How big is a MODIS 250m pixel in reality?
How big is a MODIS 250m pixel in reality?
This appears to be a question that contains its own answer, but I have several reasons to doubt that the pixel size is actually 250m x 250m:
- I downloaded MODIS 250m NDVI data from the USGS site, transformed it from Sin to Geographic (SRID 4326) using the MODIS Reprojection Tool (which has since been replaced, but at the time was the official tool).
- Using
gdalinfo
on the resulting file gives the pixel size as (0.002884053983564 X 0.002884053983564). I assume that this measurement is in decimal degrees. - This online calculator gives the length of one degree of latitude at the latitude of my study area as 111,092.7 m, and of longitude as 81,540.9 m. That would make the pixel dimensions 320m in the N-S direction and 235m in the E-W direction.
- I've overlaid the NDVI image onto other data, and the two correspond; for example you can clearly see greener vegetation along rivers. This wouldn't happen if they were misaligned or mis-projected.
- I can also measure the size of a pixel using QGIS's measurement tool, and the length comes out to about 320 x 235 m, i.e., it agrees with the file metadata.
I have read the documentation and found a few suspicious references in published papers to things like "nominal" pixel size of 250 m, or pixel size of 250 m "at nadir", and this paper makes it look to me as if the physical camera/mirror apparatus would result in pixels that aren't 250m x 250m square, but the authors don't describe in detail the projection and/or transformation used to create the data products so I'm not sure.
remote-sensing modis pixel modis-reprojection-tool cell-size
add a comment |
How big is a MODIS 250m pixel in reality?
This appears to be a question that contains its own answer, but I have several reasons to doubt that the pixel size is actually 250m x 250m:
- I downloaded MODIS 250m NDVI data from the USGS site, transformed it from Sin to Geographic (SRID 4326) using the MODIS Reprojection Tool (which has since been replaced, but at the time was the official tool).
- Using
gdalinfo
on the resulting file gives the pixel size as (0.002884053983564 X 0.002884053983564). I assume that this measurement is in decimal degrees. - This online calculator gives the length of one degree of latitude at the latitude of my study area as 111,092.7 m, and of longitude as 81,540.9 m. That would make the pixel dimensions 320m in the N-S direction and 235m in the E-W direction.
- I've overlaid the NDVI image onto other data, and the two correspond; for example you can clearly see greener vegetation along rivers. This wouldn't happen if they were misaligned or mis-projected.
- I can also measure the size of a pixel using QGIS's measurement tool, and the length comes out to about 320 x 235 m, i.e., it agrees with the file metadata.
I have read the documentation and found a few suspicious references in published papers to things like "nominal" pixel size of 250 m, or pixel size of 250 m "at nadir", and this paper makes it look to me as if the physical camera/mirror apparatus would result in pixels that aren't 250m x 250m square, but the authors don't describe in detail the projection and/or transformation used to create the data products so I'm not sure.
remote-sensing modis pixel modis-reprojection-tool cell-size
add a comment |
How big is a MODIS 250m pixel in reality?
This appears to be a question that contains its own answer, but I have several reasons to doubt that the pixel size is actually 250m x 250m:
- I downloaded MODIS 250m NDVI data from the USGS site, transformed it from Sin to Geographic (SRID 4326) using the MODIS Reprojection Tool (which has since been replaced, but at the time was the official tool).
- Using
gdalinfo
on the resulting file gives the pixel size as (0.002884053983564 X 0.002884053983564). I assume that this measurement is in decimal degrees. - This online calculator gives the length of one degree of latitude at the latitude of my study area as 111,092.7 m, and of longitude as 81,540.9 m. That would make the pixel dimensions 320m in the N-S direction and 235m in the E-W direction.
- I've overlaid the NDVI image onto other data, and the two correspond; for example you can clearly see greener vegetation along rivers. This wouldn't happen if they were misaligned or mis-projected.
- I can also measure the size of a pixel using QGIS's measurement tool, and the length comes out to about 320 x 235 m, i.e., it agrees with the file metadata.
