Analysing 3D hyperspectral data cubes (the Spectral Analysis Workstation)
Practical write-up in the form of a Report (1,500 words only)
[Word count show not exceed 1,500 but should be of that order (1,000 words would probably not
constitute a good answer). Your answers should be elucidated to indicate knowledge you have
acquired during the course and from wider reading of the literature]
1) Identify the bad bands you excluded from you image and explain the reasons why you eliminated
the bands you selected.
[Hint: List the bad bands you selected and the reasons why you eliminated them. Don’t be afraid to use
figures/screen dumps to both illustrate and support your arguments.]
2) Critically evaluate the utility, relative appropriateness and accuracy of the two relative reflectance
methods you applied (the Internal Average approach and the Flat Field approach).
[Hint: Again, don’t be afraid to use graphics to illustrate your answer. Perhaps compare different
wavelength regions, particularly in the longer middle infrared region to identify areas where different
minerals have specifically different spectral reflectance properties. In particular, note which appears
to be the most appropriate correction method for material mapping outlined in the next section. Most
importantly, note which field mineral spectra appear to map quite closely to the appropriate spectra
selected from the spectral library. Don’t be afraid to be critical!]
3) From the spectral matching part of the exercise, outline the mineral you chose to map and then
evaluate how well the Material Mapping algorithm mapped it, with reference to the classified image
supplied and to the image itself.
4) In your somewhat limited experience (!), attempt to critically evaluate the Spectral Analysis
Workstation as a tool for analysing hyperspectral images.
[Hint: ERDAS Imagine is not the only image analysis software package available in GeoSciences]
[Use additional referencing where appropriate to elucidate your write-up] 学霸联盟