Bkm xk ym ˆ b0 ‡ b1 x ‡ b2 y ‡ b3 x
y ‡ b4 x2 ‡ b5 y2 Some of the methods previously described require identifi-
kˆ0 mˆ0
cation of a given number of reference points in the image
k‡m2
(GCPs) either to define the empirical parametric mathe-
(2) matical transformation in the absence of knowledge of the
true transformation or to refine the true known transfor-
The approach can be extended to other functional models or
mation when this is not accurate enough. Identification of
higher order polynomials (10), although higher orders over
some single features both in the input and output images
5 tend to give exaggerated distortions and order higher than
would be enough in most cases, but such identification
9 would give numerical implementation problems.
cannot be straightforward.
Formerly, when the number of images to be processed
was rather small, the ground features used as GCPs were
5.5. Rational Polynomial Approach
detected manually by expert operators. With an increase in
A particular approach whose results are quite adequate to the number of remote sensing images acquired daily by
handle the geometrical processing of remote sensing data many satellite systems, automatic methods are needed.
W3605_PUB2 07/02/2016 12:50:6 Page 7
Current approaches tend to use feature detection methods,
that is, different objects in the images (edges, lines, con-
tours) are used as feature points and represented by their
descriptors in a feature-matching technique to aquatically
register two different images or to refine the registration
previously done by some general transformation method
(12–14).
Salient points typically represent a small region of an
image with enough variability among its pixels to be easily
identified from the rest of the image due to its intrinsic
internal variability. The source image represents the origi-
nal image from which some salient points indicating
regions with enough internal variability in a local range
have been detected. Several algorithms exist to extract
salient points from an image, but most of them are based
on the analysis of structural properties through morphol-
ogy operators, such as the operator that maximizes the
following condition
 
T
det A WA λ1 λ2
Mˆ    (5)
trace AT WA ‡ ε λ1 ‡ λ2 ‡ ε
where A is a matrix defined by the local gradients of the
image, related to the local autocorrelation matrix of the
image, W is a diagonal weighting matrix, and λ1 ; λ2 † are
eigenvalues of A. The small constant ε is introduced to
avoid a singular denominator in the case of rank zero
autocorrelation matrix.
After salient points have been extracted from the source
image, they only become tie points if they are properly
matched against the corresponding points in the target
image. Then, GCPs are tie points extracted from the source
input image and matched over the target output image,
which allows assigning them true geographical coordinates
because the target image corresponds or has been previ-
ously referenced to a geolocated image or reference map.
5.7. Refinement Methods to Increase Final Accuracy
As previously indicated, the most common case is that a
mathematical transformation from input to output images
exists and is known but not with the necessary precision to
perform the geometrical correction of the data with the
required output accuracy. In such cases, the common strat-
egy is to perform a first transformation of the image by
assuming the known mathematical transformation and
then considering that the remaining error can be modeled
by means of simple (linear) transformation from the
approximately corrected image to the final corrected image.
The refinement transformation can be expressed, after
linearization, in the form
@u @u
x´ ˆ x ‡ u x; y†  x ‡ u0 ‡ Δx ‡ Δy
@x @y
(6)
@v @v
y´ ˆ x ‡ v x; y†  y ‡ v0 ‡ Δx ‡ Δy
@x @y
where Δx; Δy† determine the displacement of the image
over the nominal transformation.
Remote Sensing Geometric Corrections 7
Image cross-correlation or other automatic registration
techniques are very convenient for operational processing
and absolutely necessary when a large volume of images
must be processed, particularly for near-real-time applications.
Cross-Correlation Methods. Cross-correlation is one of
the most commonly used approaches in the image co-
registration process. It generally uses a pattern-matching
approach. The cross-correlation is in fact a type of similarity
measure that allows characterization of the displacement of
an image I x; y† of magnitude δx in the X-direction and δy in
the Y-direction. Two-dimensional cross-correlation func-
tions can be defined as
P   
I in i ‡ δx ; j ‡ δy I in I out i; j† I out
  i;j
C δx ; δy ˆ rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
P   rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
P
2 2
I in i ‡ δx ; j ‡ δy I in I out i; j† I out
i;j i;j
(7)
This similarity measure is computed forwindow  pairs from
the source and target images by varying δx ; δy at each step,
until a window pair for which the maximum correlation is
achieved, for a given maximal size of the allowed displace-
ment or a maximum number of iterations.
The cross-correlation technique is often implemented by
taking advantage of the fact that the Fourier transform of
the correlation of two images is the product of the Fourier
transform of one image and the complex conjugate of the
Fourier transform of the other image. The phase shift
correlation method is based on the Fourier shift, which
is equivalent to the translation of an image with respect the
other in the co-registration process. Notice, however, that
such methods are only useful when transformation from
the original image to the target cartographic product can be
represented by a small shift of the image, at least locally.
This is, in general, only possible if the image has been
already transformed by means of a nominal general trans-
formation (based on knowledge of orbital motion, satellite
attitude, and image acquisition process), so the image
cross-correlation method is intended only as a refinement
of the transformation to compensate for residual errors.
The cross-correlation method is not, in principle, applicable
for nonlinear transformations, which is usually the case for
remote sensing images but plays an important role in the
geometrical processing of remote sensing data when com-
bined with a physical transformation method to compen-
sate for residual effects of a final matching of the resulting
images with a given cartographic reference.
