Corbell A

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 47, NO.
1, JANUARY 2009 285

Brightness-Temperature Retrieval Methods
in Synthetic Aperture Radiometers
Ignasi Corbella, Senior Member, IEEE, Francesc Torres, Senior Member, IEEE,
Adriano Camps, Senior Member, IEEE, Nuria Duffo, Member, IEEE, and Merc Vall-llossera, Member, IEEE
AbstractBrightness-temperature retrieval techniques for
synthetic aperture radiometers are reviewed. Three different
approaches to combine measured visibility and antenna
temperatures, along with instrument characterization data,
into a general equation to invert are presented. Discretization
and windowing techniques are briey discussed, and formulas
for reciprocal grids using rectangular and hexagonal samplings
are given. Two known techniques are used to invert the equation,
namely, inverse Fourier transform and G-matrix pseudoinverse.
The proposed preprocessing approaches combined with these two
inversion methods are implemented with real data measured by
an airborne Y-shaped interferometric radiometer over land and
water, and are compared. The images indicate that best results
are obtained when inverting an incremental visibility obtained
after substracting a term that includes the individual antenna
temperatures, the physical temperatures of the receivers, and a
at-target response directly measured from cold-sky looks.
Index TermsBrightness temperature image reconstruction,
interferometry, synthetic aperture microwave radiometers.
I. INTRODUCTION
T
HE USE of aperture synthesis for microwave Earth-
observation radiometers was rst proposed in 1983 by Le
Vine and Good [1] as a way to overcome antenna size prob-
lems in high spatial resolution applications, particularly at low
frequencies and spaceborne instruments. The rst instrument
using this concept was ESTAR, developed at NASA Goddard
in the 1990s [2]. The rst proposal of a two-dimensional (2-D)
instrument was made by the European Space Agency (ESA)
for the Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity (SMOS) mission
[3], and it led to the development of Microwave Imaging
Radiometer with Aperture Synthesis (MIRAS) [4]. Airborne
instruments using 2-D aperture synthesis were developed by
the Helsinky University of Technology (HUT2-D) [5] and
by ESA/EADS-CASA [airborne MIRAS (AMIRAS)] [6] in
2006. A prototype for a 50-GHz 2-D instrument (GeoStar) was
Manuscript received January 18, 2008; revisedApril 8, 2008 andJuly 4, 2008.
First published December 2, 2008; current version published December 17,
2008. This work was supported in part by the EADSCasa Espacio and the
European Space Agency (ESA) in the frame of the MDPP-3 and SMOS PLM
phase C/D projects and in part by the Spanish MCYT and FEDER funds under
Project TIC 2002-04451-C02-01 and Project TEC2005-06863-C02-01/TCM.
The authors are with the Remote Sensing Laboratory, Institut dEstudis
Espacials de Catalunya Centre de Recerca de lAeronutica i de lEspai/
Universitat Politcnica de Catalunya, Department of Signal Theory and Com-
munications, Universitat Politcnica de Catalunya, 08034 Barcelona, Spain
(e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]).
Color versions of one or more of the gures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identier 10.1109/TGRS.2008.2002911
developed by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory [7] with application
as a geosounder from a geostationary orbit. Increasing interests
in interferometric aperture synthesis is being observed in the
last years, and teams in Europe, USA, and China [8] are pushing
this technology very fast. In this paper, general techniques
for retrieving brightness-temperature maps from the inversion
of measured visibility and antenna temperature in synthetic
aperture radiometers are reviewed.
Effects specic to the SMOS case, such as extension of the
alias-free region or mitigation of scene-dependent bias, are not
covered here. They are treated in [9] and [10], where techniques
to improve image reconstruction using a priori information are
given. Good results were reported in these references by using
end-to-end simulations to compare theoretical and retrieved
brightness-temperature maps. These techniques are not in con-
tradiction with the retrieval methods presented here and can be
used whenever the needed a priori information is available.
On the other hand, this paper presents general approaches for
brightness-temperature retrieval, which are applicable to any
2-D instrument, including SMOS. They are implemented on
data measured by an airborne instrument (AMIRAS), and the
resultant images are compared in order to assess the relative
quality of the different approaches. The comparison is thus
done on the basis of measured data, which is an important
difference with respect to the results reported in [9].
II. ANTENNA TEMPERATURE AND VISIBILITY
Antenna temperature and visibility are the primary measure-
ments of interferometric aperture synthesis radiometers. The
rst one characterizes the thermal noise power collected by
a single antenna, whereas the second one, the complex cross
correlation between the signals collected by two antennas. Both
have units of Kelvin and are related to the source brightness
temperature by an integral in which the contributions of all
the elementary radiators are combined weighted by the antenna
patterns [11], [12]. In the case of the visibility, the time delay
from a given source point to each of the two antennas provides
a complex exponential term that is a function of the relative
antenna spacing. Consequently, measuring the visibility with
different pairs of antennas (baselines) is equivalent to measur-
ing the Fourier transform of the brightness temperature as a
function of antenna spacing. The brightness-temperature image
is then retrieved by using a suitable inversion algorithm from
multiple measurements of visibility at different spacings. How-
ever, differences in individual antenna patterns and decorrela-
tion effects due to limited signal bandwidths make things more
0196-2892/$25.00 2008 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: IEEE Xplore Customer. Downloaded on February 4, 2009 at 07:21 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
286 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 47, NO. 1, JANUARY 2009
difcult. Moreover, noise coupled between adjacent antennas,
which depends on the physical temperature of the receivers, is
responsible for correlated output that is added to the one coming
from the external target.
