Remote Sens. 2012, 4, 2736-2752; doi:10.

3390/rs4092736
OPEN ACCESS

Remote Sensing
ISSN 2072-4292
www.mdpi.com/journal/remotesensing
Article

Radiometric and Geometric Analysis of Hyperspectral Imagery

Acquired from an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
Ryan Hruska 1,*, Jessica Mitchell 2, Matthew Anderson 1 and Nancy F. Glenn 2
1
Idaho National Laboratory, 2525 North Fremont Ave, Idaho Falls, ID 83415, USA;
E-Mail: [email protected]
2
Boise Center Aerospace Laboratory, Idaho State University, 322 E. Front St, Suite 240, Boise,
ID 83702, USA; E-Mails: [email protected] (J.M.); [email protected] (N.F.G.)

* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: [email protected];

Tel.: +1-208-526-2708; Fax: +1-208-526-2276.

Received: 20 July 2012; in revised form: 6 September 2012 / Accepted: 10 September 2012 /
Published: 17 September 2012

Abstract: In the summer of 2010, an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) hyperspectral

calibration and characterization experiment of the Resonon PIKA II imaging spectrometer
was conducted at the US Department of Energy’s Idaho National Laboratory (INL) UAV
Research Park. The purpose of the experiment was to validate the radiometric calibration
of the spectrometer and determine the georegistration accuracy achievable from the
on-board global positioning system (GPS) and inertial navigation sensors (INS) under
operational conditions. In order for low-cost hyperspectral systems to compete with larger
systems flown on manned aircraft, they must be able to collect data suitable for
quantitative scientific analysis. The results of the in-flight calibration experiment indicate
an absolute average agreement of 96.3%, 93.7% and 85.7% for calibration tarps of 56%,
24%, and 2.5% reflectivity, respectively. The achieved planimetric accuracy was 4.6 m
(based on RMSE) with a flying height of 344 m above ground level (AGL).

Keywords: hyperspectral; radiometric calibration; geometric correction; UAV; imaging

spectrometer
Remote Sens. 2012, 4 2737

1. Introduction

AIRBORNE hyperspectral imaging systems are widely used for environment research applications
since the development of imaging spectrometers such as AVIRIS (Airborne Visible / Infrared Imaging
Spectrometer) and HyMap (Hyperspectral Mapping) [1,2]. Hyperspectral sensing techniques for
vegetation applications are widespread and include weed detection [3–5], crop monitoring and yield
prediction [6–8], and estimation of biophysical parameters such as water, chlorophyll and nitrogen [9–12].
To date hyperspectral processing techniques for vegetation applications have primarily involved the
development and use of narrowband vegetation indices, often times in conjunction with radiative
transfer modeling [13,14]. Currently, hyperspectral imaging is generally accomplished by sensors
mounted on manned aircraft, and to a limited degree, spaceborne platforms. Manned flights are
scheduled months to years in advance for high quality systems such as AVIRIS and HyMap, and have
considerable mission costs. In addition, weather conditions can force the cancellation of a mission, as
many commercial manned-aircraft systems providers are oversubscribed and cannot accommodate
remaining on-station for considerable time periods.
With the recent development of low-cost compact imaging spectrometers and unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAVs), a UAV-based hyperspectral imaging system could overcome scheduling and
acquisition limitations as well as open new areas of research by providing an on-demand platform that
can rapidly collect data and stay on station for hours [15,16]. However, these low-cost hyperspectral
systems require radiometric and geometric calibration to allow quantitative scientific analysis [17,18].
To date, several related studies have paired small, lightweight, rotary or fixed-wing UAV platforms
with some combination of video, multi-band digital cameras, synthetic aperture radar (SAR), and laser
scanning [19–27]. Yet, to our knowledge, few studies have successfully tested pushbroom hyperspectral
sensors on small, lightweight, fixed-wing UAVs [28,29].
This paper describes the integration of a sophisticated, light weight commercial off-the-shelf
imaging spectrometer with a medium-altitude, long-endurance unmanned aerial vehicle and presents
results of a calibration and characterization experiment. The main objectives were to validate
laboratory-derived radiometric calibration of the spectrometer and determine obtainable
georegistration accuracy from the on-board global positioning system (GPS) and inertial navigation
system (INS) for the resulting imagery. Importantly, this study demonstrates several challenges of
hyperspectral-UAV systems and provides a means for comparison to future experiments intending to
utilize imagery for quantitative scientific analysis in general, and dryland vegetation management
applications in particular.

