Removed negative rfl block in analytical_line#696
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Based on conversations, folks are leaning towards keeping negative reflectance values in the analytical line outputs. This introduces a complication that
outside_ret_windowswavelengths are given a "hidden" fill value of-0.01. I looked into specifics on both the generation of the bad band list and the uncertainty of the return within this region.The bad band list is populated as a list [1 - good band, 0 - bad band]. Does this need to be swapped to be read by envi, wiser, etc? The locations of the bad bands are accurate, as set by the inversion object (an EMIT example):
The returned uncertainty is also very high (at least for this test EMIT example):
The shaded region is the
uncertoutput from the analytical_line.The bad band list is read correctly by envi in the current form:
The edits proposed here, are only to remove the commented-out code block that previously dealt with negative reflectance values.