Mutual Information Methods. This method is optimized
for registering images with different modalities (e.g., regis-
tering SAR with optical images, or thermal with visible/
infrared images) and represents the most common tech-
nique in multimodal registration. The normalized mutual
information (MI) between the patch in the base image and
the patch in the warp image is computed as the matching
score. MI is based on information theory and measures the
mutual dependence of two random variables (15).
MI-based registration process begins with the estimation
of the joint probability of the intensities of corresponding
W3605_PUB2 07/02/2016 12:50:7 Page 8

8 Remote Sensing Geometric Corrections

pixels in two images. Originating from information theory,
MI is a measure of statistical dependency between two data
sets and particularly suited to register images acquired with
different modalities. MI between two random variables x
and y is given by
I M x; y† ˆ H x† H yjx† ˆ H x† ‡ H y† H x; y†
where
X Resampling can be implemented in direct or inverse
H x† ˆ Ex ‰log P x††Š ˆ P x†log P x††
x
X image in the input geometry to the cartographically
H y† ˆ Ey ‰log P y††Š ˆ P y†log P y††
y model, holes and/or overlaps between the resulting pix-
X
H x; y† ˆ P x; y†log P x; y††
x;y
In such equations, H represents “entropy of random varia-
ble,” P x† and P y† are the marginal probability distribu-
tions of x and y, respectively, and P x; y† is the joint
probability distribution for both variables x; y†.
This method is based on the maximization of I M x; y†.
Such maximization is implemented by using the gradient
descent optimization method or other maximization tech-
niques. Often a speed up of the registration is implemented,
exploiting the coarse-to-fine resolution strategy (the
pyramidal approach).
It is observed that MI gives more accurate result than any
other registration method in many cases. Usually, MI tends
to produce more accurate results than the traditional corre-
lation-based measures for cross-modality image registration
but takes longer to run, since it is more computationally
intensive and implementation becomes more sophisticated
than more elementary approaches. On the other side, when
images have low resolution or contain little spatial informa-
tion, then this method gives worse results.
6. SPATIAL RESAMPLING TECHNIQUES
The problem of data resampling is given by the fact that the
output image must be defined over a regular grid (output
spatial resolution), while the geometrical transformation of
the input image would result in a projected image in a grid
that is not uniform and, thus, cannot be transformed into
an image. The transformation from the irregular grid of the
output geometry to a given regular grid is called “resam-
pling.” Such resampling can be done in several different
ways, from the very simple zero-order interpolation (near-
(8) est-neighbor interpolation) up to higher order approaches,
although the usage of more than three-degree polynomials
is not very common (16, 17) (Figure 6).
form of the geometrical transformation from the initial
(9) projected image (Figure 7). In the direct case, or forward
els can be produced in the output image due to the
discretization and rounding effects in the resulting pix-
els. Such anomalies can be removed by an extra interpo-
lation or smoothing, but the inverse transformation, or
backward approach, is usually preferred to avoid such
problems. In such an approach, the output image is
determined using the coordinates of the target pixels,
performing the interpolation in a regular grid on the
output coordinates, and avoiding potential holes or over-
laps. The new values for each pixel position are interpo-
lated from the initial measured pixels (defined in the
input geometry) via convolution of the image with an
interpolation kernel.
The definition of the interpolation kernel can be made in
different ways. An ideal interpolator is the two-dimen-
sional (2D) sinc function, but it is difficult to implement
in practice due to the infinite extension of the filter and the
finite size of the sampled images. A truncated sinc or any
other interpolation function with bounded support must be
used. Moreover, separable interpolation functions, so that
the n  n two-dimensional convolution is replaced by n ‡ 1
one-dimensional convolutions, are often used, with much
faster implementation. At the end, most approaches are
reduced to spline interpolations of different orders. Exam-
ples are the nearest neighbor (order cero), bilineal
approach (order 1), quadratic splines (order 2), or cubic
splines (order 3). Higher order polynomial kernels or
splines of order larger than 3 are rarely used because

Figure 6. Acquisition of multiple images over a given site with different resolutions and angular views (a) and resampling of the initial
images acquired over different geometries to a final output grid of regular spacing (b).
W3605_PUB2 07/02/2016 12:50:11 Page 9

Remote Sensing Geometric Corrections 9

The values of the vector ~

μ are given by
" ! #
1 1 ~I T G 1~
χ →
~
μ ˆG ~
χ ‡ I (12)
~
I T G 1~
I

Figure 7. Direct and inverse mapping in the resampling of the
original acquired image (left) to the output cartographic product
(right).
the additional benefits do not compensate the computa-
tional complexity. Rather than common splines, the B-
splines approach is commonly used due to artifacts and
enhancement of noise introduced by regular splines for
some images, depending on the actual PSF of the
instrument.
Splines and B-splines approaches, particularly of
third order, have become common strategy for image
resampling because they provide enough accuracy in
most cases. However, when radiometric fidelity becomes
essential, more sophisticated resampling approaches can
be used. Optimum interpolation approaches (18, 19)
make use of the actual pixel acquisition geometry, PSF
associated to each pixel as varying with angular view,
ground area overlapping consecutive pixels, and other
image acquisition properties to address the problem of
resampling trying to emulate as much an possible the
physical properties of the image and then come to an
output image that would look like an actual image
acquired under such output viewing geometry (optimum
approach).