2. System Overview

2.1. Sensor System

The Resonon Airborne Hyperspectral imaging system (Resonon Inc., Bozeman, MT, USA) was
chosen for this study due to its UAV-centric design, including its compact size and relatively low cost
and weight. The complete system consists of the Resonon PIKA II imaging spectrometer and the
P-CAQ airborne data-acquisition unit. The PIKA II is a visible/near-infrared pushbroom system,
configurable up to 240 bands in the 400 nm to 900 nm spectral range, with a spectral channel
Remote Sens. 2012, 4 2738

bandwidth of 2.1 nm. The P-CAQ provides the ability to configure the PIKA II, capture and record
image data, and synchronize it with the GPS/INS telemetry data provided by the UAV autopilot.
Sensor parameters include frame rate, spectral binning, gain and percent shutter (equivalent to
integration time over shutter speed). These parameters can be adjusted based on mission requirements
in real-time via a ground-based control station. The manufacturer-supplied specifications for the PIKA
II and P-CAQ are shown in Table 1. The sensor was calibrated before flight by Resonon in their
laboratory using an integrating sphere (Lapsphere, Inc., NH, USA) and the following parameters: 320
cross track pixels, 80 bands (6.2 nm resolution), 3.15 cm ground pixel size, 305 m altitude and 125
frames per second.

Table 1. Characteristics of the PIKA II and P-CAQ sensor system.

Parameter PIKA II/P-CAQ

Volume (mm)
PIKA II 102 × 165 × 70
P-CAQ 102 × 165 × 82
Weight (kg)
PIKA II 1.043
P-CAQ 1.16
Average power (W) 15W nominal, 30W max
Aperture (F/#) f/3
IFOV(mrad) 0.65
Crosstrack FOV (deg) 12.0
Crosstrack pixels 640 max
Wavelength range (nm) 400–900
Spectral resolution (nm) 2.1 max
Number of spectral bands 240 max
Bit depth 12 bits
Frame rate (Hz) 135 fps max in-flight
Smile <1 Pixel
Keystone <1 Pixel

2.2. Platform

The platform utilized for this experiment is a catapult-launched Arcturus T-16 airframe (Arcturus
UAV, Rohnert Park, CA, USA), which is a fixed-wing UAV, shown in Figure 1. It is designed to carry
payloads weighing up to 8 kg in a 12,000 cm3 compartment, with an endurance range in excess of 12-h
based on flight configuration. The long-endurance is achieved through the wet-wing design and
onboard electric generation.
Command and control of the airframe is accomplished by the Cloud Cap Piccolo II Autopilot
(Cloud Cap Technology, Hood River, OR, USA) which provides a complete GPS/INS solution needed
for autonomous operation of the aircraft. The Piccolo II incorporates three gyroscopes, three 3-axis
accelerometers, and a GPS receiver to provide a 50 Hz Total State Extended Kalman Filter navigation
solution with an output telemetry stream of 25 Hz.
Remote Sens. 2012, 4 2739

Figure 1. Arcturus T-16 on the catapult launcher at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL)
UAV Research Park.

2.3. System Integration

In order to efficiently utilize acquired hyperspectral imagery, automated methods for georeferencing
the raw image data are typically implemented; this is referred to as direct georeferencing. To
successfully implement direct georeferencing, the following conditions must be met [30]: (1) the
position and orientation offset between the GPS, IMU, and sensor must be determined; (2) the offset
and orientation must remain constant during each mission; and (3) sensor systems must be
clock-synchronized with sufficient accuracy. To achieve this, a mounting and harnessing system was
designed to provide vibration isolation, boresight and leveling adjustment, and a fixed offset from the
Piccolo II mount (Figure 2). The P-CAQ data acquisition system was interfaced directly to the Piccolo
II via an ancillary RS232 serial port for the real-time synchronization of image data with orientation
data and in-flight parameter adjustment, such as shutter speed and spectral binning. Furthermore, the
Piccolo II was integrated with a NovAtel Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) receiver in
order to provide a full Real-Time Kinematic (RTK) DGPS/INS navigation solution with a reported
horizontal and vertical accuracy of up to 2 cm (NovAtel, Inc., Calgary, AB, Canada). The positional
precision improves the accuracy of the direct georeferencing workflow, which helps decrease the
preprocessing time required to utilize the collected data. Finally, the sensor payload was integrated
with the on-board power generation to reduce battery load and extend system endurance.
Remote Sens. 2012, 4 2740