Interferometric aperture synthesis radiometers are formed by
a signicant number of baselines made of either physically
different antennas or by moving a small number of elements.
In any case, the visibility of a given baseline is measured by
cross correlating, during a limited integration time, the complex
analytic signals of the receivers outputs. The contribution of
the receivers themselves to the amplitude and phase of the
correlations must be canceled by internal calibration. Inversion
techniques always assume that these calibration processes have
been applied to the raw data so that the input for inversion is
shown in the following.
1) For all pairs of different antennas at positions (x
k
, y
k
)
and (x
j
, y
j
):
a) The visibility V
kj
(u
kj
, v
kj
), where u
kj
= (x
j
x
k
)/
0
, v
kj
= (y
j
y
k
)/
0
and
0
, is the wavelength at
the center frequency f
0
.
b) The fringe-washing function shape [13] r
kj
(), where
r
kj
(0) = 1 by denition.
2) For at least one antenna, its antenna temperature T
A
.
The following section provides a general equation relating these
measured data to the scene brightness temperature.
III. EQUATIONS FOR IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION
The starting point to dene algorithms for brightness-
temperature retrieval is to establish the equation to solve. The
following two different situations must be distinguished: 1)
the visibility of nonzero baselines; and 2) the visibility of
zero-spacing baselines. Both are measured by different means,
namely: the rst one by correlation of receiver pairs and the
second one by total power detection.
A. Nonzero Baselines
For any pair of different antennas, the function to use in
the inversion procedure is the fully calibrated system visibility
divided by the fringe-washing function at the origin r
kj
(0),
which is, in turn, obtained in the calibration process [14].
According to Corbella et al. [11], for any two antennas labeled
k and j with k = j, this is given by
V
kj
(u
kj
, v
kj
) =
__
2
+
2
<1
T
B
kj
(, )e
j2(u
kj
+v
kj
)
dd
(1)
where and are the director cosines referred to the instrument
geometrical (spherical) coordinate frame ( = x/r, = y/r)
and T
B
kj
is the modied brightness temperature
T
B
kj
=
_
T
B
(, ) T
r
kj
_
AP
kj
(, )r
kj
_
u
kj
+ v
kj
f
0
_
(2)
where T
B
(, ) is the brightness temperature of the scene, T
r
kj
is the average backward noise temperature of the receivers,
1
and
AP
kj
(, ) is a function of antenna patterns dened as
AP
kj
(, ) =
F
nk
(, )F
nj
(, )
_
1
2
2
_
j
(3)
where F
nk,j
represents the normalized eld antenna patterns
and
k,j
represents the antenna equivalent solid angles. It
is implicit in this formulation that all antennas have exactly
the same polarization or, equivalently, that all polarization
unit vectors have the same orientation at all directions. Then,
the brightness temperature in (2) is the one corresponding to
this particular polarization basis, which, in general, is rotated
in a direction-dependent angle with respect to the standard
horizontal or vertical polarizations on ground. On the other
hand, if the two antennas forming the baseline have orthogonal
polarizations, the term T
r
kj
in (2) should not be included,
and T
B
(, ) becomes the complex polarimetric brightness
temperature dened in the frame given by the two antenna
polarization vectors. A more complete formulation for antennas
having both copolar and cross-polar patterns, with respect to a
xed reference frame, can be found in [15]; however, this paper
uses the simpler formulation in order to put emphasis on the
inversion methods, which are applicable in all situations.
The visibility (1) is measured for all pairs of antennas
producing a total of N(N 1)/2 different complex values,
where N is the total number of antennas. By convention, they
correspond to the pairs having k < j. The complete coverage in
the (u, v) plane is obtained by applying the hermitic property
V
jk
(u
jk
, v
jk
) = V

kj
(u
kj
, u
kj
) (4)
obtaining N(N 1) visibilities, of which some are redundant,
meaning that they have the same values of u and v. The degree
of redundancy depends on the layout of the antennas on the
mechanical structure.
B. Flat-Target Response
A at target is dened as a completely unpolarized target
having an equal brightness temperature from any direction [16].
Examples are anechoic chambers or the cosmic background
radiation. For such a target having a temperature T
FT
, the
corresponding visibility is given by (1) after substituting the
constant value T
FT
for T
B
(, ) in (2)
V
FT
kj
(u
jk
, v
jk
) = (T
FT
T
r
kj
)FTR
kj
(u
kj
, v
kj
) (5)
where
FTR
kj
=
__
2
+
2
<1
AP
kj
r
kj
_
u
kj
+ v
kj
f
0
_
e
j2(u
kj
+v
kj
)
dd (6)
1
This is equal to the physical temperature if input isolators are placed in the
receivers.
CORBELLA et al.: BRIGHTNESS-TEMPERATURE RETRIEVAL METHODS IN SYNTHETIC APERTURE RADIOMETERS 287
Fig. 1. Visibility of an anechoic chamber at T
FT
= 293 K corresponding to
the 20 baselines formed by the antenna at the far edge of one of the arms and the
rest of the antennas in the same arm of MIRAS. (Circles) Computed from (5).
(Blue dots) Term due to only the chambers temperature (T
FT
FTR
kj
). (Red
dots) Actual measurements.
is the at-target response, which is a function only of the
instrument. When a constant source is considered, the general
formulation using copolar and cross-polar antenna patterns
becomes simple, and it reduces the use of the scalar product
of the two vector antenna patterns

F
nk

F
nj
in the numerator
of (3). Note that, since the antenna solid angle is the integral of
the power pattern in the whole space, FTR
kk
= 1.