An optimum interpolation approach can be imple-
mented (18) as a relative sum of pixels intensities over a
6  6 pixels window, around the pixel being interpolated,
given by the expression
X
i‡k X
j‡k
  X 36
R~
rP† ˆ μαβ R ~
rα;⠈ μi R ~
ri† (10)
αˆi k‡1 βˆj k‡1 iˆ1
where k = 3 can be assumed in most cases and
Z previously to specific remote sensing systems depends very
 
R~ri ˆ dA F ~ r †R ~
r i ;~ r† (11)
S ularly the type and accuracy of the available information
R~ r i † being the value of each pixel i in the input image
resulting from the convolution of the observed radiance
field R ~ r † and the effective PSF of the instrument given by
F~r i ;~r † for each given original pixel. The integral is per-
formed over an area S large enough to cover the surface
contributing to the sensor PSF, typically over a 6  6 pixels
window in the image.
where
Z
χi ˆ dA F ~ r †F ~
ri ;~ rP ;~
r† (13)
S
→
I is the identity vector, and the matrix G is defined as
Z
 
Gij ˆ dA F ~ r †F ~
r i ;~ r j ;~
r (14)
S
Other image interpolation techniques based on the usage of
multiple images (20) or superresolution techniques (21) are
sometimes used. The usage of superresolution techniques is
becoming quite common in the case of high spatial resolution
sensors, where a compromise between MTF and signal-to-
noise ratio (SNR) is required to keep good radiometric
properties while enhancing the spatial resolution as much
as possible. Superresolution methods typically enhance res-
olution (better MTF performance) at the expenses of noise
enhancement (degraded SNR performance).
While cubic interpolation is the most commonly used
approach, particularly when the input and output images
have significantly different pixel spacing, for remote sens-
ing data, many users still prefer the nearest-neighbor
approach, because it does not alter the number and values
of the discrete radiometric levels of the initial images, to
avoid creating spurious “synthetic” intensity levels not
present in the original image. Such nearest-neighbor
approach can be justified when the input and output
images have quite similar pixel spacing and the images
have few discrete radiometric levels; otherwise, it intro-
duces geometric artifacts in lines and borders of the image
due to 0.5 pixel potential deviation. Current remote sensing
images have 10, 12, and up to 16 bits per pixel and these
many levels of intensity in the images (as compared to old
systems with only 8 bits – 256 radiometric levels) result in
quite continuous transitions, so that such nearest-neighbor
approach is no longer justified. Higher order interpolation
resampling does not create additional spurious intensity
levels in most cases for current remote sensing systems.
7. PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION CASES
The implementation of the general approaches described
much on the specific characteristics of each system, partic-
about the instantaneous actual geometry of the acquisition,
which allows to implement automatic general transforma-
tion approaches, or the scarcity or inaccuracy of such
information, and, thus, the need to use more generic para-
metric or polynomial approaches to reconstruct the geo-
metric transformation. We will consider here airborne and
satellite cases, as both are the most common remote sens-
ing platforms for image acquisitions.
W3605_PUB2 07/02/2016 12:50:11 Page 10

10 Remote Sensing Geometric Corrections

7.1. The Space-borne Case filters – to produce reliable instantaneous estimates. Sun–
Earth sensors, three-axis magnetometers, and rate-inte-
The most common case for remote sensing applications is
grating gyroscopes provide additional attitude information.
the one provided by images acquired by orbiting satellites,
The final achieved accuracy in spacecraft attitude informa-
as they deliver routinely data streams in a systematic
tion for the geometrical processing of the image data is
manner. The automatic geometric processing of space-
enough for rather low-resolution sensors (over 50 m ground
borne images using only available information from the
pixel), but limitations exist for very high resolution images in
satellite system without relying on ground reference points
the order of meter resolution due to high-frequency platform
is only possible if the satellite system can provide both
vibration modes. Typical spacecraft attitude control systems
accurate positioning data (x, y, z) and accurate information
include reaction wheels and control moment gyros, or taking
about platform orientation (attitude angles).
advantage of external torques either induced by gravity
For the determination of the satellite/instrument posi-
gradients or more commonly magnetic torques induced by
tioning (22), current satellite systems use the so-called
gradients in Earth’s magnetic field, although aerodynamic
precise orbit determination (POD) package. Although the
torques are also applied in some cases, particularly for low
implementation details vary for each system, the package
Earth orbits. Solar radiation pressure torques must be also
includes one or several global navigation satellite system
considered and accounted for. Mass-expulsion torques
(GNSS), Doppler orbit determination, and radio-positioning
(thrusters) can be used for major changes in orbital condi-
integrated on satellite (DORIS), laser retro-reflector (LRR)
tions. Attitude stability is the main driver in the geometric
systems to allow ground tracking by multiple laser systems,
quality of remote sensing images.
or similar devices. With such techniques, the position of the
The applicability of a general physical transformation
satellite is determined with high accuracy, thus facilitating
model to every existing Earth observation satellite is pos-
the procedure of geolocation of observations and geometrical
sible because for every satellite there is always available
registration of remote sensing images.