Figure 2. Modeled design of payload mounting harness.

3. Methods

3.1. Data Collection

The PIKA II hyperspectral data for this project were collected at Idaho National Laboratory’s (INL’s)
UAV Research Park on 27 July 2010, under FAA Certificate of Authorization #2009-WSA-73. The
UAV Research Park is located on the 2,046 km2 INL desert site, approximately 60 km west of Idaho
Falls, Idaho, USA. Elevations within the UAV Research Park range from 1,480 to 1,490 m. At its
center is a 304 m × 30 m black asphalt runway (1,482 m mean sea level (MSL)), which is painted with
white fiducial marks ranging from 7.5 cm × 7.5 cm to 1 m × 1 m. PIKA II data were collected on 27
July 2010 from 1:00 to 2:13 pm local time, resulting in 12 overpasses of the runway under
predominately clear-sky conditions, however, a few low cumulus clouds were visible well to the north
and west of the study area. Table 2 describes the PIKA II flight configuration used in the study. The
spectral response was binned to 80 channels resulting in a 6.2 nm spectral channel bandwidth. The
binning occurs onboard the aircraft by the P-CAQ, which averages adjacent spectral pixels. An
example of a georeferenced 3-band composite of a hyperspectral flight line overlaying an ortho-image
base map in shown in Figure 3(A). Figure 3(B) shows a zoomed image of the 3 calibration tarps used
for calibration (described below) and visible at the center of the image.

Table 2. PIKA II flight configuration.

Parameter Flight Configuration
Elevation-AGL (m) 344
Nominal ground speed (m/s) 28
Swath width (m) 80
GSD (cm) 28
Wavelength range (nm) 396.3–892.1
Spectral resolution (nm) 6.2
Cross track pixels 320
Remote Sens. 2012, 4 2741

Table 2. Cont.

Parameter Flight Configuration

Number of spectral bands 80
Gain (db) 0
Frame rate (Hz) 107 fps

Figure 3. (A) INL UAV runway with example hyperspectral flightline from 2010.
(B) Calibration tarps ranging from 2.5%, 24%, and 56% reflectivity placed north to
south, respectively.

During the UAV mission, in situ radiance measurements of a 0.6 × 0.6 m Spectralon white
reference panel (Labsphere, North Sutton, NH, USA) were acquired at 30-second intervals using a
FieldSpec Pro Spectroradiometer (Analytical Spectral Devices Inc. (ASD), Boulder, CO, USA). The
field spectrometer collects spectral data from 350 to 2,500 nm, with a spectral resolution that ranges
from 3 to 12 nm. The spectrometer was configured with an 8-degree fore-optic, which provided a
ground field of view (FOV) of approximately 8.5 cm when held from approximately 0.6 m above the
panel. In addition to the Spectralon panel, three 2.5 × 2.5 m polyester fabric calibration tarps (Group
VIII Technologies, Inc., Provo, UT, USA), with reflectivity of 56%, 24%, and 2.5%, were deployed
Remote Sens. 2012, 4 2742

during the over flights. Just after the completion of the over flights, a series of 15 reflectance
measurements were acquired for each of the tarps and the Spectralon panel. Conversion to reflectance
was accomplished by acquiring a spectral sample of a NIST-traceable Spectralon panel prior to the
measurements for each tarp.