I have read the documentation and found a few suspicious references in published papers to things like "nominal" pixel size of 250 m, or pixel size of 250 m "at nadir", and this paper makes it look to me as if the physical camera/mirror apparatus would result in pixels that aren't 250m x 250m square, but the authors don't describe in detail the projection and/or transformation used to create the data products so I'm not sure.
remote-sensing modis pixel modis-reprojection-tool cell-size
How big is a MODIS 250m pixel in reality?
This appears to be a question that contains its own answer, but I have several reasons to doubt that the pixel size is actually 250m x 250m:
- I downloaded MODIS 250m NDVI data from the USGS site, transformed it from Sin to Geographic (SRID 4326) using the MODIS Reprojection Tool (which has since been replaced, but at the time was the official tool).
- Using
gdalinfo
on the resulting file gives the pixel size as (0.002884053983564 X 0.002884053983564). I assume that this measurement is in decimal degrees. - This online calculator gives the length of one degree of latitude at the latitude of my study area as 111,092.7 m, and of longitude as 81,540.9 m. That would make the pixel dimensions 320m in the N-S direction and 235m in the E-W direction.
- I've overlaid the NDVI image onto other data, and the two correspond; for example you can clearly see greener vegetation along rivers. This wouldn't happen if they were misaligned or mis-projected.
- I can also measure the size of a pixel using QGIS's measurement tool, and the length comes out to about 320 x 235 m, i.e., it agrees with the file metadata.
I have read the documentation and found a few suspicious references in published papers to things like "nominal" pixel size of 250 m, or pixel size of 250 m "at nadir", and this paper makes it look to me as if the physical camera/mirror apparatus would result in pixels that aren't 250m x 250m square, but the authors don't describe in detail the projection and/or transformation used to create the data products so I'm not sure.
remote-sensing modis pixel modis-reprojection-tool cell-size
remote-sensing modis pixel modis-reprojection-tool cell-size
edited 1 hour ago
Aaron♦
38.2k20109254
38.2k20109254
asked 5 hours ago
JohnJohn
887
887
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Per https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/dataset_discovery/modis, the viewing swath width of MODIS is 2,330 km, thus a large portion of the image is off-nadir in some way. https://modis.gsfc.nasa.gov/about/specifications.php
The following forum post gives an explanation of how to calculate pixel size based on viewing position. (Note: still an estimate due to factors outlined in the post)
https://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/forum/oceancolor/topic_show.pl?tid=2018
Compute the scan angle, S (in radians), given pixel number:
S = (I-hp)/H
where:
I is the zero-based pixel index
hp is 1/2 the total number of pixels (zero-based) (for MODIS each scan is 1354 "1km" pixels, 1353 zero-based, so hp = 676.5)
H is the sensor altitude divided by the pixel size (for MODIS altitude is approximately 700km, so for "1km" pixels, H = 700/1)
For 500m pixels, hp = 1353, H = 1400 (700/0.5)
For 250m pixels, hp = 2706, H = 2800 (700/0.25)
Compute the zenith angle:
Z = asin(1.111*sin(S))
where Z is the zenith angle.
Compute the Along-track pixel size:
Pt = Pn*9*sin(Z-S)/sin(S)
where Pn is the nadir pixel size (e.g. 1km, 0.5km, 0.25km)
Compute the Along-scan pixel size:
Ps = Pt/cos(Z)
Thus, area is ~ Pt * Ps
Additional information can be found at https://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/forum/oceancolor/topic_show.pl?tid=277
Excellent answer; these equations are very useful.
– John
4 hours ago
The equations show that the pixel size varies with pixel position relative to the center of the satellite path, but they do not show size varying with latitude. Am I right to assume that these equations hold everywhere, e.g., even over the poles? If I'm envisioning it correctly, there must be much more overlap between successive passes at the poles than at the equator, meaning that a given location on earth might have different pixel widths in successive passes (i.e., up near the pole it might be close to the center of the path on one pass, further on another).