information to compute the satellite position (23–25) and
The determination of the orientation of the platform,
(nominal) attitude at each given time where an image is
and then the instrument line of sight toward the observed
acquired. The North American Air Defense Command’s
point, becomes more critical. First of all, it must be taken
(NORAD’s) two-line element (TLE) sets provide the basic
into account that for a typical satellite altitude of 800 km,
orbital parameters to determine the position and velocity of
and observing a target on Earth with a resolution of 30 m,
each one of the spacecrafts tracked by the United States
to have an error below 0.3 pixel in automatic geolocation
Surveillance System, covering almost all satellites orbiting
requires an extremely high pointing knowledge accuracy.
the Earth (26). The orbital elements are mean values
To stabilize the platform at this level of accuracy and be
obtained by removing periodic variations using a particular
able to determine the actual absolute pointing with such
orbital and Earth gravity model (SGP4). Accurate orbit
level of accuracy, the satellite must have a very good
predictions and determinations are only obtained if the
attitude and orbital control system (AOCS), including
model used computes such periodic variations in exactly
both the determination and the control of the spacecraft
the same way they were removed when determining the
attitude. Platform vibrations are especially critical for
mean orbital elements. Some users tend to use a more
instrument having high spatial resolution, and the deter-
sophisticated orbital model than the one used in TLEs, but
mination of instantaneous spacecraft attitude for each
this does not necessarily produce better results. In fact,
instantaneous acquisition becomes even more critical.
TLEs are not the only source of orbital information, but the
Knowledge of the absolute spacecraft attitude angles (and
advantage is that such TLE information is available for
thus corresponding instrument pointing angles) is achieved
every satellite, while other sources are only available for a
by means of devices such as star trackers, Sun sensors,
given satellite family or agency. In any case, the mathe-
Earth’s horizon sensors, magnetometers, gyroscope read-
matical orbital model used to compute satellite position
ings, or multiple GPS positioning at several places of the
and nominal attitude must be always consistent with the
spacecraft. For Earth observation systems, particularly in
source of orbital information.
high-spatial resolution, absolute pointing knowledge is more
In practical cases, to achieve the needed accuracy, it is
relevant than absolute pointing capabilities because out-of-
quite common to use some GCPs to refine the automatic
nominal conditions can be corrected by processing if devia-
geo-referentiation of the images (27, 28). For multitempo-
tions are known. Current start tracker systems are based on
ral data, the usage of a reference image and the automatic
solid-state systems that are able to track many stars simul-
registration of all other images to such a reference by using
taneously, match the tracked stars with an internal catalog,
automatic methods, typically cross-correlation, is the usual
and then compute the satellite attitude with respect to the
approach. In this last case, temporal decorrelation of the
celestial reference frame. A start tracker is basically a digital
images due to changes in Earth surface conditions must be
camera with a pixel-array detector. Typical start trackers
taken into account by selecting adequate reference image
can update attitude information at a rate between 0.5 and
dataset accounting for seasonal variability or using relax-
10 Hz, providing an accuracy of few arcseconds in the bore-
ation methods able to cope with such spatial decorrelation
sight direction but with larger errors for rotation about such
as temporal distance with the reference image increases.
direction. Each spacecraft tends to have several start track-
The case of advanced very high resolution radiometer
ers pointing at perpendicular directions, but given the lim-
(AVHRR) data deserves special attention because of the
ited accuracy (noise in the measurements) and limited
extended usage of these data in many applications and the
updated rate of attitude determinations, the data have to
peculiarities of the geometrical processing of such data.
be filtered over time – in most cases using Kalman-type
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
W3605_PUB2 07/02/2016 12:50:11 Page 11
(NOAA) satellites have provided one of the longest records
of global information about terrestrial conditions over sev-
eral decades, becoming a key dataset in the study of the
dynamics of vegetation. Such AVHRR data represent a
difficult case of geometric processing because of the contin-
uous circular scanning perpendicular to satellite motion.
Each scan provides a line of the image, while satellite
motion provides the successive lines of image. The circular
scanning allows use of the same detector for all pixels of the
image, which is convenient for radiometric reasons, but
produces a very peculiar geometry in the original images.
Given the extended usage of AVHRR data, the correction of
such distortions and projection of output images into a
common cartographic reference has been the subject of
many studies (29, 30) and has served as a correction model
for other similar cases, like the along-track scanning radi-
ometer (ATSR) and advanced ATSR (AATSR) on board
ERS and ENVISAT satellites.
Some other specific cases require also special considera-
tions. For instance, the Sea and Land Surface Temperature
Radiometer (SLSRT) instrument on board Sentinel-3 cap-
tures dual-angle images by the same detectors using a dual
conical scanning system: one close to nadir and another with
an extreme oblique backward angle of 55°. The two angular
images must be co-registered for the applications, but given
the conical scanning, very different angular view, and very
different associated spatial resolution in ground coordinates
for each given nadir/off-nadir pixels, the procedures
described previously require some adaptations.
Particular attention deserves the space-borne case corre-
sponding to multiangular measurements. Examples of this
case are the multiangular imaging spectroradiometer
(MISR) on board NASA/Terra and the compact high-resolu-
tion imaging spectrometer (CHRIS) on board Project for
On-Board Autonomy (PROBA) satellite. MISR provides
nine angular views of the same target along the orbital track
in a systematic manner through nine different cameras.