3.2. Image Pre-Processing

Pre-processing of the raw PIKA II data was accomplished through the use of Space Computer
Corporation’s (Los Angeles, CA, USA) GeoReg software specifically developed to georegister and
convert raw digital number data cubes collected by Resonon’s hyperspectral sensors to radiance
(µW/steradian/cm2/µm). Conversion to radiance was accomplished by applying vendor-supplied,
lab-derived radiometric calibration coefficients The GeoReg software performs georegistration by
combining the external orientation data recorded during flight with a camera model (interior
orientation) and elevation model. The digital elevation model for this experiment was derived from
high-density lidar data collected in 2006 using a Leica Geosystems ALS50-II scanning lidar. The
resulting lidar point cloud was processed using the MARS software (Merrick, Boulder, CO, USA) to
classify bare-earth returns and then rasterized using Idaho State University’s Boise Center Aerospace
Laboratory (BCAL) LiDAR Tools (http://code.google.com/p/bcal-lidar-tools/) to produce a 1 m
bare-earth digital elevation model.

3.3. Geometric Analysis

In order to assess the overall positional accuracy of the direct georeferencing process, a 3-band
GeoTIFF true-color composite image was generated for 5 flight lines of the runway. The resulting
images were overlaid with the known ground control points (GCPs) with a reported accuracy of
±0.01 m and a high-resolution ortho-rectified aerial image collected in 2006. An initial accuracy
assessment was conducted to identify any systematic errors (i.e., roll, pitch, and yaw bias) using 5
control points for each of the images. The ΔX and ΔY for each control point were examined for
consistency of magnitude and direction, and then averaged. Due to the inconsistency of measured
errors within each flight line, the yaw bias was undeterminable. The resulting averages were further
examined for consistency of magnitude and direction, and averaged to obtain an overall adjustment for
pitch and roll bias. These biases were used in the GeoReg software, and the data cubes were
reprocessed. For each of the reprocessed data cubes, the average RMSEX, RMSEY, overall RMSE and
approximate circular standard error were calculated using 20 random check points from each flightline,
selected from the reference GCPs (n = 126) according to the method described in the National Spatial
Data Infrastructure Geospatial Positioning Accuracy Standards [31].

3.4. Radiometric Analysis

Radiometric calibration is typically conducted in a laboratory environment using an integrating

sphere to produce calibration coefficients for each wavelength band recorded by the sensor. These
coefficients are then used to convert the digital numbers (DNs) recorded by the sensor into units of
radiance. As stated above, vendor-supplied coefficients were applied to each of the data cubes to
Remote Sens. 2012, 4 2743

convert to spectral radiance (µW/steradian/cm2/µm) using the GeoReg Software. No prior geometric
corrections were applied to any of the data cubes used for this analysis in order to avoid errors that
would be introduced during the resampling process. In-flight calibration experiments similar to those
presented by Green and Pavri for AVIRIS [32] were applied to validate the PIKA II’s radiometric
calibration under operational conditions. Specifically, our methods include acquiring in situ
measurements that describe the atmosphere and surface properties of the Spectralon white reflectance
panel at the time of PIKA II overflight. These in situ measurements are used to constrain parameters in
the radiative transfer modeling and independently predict at-sensor radiance.

3.4.1. In situ Spectral Measurements

Using the field spectrometer (ASD) discussed above, fifteen spectral reflectance measurements of
each calibration tarp were acquired between 11:00 and 11:30 am under clear sky conditions. The 15
spectra were averaged and subsequently used as input for the radiative transfer modeling process
(MODTRAN). In addition, radiance measurements (n = 120) were acquired of the Spectralon reference
panel [33] at 30 s intervals during the UAV over passes in order to characterize any uncertainty that
might have been associated with potential changes in atmospheric conditions. The mean and standard
deviation of the resampled Spectralon radiance data are shown in Figure 4. Specific weather conditions
(wind speed, temperature, relative humidity, solar radiation and pressure) were also obtained in five
minute intervals as recorded by a NOAA weather tower located 2.75 km west of the runway.

Figure 4. ASD measured radiance of Spectralon calibration panel. Mean and standard
deviation (STD = ±1σ) are shown.

3.4.2. Radiative Transfer Modeling

The derived mean ASD reflectance spectra for each calibration tarp were input into the
MODTRAN4 V3.1 radiative transfer code to predict at-sensor radiance for the PIKA II mission [34].
The MODTRAN runs were constrained by the PIKA II sensor characteristics, flight parameters, and
atmospheric conditions at the time of acquisition (summarized in Table 3). Reflectance signatures were
resampled to the PIKA II spectral calibration parameters.
Remote Sens. 2012, 4 2744

Table 3. MODTRAN parameters.