Fig. 1 shows the visibility of an anechoic chamber at T
FT
=
293 K for the case of MIRAS. The circles are the computed
values using (5), and the solid dots represent the term due
only to the chamber temperature T
FT
FTR
kj
. In both cases, the
at-target response was analytically computed using (6) from
antenna pattern measurements provided by Denmark University
of Technology. Finally, the dots inside (or close to) the circles
show the measurements obtained during the image validation
tests that took place in the anechoic chamber of European
Space Research and Technology Centre (ESTEC) with the
fully deployed instrument inside it. The small discrepancy seen
around the 5 separation coincides with the presence of a hinge
separating two sections of the instrument. Based on the results
shown in Fig. 1, it follows that the at-target response can
be neglected (i.e., FTR
kj
0) in the case of large antenna
spacings.
The at-target response can be computed from antenna pat-
tern measurements, or alternatively, it can be measured using
a known at target. In any case, once it is known, it can be
used to cancel the termof a receiver temperature in the visibility
by inverting the function V
kj
+ T
r
kj
FTR
kj
. This is equivalent
to using the same equations (1) and (2) but without the term
T
r
kj
. Note that this approach was proposed in [14, eq. (24)]
[V
R
term] and [9, eq. (7)] [V
pq
R
], where the computation of
the at-target response from antenna patterns was proposed.
C. Incremental Brightness Temperature and Visibility
The integrated brightness temperature of the scene weighted
by the antenna power pattern is the antenna temperature T
A
.
Image reconstruction algorithms may take advantage of this
by inverting the incremental brightness temperature dened as
T
B
(, ) = T
B
(, ) T
A
. For a given baseline (k, j), the
modied incremental brightness temperature is conveniently
dened by an equation similar to (2) but with the antenna
temperature replacing the receiver backward noise temperature
T
B
kj
= (T
B
(, ) T
A
kj
)
AP
kj
(, ) r
kj
_
u
kj
+ v
kj
f
0
_
(7)
where T
A
kj
= 0.5(T
A
k
+ T
A
j
) is the average of the antenna
temperatures of both antennas, each one given by
T
A
k
=
__
2
+
2
<1
T
B
(, )AP
kk
(, )dd. (8)
The corresponding incremental visibility is dened directly
by using (7) in (1)
V
kj
(u
kj
, v
kj
) =
__
2
+
2
<1
T
B
kj
e
j2(u
kj
+v
kj
)
dd (9)
which, using the at-target response, can be expressed as
V
kj
= V
kj
(T
A
kj
T
r
kj
)FTR
kj
. (10)
The procedure, in this case, consists of rst computing V
kj
from (10) and then inverting (7) and (9) to get T
B
. Finally,
the brightness temperature is obtained by adding the antenna
temperature T
B
= T
B
+ T
A
. This procedure is equivalent to
using the at-target transformation [16] with a reference tem-
perature equal to the measured antenna temperature. The main
advantage of this approach is that the uncertainties of antenna
pattern and fringe-washing function scale with the difference
T
B
T
A
, as is apparent from (7). Then, when imaging far
away from coastlines, for example, in open ocean or large land
areas, this difference is reduced, and the impact of the antenna
measurement errors using this approach is minimum. This is
conrmed by the results of Section VI.
D. Zero Baselines
The visibility measured by correlating the signals out of
receiver pairs does not provide the value for the center of the
(u, v) plane. For mathematical consistency, this must be equal
to the function used in the inversion particularized to the origin.
Putting u
kj
= v
kj
= 0 and k = j in (1)(3), it follows that
V
k
(0, 0) =
__
2
+
2
<1
(T
B
(, ) T
r
k
) AP
kk
(, )dd (11)
which, using (8), can be put simply as
V
k
(0, 0) = T
A
k
T
r
k
. (12)
If the T
r
term is canceled before inversion, as it is proposed
at the end of Section III-B, then the visibilities in the origin
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF INVERSION APPROACHES
become simply T
A
k
. Finally, using (10) and taking into account
that FTR
kk
= 1, it follows that the incremental visibility is
null at the origin V
k
(0, 0) = 0. Note that this is basically the
criterion used to dene the differential visibilities in [14] and
[9]. However, in these references, the terms added to achieve
V (0, 0) = 0 are analytically computed from the visibility
equation assuming known antenna patterns and fringe-washing
functions, as well as a priori information on the scene. Here,
the antenna temperatures of the front ends, as well as the at-
target response, are directly used, which are theoretically the
same but conceptually simpler.
In any case then, antenna temperatures need to be known.
These can be provided if all receivers in the array are cali-
brated as total power radiometers. Note that the antenna tem-
peratures are slightly different from one receiver to another.
Although this seems to be the best strategy, in SMOS, only
three antenna temperatures are measuredthose corresponding
to three well-calibrated noise injection radiometers included
near the center of the array for this purpose. The average
of all three measurements is used as the unique antenna
temperature.
E. Approach Summary
In summary, image reconstruction consists of solving for
T(, ) in an equation of the type V (u, v) = F[T(, )], where
V (u, v) is known. This can be written as
V (u
kj
, v
kj
) =
kj
(, )e
j2(u
kj
+v
kj
)
dd (13)
with
T
kj
=
_
T(, )AP
kj
(, )r
kj
_
u
kj
+v
kj
f
0
_
,
2
+
2
<1
0,
2
+
2
1
(14)
in which, for consistency, T(, ) should only be a function of
the director cosines and but not of the specic baseline used.