CHRIS is fully programmable but provides typically five
angular views of the same target by pointing the satellite
accordingly along-track and across-track as needed to get
access to the selected site (example shown in Figure 1).
Moreover, CHRIS/PROBA uses a motion compensation
technique to increase the SNR ratio, which basically consists
of acquiring the images by rotation of the satellite along a
given axis to scan the Earth’s surface at a speed slower than
the actual spacecraft ground speed. The combination of
multiple off-nadir angular views and the motion compensa-
tion techniques makes the geometric processing of such data
very specific. However, similar automatic techniques as
those previously described have been used successfully in
these cases and are routinely applied in such multiangular
data processing schemes (31–33).
7.2. The Airborne Case
Airborne sensors are also very common in remote sensing,
particularly for local applications requiring very high spa-
tial resolution over limited areas. Airborne sensors are also
very relevant, as they are often used to simulate and test
capabilities for future space-borne sensors. In the case of
airborne sensors, the same basic principles for geometrical
processing previously discussed also apply but with the
Remote Sensing Geometric Corrections 11
limitations of position and stability that airborne platforms
can offer versus orbital observations (34).
While airborne sensors can also have accurate position-
ing via GNSS systems, the pointing capabilities of airborne
systems are much more limited than for the satellite case.
First of all, the motion conditions for airborne sensors tend
to be much more unstable than in the satellite case due to
flight speed and wind/turbulence effects depending on the
flight altitude. Start-trackers systems are not possible for
airborne sensors, so inertial navigation systems (INSs) and
multiple GNSS receivers are used to determine the approx-
imate instantaneous attitude of the aircraft in order to
compute the line of sight for each given pixel in the image.
Special airborne cases deserve particular attention, like
the case of very high altitude aircrafts (i.e., AVIRIS –
Airborne Visible-InfraRed Imaging Spectrometer flying
on ER-2) where the stability of the platform and fly condi-
tions allow some simplification in the geometrical proce-
dures, as opposed to the case of free-flying balloons or very
low altitude aircrafts, which are exposed to high frequency
fluctuations in position and attitude due to wind/turbu-
lence. A detailed treatment of each case is out of the scope of
this article, but it must be kept in mind that each specific
sensor/aircraft typically requires a dedicated specific
approach, even if the general principles for geometric
processing remain valid for all cases.
The recent development of unmanned aerial vehicles
(UAVs) and the quite significant advances in the geometric
processing of such UAV data using automatic methods (35)
deserve attention. Although legal regulations and permis-
sion rules are pending, the technology is evolving quite
rapidly. UAV instruments, which include not only RGB
cameras but also sophisticated spectrometers and even
active sensors, are becoming quite interesting tools for
remote sensing in very high spatial resolution (even cm)
and can be easily deployed over limited geographical areas of
interest. The instability of the UAV platforms makes very
difficult the geometric processing of the data. The geometri-
cal rectification of UAV remote sensing images is usually
done by modelling the platform position and attitude using
only the instantaneous available information, or with a more
sophisticated approach using GCPs through post-processing
of the data.
A critical issue in both the cases of airborne and UAV data
is that of temporal synchronization between the GNSS and
attitude data from the platform and the imaging data acqui-
sition system. As technology improves, it is expected that such
current issues can be solved and a fully automatic geometrical
processing of the data can become possible. For the moment,
to compensate for any potential distortion, either temporal
synchronization issues of imperfect position or attitude deter-
mination, the usage of some ground references is quite com-
mon to achieve the desired accuracy in the output products.
8. VALIDATION OF THE GEOMETRICAL PRECISION IN
DATA PROCESSING AND FINAL MAP ACCURACY
Evaluating the achieved accuracy is a requisite for carto-
graphic applications of remote sensing data and those
requiring integration of the outputs with cartographic
reference, often in a GIS environment. Specific rules for
W3605_PUB2 07/02/2016 12:50:11 Page 12
12 Remote Sensing Geometric Corrections
the accuracy needed in the final cartographic product as a
function of the spatial scale or pixel resolution are available
from international standard organizations (36), and the
output of the geometrical processing must comply with
such rules in terms of required spatial resolution of input
data for a given output map scale and tolerated errors in
horizontal and vertical displacements associated to each
spatial scale (37).
The required spatial resolution is associated to the differ-
ent cartographic scales, as well as the precision needed in the
final cartographic products. In classical paper, cartography
with an output pixel size of 0.2 mm is assumed, so that the
input image spatial resolution determines the output map
scale. For instance, to produce a map at 1:50,000 scale, a
pixel size of 10 m may be appropriate, while to produce the
map at a scale 1:25,000, a pixel size of 5 m would be neces-
sary. A pixel size of 20 m is typically used for 1:100,000
mapping. Obviously, not only pixel size but also radiometric
issues and mostly the spatial stability and spatial uniformity
of the whole image matter for cartographic mapping. In
digital cartography and GISs usage of the data, such values
are somehow relative, as different resolution images are
usually combined. However, even if digital maps can be
represented at any spatial scale, still the intrinsic accuracy
of the map is linked to the spatial scale, so geometrical errors
in the map still correspond and are acceptable at a given
scale and will probably translate into unacceptable geomet-
rical errors at finer scales.