– John
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "79"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fgis.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f315691%2fhow-big-is-a-modis-250m-pixel-in-reality%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Per https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/dataset_discovery/modis, the viewing swath width of MODIS is 2,330 km, thus a large portion of the image is off-nadir in some way. https://modis.gsfc.nasa.gov/about/specifications.php
The following forum post gives an explanation of how to calculate pixel size based on viewing position. (Note: still an estimate due to factors outlined in the post)
https://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/forum/oceancolor/topic_show.pl?tid=2018
Compute the scan angle, S (in radians), given pixel number:
S = (I-hp)/H
where:
I is the zero-based pixel index
hp is 1/2 the total number of pixels (zero-based) (for MODIS each scan is 1354 "1km" pixels, 1353 zero-based, so hp = 676.5)
H is the sensor altitude divided by the pixel size (for MODIS altitude is approximately 700km, so for "1km" pixels, H = 700/1)
For 500m pixels, hp = 1353, H = 1400 (700/0.5)
For 250m pixels, hp = 2706, H = 2800 (700/0.25)
Compute the zenith angle:
Z = asin(1.111*sin(S))
where Z is the zenith angle.
Compute the Along-track pixel size:
Pt = Pn*9*sin(Z-S)/sin(S)
where Pn is the nadir pixel size (e.g. 1km, 0.5km, 0.25km)
Compute the Along-scan pixel size:
Ps = Pt/cos(Z)
Thus, area is ~ Pt * Ps
Additional information can be found at https://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/forum/oceancolor/topic_show.pl?tid=277
Excellent answer; these equations are very useful.
– John
4 hours ago
The equations show that the pixel size varies with pixel position relative to the center of the satellite path, but they do not show size varying with latitude. Am I right to assume that these equations hold everywhere, e.g., even over the poles? If I'm envisioning it correctly, there must be much more overlap between successive passes at the poles than at the equator, meaning that a given location on earth might have different pixel widths in successive passes (i.e., up near the pole it might be close to the center of the path on one pass, further on another).
– John
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Per https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/dataset_discovery/modis, the viewing swath width of MODIS is 2,330 km, thus a large portion of the image is off-nadir in some way. https://modis.gsfc.nasa.gov/about/specifications.php
The following forum post gives an explanation of how to calculate pixel size based on viewing position. (Note: still an estimate due to factors outlined in the post)
https://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/forum/oceancolor/topic_show.pl?tid=2018
Compute the scan angle, S (in radians), given pixel number:
S = (I-hp)/H
where:
I is the zero-based pixel index
hp is 1/2 the total number of pixels (zero-based) (for MODIS each scan is 1354 "1km" pixels, 1353 zero-based, so hp = 676.5)
H is the sensor altitude divided by the pixel size (for MODIS altitude is approximately 700km, so for "1km" pixels, H = 700/1)
For 500m pixels, hp = 1353, H = 1400 (700/0.5)
For 250m pixels, hp = 2706, H = 2800 (700/0.25)
Compute the zenith angle:
Z = asin(1.111*sin(S))
where Z is the zenith angle.
Compute the Along-track pixel size:
Pt = Pn*9*sin(Z-S)/sin(S)
where Pn is the nadir pixel size (e.g. 1km, 0.5km, 0.25km)
Compute the Along-scan pixel size:
Ps = Pt/cos(Z)
Thus, area is ~ Pt * Ps
Additional information can be found at https://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/forum/oceancolor/topic_show.pl?tid=277
Excellent answer; these equations are very useful.
– John
4 hours ago
The equations show that the pixel size varies with pixel position relative to the center of the satellite path, but they do not show size varying with latitude. Am I right to assume that these equations hold everywhere, e.g., even over the poles? If I'm envisioning it correctly, there must be much more overlap between successive passes at the poles than at the equator, meaning that a given location on earth might have different pixel widths in successive passes (i.e., up near the pole it might be close to the center of the path on one pass, further on another).
– John
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Per https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/dataset_discovery/modis, the viewing swath width of MODIS is 2,330 km, thus a large portion of the image is off-nadir in some way. https://modis.gsfc.nasa.gov/about/specifications.php
The following forum post gives an explanation of how to calculate pixel size based on viewing position. (Note: still an estimate due to factors outlined in the post)
https://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/forum/oceancolor/topic_show.pl?tid=2018
Compute the scan angle, S (in radians), given pixel number:
S = (I-hp)/H
where:
I is the zero-based pixel index
hp is 1/2 the total number of pixels (zero-based) (for MODIS each scan is 1354 "1km" pixels, 1353 zero-based, so hp = 676.5)
H is the sensor altitude divided by the pixel size (for MODIS altitude is approximately 700km, so for "1km" pixels, H = 700/1)
For 500m pixels, hp = 1353, H = 1400 (700/0.5)
For 250m pixels, hp = 2706, H = 2800 (700/0.25)
Compute the zenith angle:
Z = asin(1.111*sin(S))
where Z is the zenith angle.