Based on the results of the previous sections, there are three
approaches in the choice of V and T, which are summarized in
Table I and described in the following.
1) Approach #1 uses the visibility directly as obtained from
the calibration procedure. To take into account the T
r
term, this must be subtracted both at the zero visibility
and at the brightness temperature. Note that the term sub-
tracted to T
B
consists of the average receiver temperature
T
r
in order to comply with the requirement that T does
not depend on the specic baseline.
2) In approach #2, the T
r
term is canceled in the visibility
before inversion. In this case, the zero visibility is directly
the antenna temperature, and the retrieved variable is
simply the brightness temperature.
3) Finally, approach #3 inverts the incremental visibility
(10). Then, the zero visibility vanishes, and the retrieved
function is the difference between the brightness and the
average antenna

T
A
temperatures.
In any case, the at-target response is assumed to be known,
either from direct measurement using, for example, the cold
sky or computed from measured antenna patterns using (6).
Alternatively, it can be neglected using simply FTR
kj
= 0,
which may be a good option for instruments having large
antenna separations in terms of the wavelength (Fig. 1).
IV. DISCRETIZATION AND WINDOWING
The visibility in (13) is measured only at the discrete points
(u
kj
, v
kj
). Their specic location in the (u, v) plane depends on
the particular layout of the antennas in the array. For example,
in a Y-shaped instrument, they are placed in a hexagonal grid
and form a star shape [17] (Fig. 2). In a U-shaped instru-
ment [5], the grid is rectangular, and other geometries, for
example, circular [8], have different distributions of points.
After inversion, the brightness temperature is obtained also
in a limited number of points in the director cosines domain
(, ). In principle, the choice of the (, ) grid should be
irrelevant. However, efcient inversion methods require the use
of a grid reciprocal to the one in (u, v) [17]. This is done
by making a change of variables from (u, v) to (k
1
, k
2
) and
from (, ) to (n
2
, n
1
), in which both (k
1
, k
2
) and (n
2
, n
1
)
are identical regular grids of N
T
N
T
integers, where N
2
T
is
the number of nonredundant (u, v) points. In the case of a Y-
shaped instrument, this is also the total number of points in
the smallest hexagon containing the star of measured points
(Fig. 2). Table II shows the change of variables applicable to
both rectangular (U-shaped) and hexagonal (Y-shaped) grids for
instruments having unit antenna spacing referred to wavelength
equal to d. In the Y-shaped case, the formulas assume that one
of the arms is in the (x) direction. In all cases, the value of
N
T
is related to the number of antennas in each arm N
EL
by
the formulas given.
The limited extent of the visibility domain in the (u, v)
plane is interpreted as a multiplication by a rectangular
window, which is equal to unity for the measured points and
is zero for the rest. As a standard practice in digital signal
processing to improve sensitivity at the expense of spatial
resolution and to reduce ripples in high-contrast images, other
windowing functions can be used. For example, applying the
Blackman window consists of multiplying the visibility by the
function
W(u, v) = 0.42 + 0.5 cos
_

max
_
+ 0.08 cos
_
2
max
_
(15)
where =
u
2
+ v
2
and
max
its maximum value. The
window can be applied directly to the visibility or to the
Fig. 2. Effect of zero padding in the (uv) and (, ) coverage for a Y-shaped instrument of six elements per arm.
TABLE II
RECIPROCAL GRIDS DEFINITIONS
brightness temperature obtained after inversion with the rec-
tangular window. This last option is the one used in the SMOS
ofcial data processing to allowusers of brightness-temperature
data to apply different windows.
After making the change of variables of Table II and consid-
ering only the discrete points available, (13) is rewritten as
V (k
1
, k
2
)=
1
N
2
T
S
N
M
N
m
N
M
N
m
T
kj
(n
2
, n
1
)e
j
2
N
T
(k
1
n
2
+k
2
n
1
)
(16)
where S is the elementary area in uv, equal to d
2
for
rectangular grids and d
2
sin 60
for hexagonal grids, and where

the limits of the summations are
[N
m
, N
M
] =
__
N
T
2
,
N
T
2
1
, N
T
even
_
N
T
1
2
,
N
T
1
2
, N
T
odd.
(17)
V. INVERSION TECHNIQUES
A. Inverse Fourier Transform
Equation (16) is a discrete Fourier transform only in the case
that T
is solely a function of n
2
and n
1
. From (14), this is
achieved if the decorrelation due to the fringe-washing function
is neglected (r
kj
1) and if a unique average antenna pattern
is used. An assessment of the impact of antenna errors in the
retrieval for the MIRAS case can be found in [18] and [19].
After averaging all redundant visibilities, the Fourier inversion
of (16) is
T
(n
2
, n
1
) = S
N
M
N
m
N
M
N
m
V (k
1
, k
2
)e
j
2
N
T
(k
1
n
2
+k
2
n
1
)
(18)
and the brightness temperature is readily obtained using (14)
and the formulas given in Table I. If, for example, approach #3
is used
T
B
(, ) =
T
(, )
AP(, )
+

T
A
(19)
where and are computed from n
2
and n
1
with the formulas
of Table II and AP(, ) is an average value of (3) across
all antennas. It can be computed by introducing, in (3), the
average of the antenna power patterns normalized to solid
angle. Alternatively, it can be estimated from the at-target
response by the direct inversion of (6). Considering that the
Fig. 3. (Left) AMIRAS installed on HUT SkyVan. (Right) Series of snapshots of vertical brightness temperature at antenna frame over the Pensaari island in
Lohja Lake (Finland).
fringe-washing function is neglected in this method, this is
equivalent to using (18) once again
AP(n
2
, n
1
) = S
N
M
N
m
N
M
N
m
FTR(k
1
, k
2
)e
j
2
N
T
(k
1
n
2
+k
2
n
1
)
.
(20)
This approach has the advantage that there is no need to
perform any characterization of the individual antennas. A
measurement of the at-target response is the only instrumental
characterization that is needed.
Fourier inversion is simple and efcient, particularly if a
radix-2 fast Fourier transform (FFT) algorithm is used. In this
case, N
T
must be a power of two, and this is achieved by ex-
tending the (u, v) domain and putting V = 0 in the new points.
Considering that the visibility aliases become more separated
from each other, the grid in (, ) becomes ner, resulting in
an interpolation of the brightness temperature. Obviously, this
does not mean that the spatial resolution is improved because
this depends on the maximumdistance between antennas. Fig. 2
shows an example of the visibility zero padding effect for a
Y-shaped instrument having six elements per arm.
B. Matrix Inversion
Equation (16) is a linear system of equations, and it can be
solved using any suitable mathematical method. In particular, it
can be written in matrix form [20] as [V ] = [G][T], where the
elements of [G] are given by
G
lm
=
AP
kj
(n
2
, n
1
)
N
2
T
S
r
kj
_
k
1
n
2
+ k
2
n
1
N
T
f
0
_
e
j
2
N
T
(k
1
n
2
+k
2
n
1
)
(21)
where the mapping between the subscripts l, m, and the indexes
k
1
, k
2
and n
2
, n
1
depends on the equation arrangement used
to construct the matrix, which is irrelevant. The matrix [G]
has as many rows as the visibility measurements, including the
hermitic points (4) and the zero baseline. Redundant visibilities
(including also those of zero spacing) and corresponding matrix
elements should be averaged to avoid singularity problems
when the matrix has several almost identical rows. After this
averaging, the number of rows is equal to 6N
2
EL
+ 6N
EL
+ 1
for a Y-shaped instrument and (2N
EL
+ 1)
2
for a U-shaped
instrument, where N
EL
is the number of elements in an arm. On
the other hand, the number of columns is equal to the number
of (, ) points in the selected grid. From (17), this is equal to
N
2
T
, and its minimum value, based on Table II, is (3N
EL
+ 1)
2
for Y-shaped instruments and (2N
EL
+ 1)
2
for U-shaped
instruments. Increasing the number of points produces the
same interpolation effect as in the Fourier transform shown
in Fig. 2.
For a Y-shaped instrument, the G matrix is not square, and
inversion has to be computed using a minimization algorithm
in the least square sense, for example, the resolving matrix
approach [21], selected as the ofcial method for SMOS level-1
processing. However, the results given in the following sec-
tion use the MoorePenrose pseudoinverse directly provided
by Matlab. Considering that AMIRAS is a small instrument,
this approach is numerically efcient and has given good
results.
VI. AMIRAS BRIGHTNESS-TEMPERATURE RETRIEVALS
The methods presented in the previous sections have been
implemented for the retrieval of brightness temperature using
data measured by the small AMIRAS [6]. Fig. 3 shows a photo-
graph of the instrument installed onboard the HUT SkyVan
ready to start a ight. At right, a sequence of snapshots obtained
during an overpass of an island over the lake Lohja in Finland is
shown. They correspond to the vertical brightness temperature
at the antenna frame imaged in the alias-free eld of view. The
snapshot marked with an arrow and those corresponding to the
center of the lake are used as examples for analyzing the quality
Fig. 4. Comparison of image reconstruction approaches using the snapshot marked with an arrow in Fig. 3. The horizontal ip is due to use of antenna (, )
coordinates instead of distances on ground.
Fig. 5. Comparison of image reconstruction approaches using a snapshot of only fresh water in V polarization. Flat-target response from Sky measurement is
used in all cases.
of inversion using different approaches. Both qualitative and
quantitative results are presented.
A. Qualitative Results
Fig. 4 shows a comparison between different imaging strate-
gies. The three approaches given in Table I are used both
in Fourier and matrix inversion using a at-target response
measured from sky view. The visual conclusion is that all
methods provide consistent images and that little difference
is seen when comparing the Fourier and G matrix. To have
more insight in the differences, a snapshot corresponding to the
middle of the lake (only fresh water) has also been analyzed.
The result is shown in Fig. 5. Here, it is clear that the only
Fig. 6. Flat-target response choice in G-matrix inversion and approach #3.
Fig. 7. Average of horizontal and vertical brightness temperature (half of rst Stokes parameter). (Left) Theoretical predictions using Fresnel reection
coefcients. (Right) Result of averaging 41 snapshots in the center of the lake.
option that produces consistent results is approach #3, both
with the FFT and the G matrix. To understand the image, it
should be noted that it is for vertical polarization
2
and the
bottom of the image corresponds to larger incidence angles.
The increase in the brightness temperature is consistent with
theoretical expectations. The artifacts seen are probably due to
a bad compensation of the aircraft attitude.