On the other side, remote sensing images are not always
used for cartographic mapping but, in many cases, also for
thematic mapping associated to some land cover changes or
biophysical parameters retrieval procedure. In such cases,
the mapping requirements are not associated to the geo-
metrical accuracy in the position of each output pixel but to
the size of the minimum area that can be mapped as a land
cover type or the mapping area to which a given attribute
derived from the image can be associated. The “minimum
mapping unit” is the smallest detail to be mapped, deter-
mining the scale requirement for thematic mapping with
remote sensing data using a given image type. For
instance, using remote sensing images of 5 m resolution,
the typical scale for thematic mapper would be 1:10,000,
and the minimum mapping unit is 0.02 ha. For 1:40,000
thematic mapping scale, a pixel size of 20 m would be
adequate, providing a minimum mapping unit of 0.36 ha.
The validation of the accuracy in the output carto-
graphic products can be made in several ways (37–40).
The most common approach is the usage of ground test
points (defined similarly as to GCPs but now used to test
the results) or to measure the geometrical cross-correlation
with a reference image of the same area assumed to be the
truth. The resulting geometrical error is expressed in terms
of spatial sampling, so the errors are expressed in terms of
pixel size. An error in the order of 1 pixel or below is
acceptable (<0.3 pixel ideal), but it is also important to
report the statistical distribution of error and the spatial
distribution of such errors across the image. The tendency
to avoid scanning systems (whiskbroom) and using push-
broom system has made the images spatially stable and
more suitable for applications requiring more precise
geometry.
In practice, the best validation comes from the usage of
the data in applications requiring multisource inputs. In
current practices, remote sensing images are in most cases
integrated (often in a GIS environment) with many other
data sources, some of them in higher spatial accuracy, so
such multisource data integration serves per se as a way of
evaluating the performance of the results of the geometri-
cal processing for remote sensing images.
9. SPATIO-TEMPORAL MULTISOURCE DATA
INTEGRATION
Integration of multiple images acquired by different satel-
lite systems is often needed to satisfy the needs of a given
application. More and more final applications make use of
several remote sensing data streams to provide inputs to a
physical/statistical model or data assimilation scheme.
While geometrical processing of the data is relevant also
for applications using only a single data stream from a
given satellite system, the tendency to integrate multiple
data sources in different resolutions is forcing the limits in
terms of rigorous mathematical modeling of geometrical
effects and accuracy achieved in the geometrical integra-
tion (41). Often the data integrated have very different
acquisition geometry (i.e., oblique viewing or large-angle
conical scanning versus nadir pointing) and, obviously,
accurate geometrical data integration is a key requisite
in multisource applications.
9.1. Spatial Mosaicking
Single image acquisitions by satellite systems usually do
not include the whole area of interest for a given applica-
tion. This is true not only for global or continental level
mapping; even for regional applications, several satellite
images must be combined to form a mosaic of images
covering the whole area of interest.
Satellite data acquisitions are typically done along
strips of limited width (swath). The width varies from
hundreds of meters for very high resolution systems to
thousands of kilometers for low-resolution systems. The
main constraint in swath size is the limited memory and
data transmission capabilities. Since the total data volume
is limited, an increase in spatial coverage (swath size) is
typically at the expenses of reduced spatial resolution. For
many applications, mainly those requiring high-resolution
data, a single strip is not enough to cover the study area
and several images have to be “mosaicked.” A large buffer
image is defined and all pixels are set to zero. Then, each
single image is referenced over the large frame back-
ground. When two single images overlap each other, a
decision has to be made about how to combine both pixels
to define the unique value in the mosaic.
Accurate geometric registration of each single image
forming the mosaic is not enough to make the mosaic
look like a single image. Original images are acquired
under different viewing geometries and illumination, so
corrections are needed in order to avoid artifacts in the
boundaries between original single images. Since images
are acquired at different times, motions or changes in
objects (i.e., clouds) can result in discontinuities. Simple
W3605_PUB2 07/02/2016 12:50:11 Page 13
image-processing techniques are often used (local histo-
gram equalizations plus local cross-correlation and linear
composites across overlaps) to improve appearance. How-
ever, physically based methods are preferred to compen-
sate for perturbing effects, especially if the data have to be
used in numerical studies or as input to physical models
after the mosaic images have been produced.
9.2. Temporal Composites
Monitoring the surface conditions by remote sensing
implies the use of multitemporal data. In fact, the main
advantage of remote sensing is the capability to provide
time series of images systematically acquired over a given
target. Obviously, geometric registration among all the
multidate images must be set within 1 pixel to make sense
of the use of the multitemporal composites.
Many of the most important applications of remote
sensing data are based on the detection of changes in
surface conditions either due to natural biological dynam-
ics (i.e., vegetation growth), abrupt changes such as crop
harvesting, forest fires, or natural disasters, other anthro-
pogenic induced changes such as urban area expansion,
development of transportation lines, or global environmen-
tal changes induced by climate effects. All such applica-
tions require accurate geometrical registration of a time
series of satellite images to monitor such changes to avoid
misinterpretation as changes of artifacts introduced by
imperfect geometrical co-registration of the images.