Compute the Along-track pixel size:
Pt = Pn*9*sin(Z-S)/sin(S)
where Pn is the nadir pixel size (e.g. 1km, 0.5km, 0.25km)
Compute the Along-scan pixel size:
Ps = Pt/cos(Z)
Thus, area is ~ Pt * Ps
Additional information can be found at https://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/forum/oceancolor/topic_show.pl?tid=277
Per https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/dataset_discovery/modis, the viewing swath width of MODIS is 2,330 km, thus a large portion of the image is off-nadir in some way. https://modis.gsfc.nasa.gov/about/specifications.php
The following forum post gives an explanation of how to calculate pixel size based on viewing position. (Note: still an estimate due to factors outlined in the post)
https://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/forum/oceancolor/topic_show.pl?tid=2018
Compute the scan angle, S (in radians), given pixel number:
S = (I-hp)/H
where:
I is the zero-based pixel index
hp is 1/2 the total number of pixels (zero-based) (for MODIS each scan is 1354 "1km" pixels, 1353 zero-based, so hp = 676.5)
H is the sensor altitude divided by the pixel size (for MODIS altitude is approximately 700km, so for "1km" pixels, H = 700/1)
For 500m pixels, hp = 1353, H = 1400 (700/0.5)
For 250m pixels, hp = 2706, H = 2800 (700/0.25)
Compute the zenith angle:
Z = asin(1.111*sin(S))
where Z is the zenith angle.
Compute the Along-track pixel size:
Pt = Pn*9*sin(Z-S)/sin(S)
where Pn is the nadir pixel size (e.g. 1km, 0.5km, 0.25km)
Compute the Along-scan pixel size:
Ps = Pt/cos(Z)
Thus, area is ~ Pt * Ps
Additional information can be found at https://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/forum/oceancolor/topic_show.pl?tid=277
edited 4 hours ago
answered 4 hours ago
smillersmiller
2,134217
2,134217
Excellent answer; these equations are very useful.
– John
4 hours ago
The equations show that the pixel size varies with pixel position relative to the center of the satellite path, but they do not show size varying with latitude. Am I right to assume that these equations hold everywhere, e.g., even over the poles? If I'm envisioning it correctly, there must be much more overlap between successive passes at the poles than at the equator, meaning that a given location on earth might have different pixel widths in successive passes (i.e., up near the pole it might be close to the center of the path on one pass, further on another).
– John
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Excellent answer; these equations are very useful.
– John
4 hours ago
The equations show that the pixel size varies with pixel position relative to the center of the satellite path, but they do not show size varying with latitude. Am I right to assume that these equations hold everywhere, e.g., even over the poles? If I'm envisioning it correctly, there must be much more overlap between successive passes at the poles than at the equator, meaning that a given location on earth might have different pixel widths in successive passes (i.e., up near the pole it might be close to the center of the path on one pass, further on another).
– John
3 hours ago
Excellent answer; these equations are very useful.
– John
4 hours ago
Excellent answer; these equations are very useful.
– John
4 hours ago
The equations show that the pixel size varies with pixel position relative to the center of the satellite path, but they do not show size varying with latitude. Am I right to assume that these equations hold everywhere, e.g., even over the poles? If I'm envisioning it correctly, there must be much more overlap between successive passes at the poles than at the equator, meaning that a given location on earth might have different pixel widths in successive passes (i.e., up near the pole it might be close to the center of the path on one pass, further on another).
– John
3 hours ago
The equations show that the pixel size varies with pixel position relative to the center of the satellite path, but they do not show size varying with latitude. Am I right to assume that these equations hold everywhere, e.g., even over the poles? If I'm envisioning it correctly, there must be much more overlap between successive passes at the poles than at the equator, meaning that a given location on earth might have different pixel widths in successive passes (i.e., up near the pole it might be close to the center of the path on one pass, further on another).
– John
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Geographic Information Systems Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fgis.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f315691%2fhow-big-is-a-modis-250m-pixel-in-reality%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown