Dear Gabriel, On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 9:50 PM Gabriel Cotlier <gabikl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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) With GRASS 7.6, I can not reproduce this message. g.region -p n=75:00:15N s=65:00:15S w=179:59:45W e=180:00:15E res=00:00:30 gives me 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 without any messages that 360 degree EW extent is exceeded. Which GASS version are you using? I tested with GRASS 7.6 and GRASS 7.9. Markus M > > 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 <gabikl...@gmail.com> 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 < markus.metz.gisw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Dear Gabriel, >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 12:19 AM Gabriel Cotlier <gabikl...@gmail.com> 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 < markus.metz.gisw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 12:05 AM Gabriel Cotlier <gabikl...@gmail.com> 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 < gabikl...@gmail.com> 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 < gabikl...@gmail.com> 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 < gabikl...@gmail.com> 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 < n...@nikosalexandris.net> wrote: >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> * Gabriel Cotlier <gabikl...@gmail.com> [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 grass-user@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-user