10. PERSPECTIVES IN NEW DATA SOURCES AND DATA
PROCESSING METHODOLOGIES
The field of Earth’s observation by orbiting satellites is
evolving quite rapidly. On the one side, space agencies
continue to develop Earth-observing systems more com-
plete and with increasing spectral, spatial, and temporal
capabilities, oriented mostly to scientific studies and
administrative services. On the other side, private compa-
nies are developing more and more commercial systems,
particularly in very high spatial resolution of even less than
1 m, which are very appreciated by end-user applications.
Increasing technical capabilities and application fields are
making such remote sensing technologies to evolve to
rapidly cover a wide range of cases from global mapping
with satellites in different orbits up to very precise local
mapping by using UAVs, which basically exploit the same
imaging technologies used in the case of satellites but in a
much fine spatial resolution.
One key element in the development of geometric proc-
essing methods for remote sensing data is the increasing
amount of data to be processed (42). The systematic avail-
ability of large amount of image data in a routine basis is
now the core driver in most applications.
10.1. Perspectives in Data Sources and Implications
for Data Processing
Since 1972, Landsat satellites have continuously acquired
space-based images of the Earth’s land surface, providing
valuable data source for many applications. This large and
Remote Sensing Geometric Corrections 13
consistent archive, combined with a no-cost data policy, has
motivated a massive usage of these data time series over
extensive geographical areas to monitor land surface
changes over time. Currently, Landsat 8 and Landsat 7
together acquire over 1200 new images per day, which
poses a challenge to geometrical processing of such amount
of data.
European Space Agency’s (ESA’s) Copernicus Sentinel-2
system flies a constellation of two identical satellites in
complementary orbit, providing global coverage of the
Earth’s land surface every 10 days with one single satellite
and every 5 days with both satellites together. The multi-
spectral imager instrument provides systematic acquisi-
tions on a global scale, with 10/20 m spatial resolution. The
standard Level-1C product delivered by this mission
includes top of atmosphere reflectances in fixed carto-
graphic geometry (combined UTM projection and WGS84
ellipsoid) in tiles of 100 km × 100 km, each of which is
approximately 500 MB (J2 K compressed). The instrument
acquires and has to transmit 1.6 TB of data per orbit using
ground stations and via high data-rate laser links to the
geostationary telecoms Alphasat and via the European
Data Relay Satellite (EDRS) system. This results in
800 GB per day compressed raw data, that is, 400 TB per
year from one single satellite. With two satellites operating
simultaneously, hopefully over several decades, the Senti-
nel system represents a challenge for geometric processing
given the global availability of very high spatial resolution
(10 m) and the accuracy required in the geometrical proc-
essing for such applications.
Adding the many other data sources in very high spatial
resolution expected for the coming years from other space
agencies and private companies, the amount of data to be
processed will increase exponentially and the exploitation
will also grow due to tendency of free availability of such
remote sensing data for final users. Moreover, more and
more end-user applications do not rely on a single-satellite
or remote sensing system, but several sources of data with
different spatial and temporal resolution are combined to
get the desired outputs. Precise geometrical integration of
such multisource data is the driver to make possible such
applications.
10.2. Specific Methodologies for Operational Processing
of Large Data Volume
While classical geometric processing of remote sensing
data was traditionally based on the usage of GCPs, defined
by the user in most cases, the technological improvements
that allow quite precise determination of position and
attitude of the observing platforms, the availability of
DEMs describing the 3D structure of the observed surface,
and the computational capabilities that allow implementa-
tion of automatic methods over large amounts of data, all
have resulted in the increased tendency to move toward
more and more automatic methods.
The availability of large amounts of data freely avail-
able to the users, together with the increasing applica-
tions of remote sensing data in administrative
applications and end-user practices, has motivated auto-
matic methods for handling the geometrical processing of
W3605_PUB2 07/02/2016 12:50:13 Page 14
14 Remote Sensing Geometric Corrections
the data that are robust enough to be applied for very
different spatial resolution systems and for every location
on Earth.
The development of data processing techniques toward
more and more automatic methods is becoming essential
and the usage of machine learning features, often devel-
oped before in other science domains, are being imple-
mented for the processing of remote sensing data to
cover such needs to speed up the processing procedures
and to handle huge amounts of data. Big-data techniques,
parallel computing, cloud computing, and other technolog-
ical developments contribute to the success, but the
increasing user needs and improved technological capabil-
ities are continuously creating a challenge for the accurate
geometrical processing of remote sensing data.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. P. M. Mather. Computer Processing of Remotely-Sensed
Images, 3rd ed.; Wiley: UK, 2004.
2. J. LeMoigne, N. S. Netanyahu, and R. D. Eastman., Eds.
Image Registration for Remote Sensing. Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge, 2011.
3. R. Bernstein et al. In Manual of Remote Sensing, 2nd ed.;
Colwell, R. N., Ed.; American Society Photogrammetry: Falls
Church, VA, 1983; vol. I, chapter 21, pp 873–922.
4. T. Toutin. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2004, 25 (10), pp 1893–1924.
5. P. N. Slater. Remote Sensing Optics and Optical Systems.
Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, 1980.