Another interesting analysis is the choice of the at-target
response. Fig. 6 shows, for the water snapshot, the results
of the G-matrix inversion using approach #3 and selecting
different at-target responses. Based also on the visual results,
the best choice, in this case, is the one retrieved from the
cold-sky visibility measurement. It is interesting to point out
that the option FTR = 0 apparently produces, in this case,
better results than the direct computation from antenna pattern
measurements. This can be due to propagation of errors in
the measurement of the antenna patterns and also to the fact
that the FTR includes other effects, such as mismatch and
fringe-washing function, that were not considered in the
theoretical computation. The antenna patterns were measured
in the facilities of the Universitat Politcnica de Catalunya
(http://www.tsc.upc.edu/recerca/r_grups_amp.php?sel=recerca
&sub=grups&idg=1&amp=1) before the start of the ight
campaign.
2
This is dened in the instrument frame. No rotation has been implemented.
TABLE III
COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT APPROACHES USING FIRST STOKES
PARAMETER STATISTICS
B. Quantitative Results
The previous results are consolidated by using a parameter
able to numerically compare the quality of the different ap-
proaches. The spatial variation of the rst Stokes parameter
in a water retrieval has been used. This is a convenient choice
because it is independent of eld rotation and has a low depen-
dence with respect to the incidence angle. Fig. 7 (left) shows
the theoretical predictions using directly the Fresnel reection
coefcients. At right, the average of 41 snapshots, measured
by the instrument and inverted using approach #3 and the
at-target response from cold-sky measurement, is given. The
spatial standard deviation is as low as = 0.15 K, consistent
with the theoretical value, although some artifacts are seen in
the image. The spatial mean of the brightness temperature is
the same in both.
The spatial mean and standard deviation have been also
computed for the same snapshots but using different approaches
in inversion. The results are summarized in Table III, presented
in the same order with that shown in Figs. 5 and 6. The
qualitative results conrm the conclusions derived from just the
visual inspection in the previous section. Note that the different
approaches not only provide different values of standard devia-
tion but that also the mean brightness temperature in the eld of
view is different. This conrms the predictions about the scene
bias given in [9].
VII. CONCLUSION
In synthetic aperture radiometers, there are several ways
to combine visibilities, antenna temperatures, and instrument
characterization data to get the nal equation from which
brightness-temperature maps are obtained. Three different ap-
proaches have been presented, and detailed equations for their
implementation have been given. All of them are mathemati-
cally equivalent so that, in the absence of errors in instrument
characterization data, they should all give the same results.
However, antenna pattern uncertainties propagate differently in
each of them, producing large differences in the nal quality of
the retrieved image. The use of incremental visibility reduces
substantially the impact of these errors.
By analyzing real data provided by an airborne instrument,
it has been shown that better images are obtained when the
incremental visibility is computed by applying the at-target
response to the difference between the antenna temperatures
and the receiver physical temperatures. This has been named
as approach #3 and gives a visibility mathematically equal to
zero at the origin. Its practical implementation depends on how
the at-target response is measured or estimated and what strat-
egy was used to measure the different antenna temperatures.
In the AMIRAS, best results were obtained when using a at-
target response measured by looking to the cold sky rather than
theoretically computing from antenna pattern measurements,
which performs even worse than just using a zero at-target
response. However, this conclusion highly depends on the
quality of the antenna characterization data and may not be true
for MIRAS in SMOS.
Two simple methods have been used to invert the equation,
namely, an FTT using an average of all antenna patterns and
a pseudoinverse of the G matrix after averaging all elements
of the matrix corresponding to redundant baselines. For the
data analyzed, both methods perform similarly, although the
G-matrix inversion is slightly better for approach #3. It should
be noted that the elements of the G matrix are basically the
antenna patterns; hence, the quality of this method is directly
linked to the quality of the antenna characterization. More-
over, the fringe-washing functionwhich is included in the
G-matrix elementshas a negligible effect in AMIRAS but
may have an impact in larger instruments. In consequence,
SMOS data will probably produce good images using FFT;
however, the G-matrix inversion will be needed to comply with
the quality requirements of level 1.
Finally, a proposal to compute an average pattern from the
at-target response is presented. In conjunction with the Fourier
inversion, it allows one to obtain images without having to
characterize individual antennas. It can be useful to get fast but
good images in instruments not providing antenna patterns.
REFERENCES
[1] D. M. Le Vine and J. C. Good, Aperture Synthesis for Microwave
Radiometers in Space. Greenbelt, MD: NASA Goddard Space Flight
Center, Aug. 1983. Technical Memorandum TM-85033.
[2] D. M. Le Vine, C. T. Swift, and M. Haken, Development of the synthetic
aperture microwave radiometer, ESTAR, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote
Sens., vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 199202, Jan. 2001.
[3] P. Silvestrin, M. Berger, Y. Kerr, and J. Font, ESAs second earth explorer
opportunity mission: The soil moisture and ocean salinity mission
SMOS, IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Newsl., no. 118, pp. 1114,
Mar. 2001.
[4] M. Martn-Neira and J. M. Goutoule, MIRASA two-dimensional
aperture-synthesis radiometer for soil moisture and ocean salinity obser-
vations, ESA Bull., vol. 92, pp. 95104, Nov. 1997.
[5] K. Rautiainen, J. Kainulainen, T. Auer, S. Tauriainen, and M. Hallikainen,
Helsinki University of Technology synthetic aperture radiometer
HUT-2D, in Proc. IGARSS, Barcelona, Spain, Jul. 2327, 2007,
pp. 36353638.
