SNPP VIIRS spectral bands co-registration and spatial response characterization

摘要

The Visible Infrared Imager Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) instrument onboard the Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership (SNPP) satellite was launched on 28 October 2011. The VIIRS has 5 imagery spectral bands (I-bands), 16 moderate resolution spectral bands (M-bands) and a panchromatic dayight band (DNB). Performance of the VIIRS spatial response and band-to-band co-registration (BBR) was measured through intensive pre-launch tests. These measurements were made in the non-aggregated zones near the start (or end) of scan for the I-bands and M-bands and for a limited number of aggregation modes for the DNB in order to test requirement compliance. This paper presents results based on a recently re-processed pre-launch test data. Sensor (detector) spatial impulse responses in the scan direction are parameterized in terms of ground dynamic field of view (GDFOV), horizontal spatial resolution (HSR), modulation transfer function (MTF), ensquared energy (EE) and integrated out-of-pixel (IOOP) spatial response. Results are presented for the non-aggregation, 2-sample and 3-sample aggregation zones for the I-bands and M-bands, and for a limited number of aggregation modes for the DNB. On-orbit GDFOVs measured for the 5 I-bands in the scan direction using a straight bridge are also presented. Band-to-band co-registration (BBR) is quantified using the pre-launch measured band-to-band offsets. These offsets may be expressed as fractions of horizontal sampling intervals (HSIs), detector spatial response parameters GDFOV or HSR. BBR bases on HSIs in the non-aggregation, 2-sample and 3-sample aggregation zones are presented. BBR matrices based on scan direction GDFOV and HSR are compared to the BBR matrix based on HSI in the non-aggregation zone. We demonstrate that BBR based on GDFOV is a better representation of footprint overlap and so this definition should be used in BBR requirement specifications. We propose that HSR not be used as the primary image quality indicator, since we show that it is neither an adequate representation of the size of sensor spatial response nor an adequate measure of imaging quality.