6. R. Bernstein. IBM J. Res. Develop. 1976, 20, pp 40–57.
7. A. Bannari, D. Morin, G. B. Benie, and F. J. Bonn. Remote
Sens. Rev. 1995, 13, p 2747.
8. L. M. G. Fonseca and B. S. Manjunath. Photogramm. Eng.
Remote Sens. 1996, 62 (9), pp 1049–1056.
9. W. A. Gruen. S. Afr. J. Photogramm., Remote Sens. Cartogr.
1985, 14, pp 175–187.
10. D. Poli and T. Toutin. Photogramm. Record 2012, 27, pp 58–73,
doi: 10.1111/j.1477-9730.2011.00665.x.
11. Z. Xiong and Y. Zhang. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 2009,
75, pp 1083–1092.
12. T. Fuse, C. S. Fraser, and P. M. Dare. Int. Arch. Photogramm.
Remote Sens. 2004, 35 (III/8), pp 601–605.
13. A. Goshtasby, G. C. Stockman, and C. V. Page. IEEE Trans.
Geosci. Remote Sens. 1986, 24 (3), pp 390–399.
14. A. D. Ventura, A. Rampini, and R. Schettini. IEEE Trans.
Geosci. Remote Sens. 1990, 28 (3), pp 305–314.
15. H. M. Chen, M. K. Arora, and P. K. Varshney. Int. J. Remote
Sens. 2003, 24, pp 3701–3706.
16. S. K. Park and R. A. Schowengerdt. Comput. Vision Graphics
Image Process. 1983, 23, pp 258–272.
17. R. G. Keys. IEEE Trans. Acoust. Speech Signal Process. 1981,
29, pp 1153–1160.
18. J. Moreno and J. Melia. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens.
1994, 32, pp 131–151.
19. G. A. Poe, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 1990, 28, pp
800–810.
20. D. Baldwin, W. Emery, and P. Cheeseman. IEEE Trans. Geo-
sci. Remote Sens. 1998, 36, pp 244–255.
21. P. Cheesman, B. Kanefsky, R. Kraft, J. Stutz, and R. Hanson.
In Maximum Entropy and Bayesian Methods; Heidberg, G. R.,
Ed.; Kluwer: the Netherlands, 1996; pp 293–308.
22. A. E. Roy. Orbital Motion, 3rd ed.; Hilger: Bristol, 1988.
23. D. Brouwer. Astron. J. 1959, 64, pp 378–397.
24. P. R. Escobal. Methods of Orbit Determination. Wiley: New
York, 1965.
25. J. Morrison and S. Pines. Astron. J. 1961, 66, pp 15–16.
26. F. R. Hoots and R. L. Roehrich. Models for Propagation of
NORAD Elements Sets; Spacetrack Rep. No. 3, NORAD, Aero-
space Defense Command: Peterson AFB, CO, 1980.
27. V. Kratky. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Sens., 1988, 27 (4), pp 180–
189.
28. P. V. Radhadevi, T. P. Sasikumar, and R. Ramachandran.
ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 1994, 49 (4), pp 22–28.
29. J. Moreno and J. Melia. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens.
1993, 31, pp 204–226.
30. G. W. Rosborough, D. G. Baldwin, and W. J. Emery. IEEE
Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 1994, 32 (3), pp 644–657.
31. M. J. Barnsley, J. J. Settle, M. A. Cutter, D. R. Lobb, and
F. Teston. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2004, 42 (7),
pp 1512–1520, doi: 10.1109/TGRS.2004.827260.
32. D. J. Diner, J. C. Beckert, T. H. Reilly, C. J. Bruegge, J. E.
Conel, R. Kahn, J. V. Martonchik, T. P. Ackerman, R. Davies,
S. A. W. Gerstl, H. R. Gordon, J-P. Muller, R. Myneni, R. J.
Sellers, B. Pinty, and M. M. Verstraete. IEEE Trans. Geosci.
Remote Sens. 1998, 36, p 1072.
33. V. M. Jovanovic, D. J. Diner, and R. Davies. In Image Regis-
tration for Remote Sensing; Le Moigne, J. et al., Eds.; Cam-
bridge University Press: Cambridge, 2011.
34. D. Schläpfer and R. Richter. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2002, 23 (13),
pp 2609–2630.
35. I. Colomina and P. Molina. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote
Sens. 2014, 92, pp 79–97.
36. USGS. National Mapping Program Standards, http://
nationalmap.gov/gio/standards/
37. X. Dai and S. Khorram. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens.
1998, 36, pp 1566–1577.
38. M. A. Aguilar, M. del Mar Saldaña, and F. J. Aguilar. Int. J.
Appl. Earth Observ. Geoinform. 2013, 21, pp 427–435.
39. T. Toutin. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 2003, 69, pp 43–51.
40. J. Wang, Y. Ge, G. B. M. Heuvelink, C. Zhou, and D. Brus. Int.
J. Appl. Earth Observ. Geoinform. 2012, 18, pp 91–100.
41. J. Moreno, S. Gandia, and J. Melia. IEEE Trans. Geosci.
Remote Sens. 1992, 30, pp 1006–1014.
42. M. Halem. Proc. IEEE. 1989, 77, pp 1061–1091.
JOSE MORENO
University of Valencia,Valencia, Spain