Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.7780/kjrs.2009.25.2.133

Comparison of Orbit-attitude Model between Spot and Kompsat-2 Imagery  

Jeong, Jae-Hoon (Image Engineering lab, Inha University)
Kim, Tae-Jung (Image Engineering lab, Inha University)
Publication Information
Korean Journal of Remote Sensing / v.25, no.2, 2009 , pp. 133-143 More about this Journal
Abstract
This paper describes differences of performance when the orbit attitude model is applied to the respective images obtained from two different types of satellite. The one is Spot that rotates its pointing mirror and the other is Kompsat-2 that rotates its whole body when they obtain imagery for target. Our research scope is limited to the orbit-attitude model only as its good performance was proved in prior investigation. Model performances between two images were compared with sensor model accuracy and 3D coordinates calculation. The results show performances of the orbit-attitude model for each image type were different. For Spot imagery, the model required attitude angle to be included as adjustment parameters. For Kompsat-2 imagery, the model required high-order parameter for adjustment. This implies that satellite sensor model may be applied differently in accordance with platform's attitude control scheme and accuracy. Understanding of this information can be a base for improvement and development of model and application for new satellite images.
Keywords
Sensor model; Orbit-attitude model; Satellite imagery;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 4  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 김태정, 2006. SPOT 위성영상에서의 위치-회전각 모델과 궤도-자세각 모델의 비교, 한국측량학회지, 24(1): 47-55   과학기술학회마을
2 Kim, T. and I. Dowman, 2006. Comparison of two physical sensor models for satellite images: position-rotation model and orbit-attitude model, The Photogrammetric Record, 21(114):110-123   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Lee, H.-Y., T. Kim, W. Park, and H. K. Lee, 2003. Extraction of digital models from satellite stereo images through stereo matching based on epipolarity and scene geometry, Image and Vision Computing, 21(9): 789-796   DOI   ScienceOn
4 Teo, T. A. and L. C. Chen, 2003. Geometrical Comparisons between Rigorous Sensor Model and Rational Function Model for Quickbird Images, 대한원격탐사학회 03 Proceedings of ACRS 2003 ISRS, 2003 Nov. 03, 2003, 750-752
5 Radhadevi, P. V., R. Ramachandran, and A. S. R. K. V. Murali Mohan, 1998. Restitution of IRS-1C PAN data using an orbit attitude model and minimum control, ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 53(5): 262-271   DOI   ScienceOn
6 Ahn, K. W., 2002. A Comparison of Rigorous Sensor Model and Rational Function Model for DEM Generation from Stereo SPOT Images, KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 6(3): 321-327   DOI   ScienceOn
7 Kim, T., H. Kim, and S. Rhee, 2007. Investigation of physical sensor model for modeling SPOT 3 orbits, The Photogrammetric Record, 22(119): 257-273   DOI   ScienceOn
8 김태정, 김승범, 신동석, 2000. 대표적 위성영상 카메라 모델링 알고리즘들의 비교연구, 대한원격탐사학회지, 16(1): 73-86   과학기술학회마을
9 정재훈, 이태윤, 김태정, 2008. 고해상도 위성영상을 이용한 정밀 DEM 생성 및 정확도 분석에 관한 연구, 26(4): 359-365   과학기술학회마을
10 Kim, T., 2000. A Study on the Epipolarity of Linear Pushbroom Images, Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 66(8): 961-966
11 SPOT Image, 2002. SPOT Satellite Geometry Handbook, S-NT-73-12-SI. 80 pages
12 조우석, 이동구, 2002. RFM을 이용한 고해상도 인공위성 센서모델링, 대한원격탐사학회지, 18(6):337-344   과학기술학회마을   DOI
13 SPOT Image, 1997. The SPOT Scene Standard Digital Product Format, S4-ST-73-01-SI. 76 pages