[paul]

Hi Dr. Perissin,

Thank you very much for the clear answer.

Regards,
Paul

[paul]

Hi Daniele,

Thanks for the suggestions.

Paul

[paul]

Hi Daniele,

Thank you very much for the suggestions. The coregistration works well now.
I did process the external DEM in SAR coordinates, but i did not choose ‘orthorectified’ in data export process, which is important. Besides, the data i am using is Sentinel data.

Have a great day,
Paul

[paul]

Thank you for the information.

It is sentinel-1A data. One interesting thing is that in Site Processing – APS estimation, i generated the graph, and it gives me 25 auto point, and i chose a ‘best’ point with good distribution. Then, i moved to Site Processing -Sparse point processing. When i checked the distribution of the parameters, there is a obvious bias in the parameters distribution (esp. for residual height and velocity). I think the distribution calculated here is from all the sparse points, instead of all the pixels like APS does. Do you have any advice on this?

So from your suggestion, i guess that velocity is kind of more important than residual height when choosing the ref point.

Regards,
Paul

[paul]

Thank you so much for the suggestion.

About the reference point choosing, i still have a question. When i read the SARPROZ tutorial ‘Demo: APS Estimation Multitemporal analysis with Sarproz’, it says that best reference point should reflects that both velocity and residual height distribution peak at 0. However, in the Site Processing – APS module, i can see 25 auto reference candidate points. I checked every single one of them, and not any of them can do both – 0 peak at velocity ad residual height.

From the manual, it is very clear that i should choose a point on the ground and stable, which corresponding to residual height and velocity peak at 0. My questions is that when there is no such a point, which rule is preferrable. If choose a stable point, it could shows a bias in residual height distribution, like what i showed in the previous images.

Thank you again!!
Paul

[Author]

Posts