[6] M. Martn-Neira, I. Cabeza, C. Prez, M. A. Palacios, M. A. Guijarro,
S. Rib, I. Corbella, S. Blanch, F. Torres, N. Duffo, V. Gonzlez,
S. Beraza, A. Camps, M. Vall-llossera, S. Tauriainen, J. Pihlyckt,
J. P. Gonzlez, and F. Martin-Porqueras, AMIRASAn airborne MIRAS
demonstrator, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 705
716, Mar. 2008.
[7] B. Lambrigtsen, A. Tanner, T. Gaier, P. Kangaslahti, and S. Brown,
Developing a GeoSTAR science mission, in Proc. IGARSS, Barcelona,
Spain, Jul. 2327, 2007, pp. 52325236.
[8] J. Wu, C. Zhang, H. Liu, W. Sun, and J. Yan, Clock scan of imaging inter-
ferometric radiometer and its applications, in Proc. IGARSS, Barcelona,
Spain, Jul. 2327, 2007, pp. 52445246.
[9] A. Camps, M. Vall-llossera, I. Corbella, N. Duffo, and F. Torres, Im-
proved image reconstruction algorithms for aperture synthesis radiome-
ters, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 146158,
Jan. 2008.
[10] E. Anterrieu, On the reduction of the reconstruction bias in synthetic
aperture imaging radiometry, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 45,
no. 3, pp. 592601, Mar. 2007.
[11] I. Corbella, N. Duffo, M. Vall-llossera, A. Camps, and F. Torres, The
visibility function in interferometric aperture synthesis radiometry, IEEE
Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 42, no. 8, pp. 16771682, Aug. 2004.
[12] P. Moreno-Galbis, J. Kainulainen, and M. Martn-Neira, Experimental
demonstration of the Corbella Equation for aperture synthesis microwave
radiometry, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 945
957, Apr. 2007.
[13] R. Butora, M. Martn-Neira, and A. L. Rivada-Antich, Fringe-
washing function calibration in aperture synthesis microwave radiom-
etry, Radio Sci., vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 1511515, Apr. 24, 2003.
DOI: 10.1029/2002RS002695.
[14] I. Corbella, F. Torres, A. Camps, A. Colliander, M. Martn-Neira,
S. Rib, K. Rautiainen, N. Duffo, and M. Vall-llossera, MIRAS end-to-
end calibration. Application to SMOS L1 processor, IEEE Trans. Geosci.
Remote Sens., vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 11261134, May 2005.
[15] I. Corbella, F. Torres, A. Camps, N. Duffo, and M. Vall-llossera, Polari-
metric and Extended Formulation of the Visibility Function. Barcelona,
Spain: Universitat Politcnica de Catalunya, Nov. 10, 2004. Technical
note MP3-TN-UPC-3000-0002, rev.1.1.
[16] M. Martn-Neira, M. Suess, and J. Kainulainen, The at target transfor-
mation, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 613620,
Mar. 2008.
[17] A. Camps, J. Bar, I. Corbella, and F. Torres, The processing of hexago-
nally sampled signals with standard rectangular techniques: Application
to 2D large aperture synthesis interferometric radiometers, IEEE Trans.
Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 183190, Jan. 1997.
[18] A. Camps, J. Bar, F. Torres, I. Corbella, and J. Romeu, Impact of
antenna errors on the radiometric accuracy of large aperture synthesis
radiometers. Study applied to MIRAS, Radio Sci., vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 657
668, Mar./Apr. 1997.
[19] A. Camps, I. Corbella, F. Torres, N. Duffo, M. Vall-llossera, and
M. Martn-Neira, The impact of antenna pattern dependence in aperture
synthesis microwave radiometers, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens.,
vol. 43, no. 10, pp. 22182224, Oct. 2005.
[20] A. Tanner and C. T. Swift, Calibration of a synthetic aperture radiom-
eter, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 257267,
Jan. 1993.
[21] E. Anterrieu and A. Khazaal, Brightness temperature map reconstruction
from dual-polarimetric visibilities in synthetic aperture imaging radiom-
etry, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 606612,
Mar. 2008.
Ignasi Corbella (M99SM08) received the
Telecommunication Engineer and Dr.Eng. degrees
from the Universitat Politcnica de Catalunya
(UPC), Barcelona, Spain, in 1977 and 1983,
respectively.
In 1976, he was with the School of Telecommu-
nication Engineering, UPC as a Research Assistant
with the Microwave Laboratory, where he worked
on passive microwave integrated-circuit design and
characterization. In 1979, he was with Thomson-
CSF, Paris, France, where he worked on microwave
oscillators design. He has been with UPC since 1982, where he was rst an
Assistant Professor then as an Associate Professor in 1986 and, since 1993, as a
Full Professor, where, from 1993 to 1997 he was an Academic Director with the
School of Telecommunications Engineering, from 2001 to 2003 he was a Direc-
tor with the Department of Signal Theory and Communications, and where he
is currently teaching basic microwaves and antennas at the undergraduate level
and graduate courses on nonlinear microwave circuits. Since 1993, he has been
actively participating as a Researcher with the European Space Agency (ESA)
Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity (SMOS) mission in the frame of several
contracts, directly with ESAor with the payload prime contractor EADSCasa
Espacio. His expertise includes, among others, fundamentals of interferometric
aperture synthesis radiometry, image reconstruction algorithms, and onboard
calibration, hardware specication, and payload characterization. From 1998
to 1999, he was with the NOAA/Environmental Technology Laboratory as a
Guest Researcher developing methods for total-power radiometer calibration
and data analysis. From 1999 to 2007, he was the Scientic Coordinator of a
dictionary of telecommunication terms in the Catalan language, with more than
4000 entries, published in March 2007. Since 2004, he has been a Member of
the SMOS Science Advisory Group and, since 2007, he has been a member of
the SMOS Barcelona Expert Centre.
Dr. Corbella was the General Chairman of the 2007 International Geoscience
and Remote Sensing Symposium in Barcelona.
Francesc Torres (S88M96SM06) was born in
Ibiza, Spain, in 1962. He received the Ingeniero
and Doctor Ingeniero degrees in telecommunica-
tion engineering from the Universitat Politcnica de
Catalunya (UPC), Barcelona, Spain, in 1988 and
1992, respectively.
From 1988 to 1989, he was a Research Assis-
tant with the RF System Division, European Space
Agency (ESA), Holland, The Netherlands, where he
was devoted to microwave device testing and charac-
terization. From 1989 to 1996, he was an Assistant
Professor of microwave circuits and systems with the Signal Theory and
Communications Department, Remote Sensing Laboratory, UPC, where he has
been an Associate Professor since 1996. From 2005 to 2006, he held a sab-
batical stage with the Microwave Systems Section, Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
Pasadena, CA, where he was involved in the GeoSTAR pilot project, which
is a passive microwave interferometric geosounder. Since 1995, he has been
participating in a number of projects related to the Soil Moisture and Ocean
Salinity (SMOS) mission by the ESA. He is currently coleading the Barcelona
SMOS Expert Centre on Radiometric Calibration and Ocean Salinity.
Adriano Camps (S91A97M00SM03) was
born in Barcelona, Spain, in 1969. He received the
Telecommunication Engineer and the Dr.Eng. de-
grees from the Universitat Politcnica de Catalunya
(UPC), Barcelona, Spain, in 1992 and 1996,
respectively.
From 1991 to 1992, he was with the cole
Nationale Superieure (ENS) des Tlcommunica-
tions de Bretagne, Brest, France, with an Erasmus
Fellowship. Since 1993, he has been with the Elec-
tromagnetics and Photonics Engineering Group,
Department of Signal Theory and Communications, UPC, where he was rst
an Assistant Professor, then, in 1997, was an Associate Professor, and, since
2007, has been a Full Professor. In 1999, he was on sabbatical leave at the
Microwave Remote Sensing Laboratory, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
His research interests are focused on microwave remote sensing, with special
emphasis on microwave radiometry by aperture synthesis techniques. He has
performed numerous studies within the frame of European Space Agency Soil
Moisture and Ocean Salinity Earth Explorer Mission, which have received
several awards. He is the Associate Editor of Radio Science.
Dr. Camps was the recipient of the second national award of university
studies in 1993, the INDRA award of the Spanish Association of Telecom-
munication Engineering to the best Ph.D. in Remote Sensing in 1997, the
extraordinary Ph.D. award at UPC in 1999, the Research Distinction of the
Generalitat de Catalunya for contributions to microwave passive remote sensing
in 2002, and the EUropean Young Investigator Award in 2004. In addition, as
a member of the Microwave Radiometry Group at UPC, he was the recipient,
in 2000, 2001, and 2004, of the First Duran Farell and the Ciudad de Barcelona
awards for Technology Transfer and of the Salv I Campillo Award of the
Professional Association of Telecommunication Engineers of Catalonia for the
most innovative research project, respectively. He was the Chair of Cal 01.
From 2003 to 2006, he was an Editor of the IEEE GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE
SENSING NEWSLETTER and, currently, is the Associate Editor of the IEEE
GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING LETTERS. He is the PresidentFounder
of the IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Society Chapter, Spain.
Nuria Duffo (S91M95) received the Telecom-
munication Engineering and Ph.D. degrees in
telecommunication engineering from the School
of Telecommunications Engineering, Universitat
Politcnica de Catalunya (UPC), Barcelona, Spain,
in 1990 and 1996, respectively.
Since 1997, she has been an Associate Professor
with the Department of Signal Theory and Com-
munications, UPC. Her current research activi-
ties include numerical methods in electromagnetics,
microwave radiometry, antenna analysis, and design.
Merc Vall-llossera (M99) received the Senior
Telecommunication Engineering and the Ph.D.
degrees in telecommunication engineering from
the Universitat Politcnica de Catalunya (UPC),
Barcelona, Spain, in 1990 and 1994, respectively.
She has been lecturing and doing research with the
Department of Signal Theory and Communications,
UPC, as an Assistant Professor from 1990 to 1997
and as an Associate Professor, since 1997. She spent
a sabbatical year in Montreal with the scholarship of
the Programme Quebecois de Bourses dexcellence
(1996.1997): Stages de Formation postdoctorale au Quebec pour jeunes
diplomes etrangers. Her research activities are numerical methods in elec-
tromagnetics, microwave radiometry, antenna analysis, and design. Currently,
her research is mainly related to the study of numerical methods applied to
sea surface emissivity and their characterization at L-band and the Microwave
Imaging Radiometer with Aperture Synthesis/Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity
project.
Dr. Vall-llossera was the recipient of the Primer Premio Duran Farell de
Investigacin Tecnolgica, with the other member of the Radiometry Group
at UPC, in 2000, and the Primer Premio Ciutat de Barcelona dInvestigaci
Tecnlogica in 2001.

Corbell A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Corbell A

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Corbell A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 47, NO.

1, JANUARY 2009 285

for hexagonal grids, and where

You might also like