Parameter Flight Configuration
Date 2010-07-27
GMT 17:30:00
Latitude 43.599°
Longitude −112.905°
Sensor altitude 1.782 km AGL
Atmospheric model Mid-latitude summer
Aerosol model Continental (rural)
Solar zenith angle 24.57°
Solar azimuth angle 175.46°
Terrain elevation 1.483 km AGL
Water vapor content 1 g/cm2
Ozone column Default
CO2 mixing ratio 365 ppm
Visibility 50 km

3.4.3. PIKA II Radiometric Evaluation

In order to evaluate the radiometric calibration and in-flight stability of the PIKA II sensor, the
regions-of-interest (ROIs) associated with the three calibration tarps were manually identified in each
of 12 runway overpasses. Nine pixels were selected from the center of each tarp and the spectra were
examined for noise and adjacency effects. First, to evaluate the radiometric quality of each of the data
cubes the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was calculated as described by Fujimoto et al. [35]. This method
uses the ratio of the mean to the standard deviation of a homogenous area within a scene to obtain an
estimation of SNR for each band. For this study, the ROI of the 56% reflectance was used. SNRs of
each individual image were averaged to obtain the estimated achievable SNR for the PIKA II.
Second, the average PIKA II measured radiance spectra of the 12 overpasses was compared with the
MODTRAN predicted radiance for each of the three calibration tarps. It is important to note that during
the initial analysis of the data, the PIKA II radiance values were observed to be approximately twice the
predicted value. It was discovered that a difference in internal hardware between the airborne P-CAQ
and the P-CAQ used in the laboratory for calibration resulted in a bit shift and caused the resulting factor
of 2 increase in the derived radiance. As a result, all of the PIKA II data was divided by 2 before
comparison. For further comparison, the ratio of PIKA II measured radiance over the MODTRAN
predicted radiance was calculated for each of the tarps in order to determine where residual errors
occurred. Finally, the intraflight stability of the PIKA II was evaluated by comparing the mean spectrum
for each of the calibration tarps for all 12 overpasses and calculating the deviation from the mean.

4. Results and Discussions

4.1. Geometric Correction

The initial georegistration accuracy assessment, presented in Table 4, indicates an approximate 4.3
degrees of positive pitch bias and 2.8 degrees of positive roll bias. These biases were most likely
Remote Sens. 2012, 4 2745

introduced while mounting the sensor payload and the Piccolo II autopilot into the UAV airframe.
Subsequent georegistration accuracy assessment of the 20 check points resulted in an average
overall RMSER of 4.6326 m and an approximated circular standard error of 7.8497 m. Results for all 5
images are summarized in Table 5. The largest source of error appears to be related to poor estimations
of yaw angle. This is most apparent just after rapid changes in aircraft attitude during periods of level
flight. These turbulent events result in new heading estimations and an apparent pivot in the resulting
image. Also, runway image observations indicate the presence of two additional, relatively
higher-frequency error patterns (Figure 5). The first is a scan-line to scan-line error, which is the
highest frequency error. It most likely results from differential movement or vibration of the
airframe [36]. The second, lower-frequency error, which is S-shaped, is likely to be a result of the
Kalman filters used to predict aircraft position and orientation from the 25 Hz telemetry stream
acquired from the Piccolo II autopilot.

Table 4. Initial georegistration analysis.

Parameter ΔX(m) ΔY(m)
Image 20 −31.04 −7.80
Image 27 −33.22 −4.41
Image 29 −31.23 −4.88
Image 42 −36.22 −10.48
Image 66 −34.41 −6.36
Average Δ −33.19 −6.69
Estimated roll bias 2.8°
Estimated pitch bias 4.3°

Table 5. Accuracy computations in meters (NSSDA 1998) [31]. For all images
RMSEMIN/RMSEMAX were between 0.6 m and 1.0 m and thus the following equation was
used to approximate circular standard error (Accuracyr): 2.4477 × 0.5 × (RMSEX +
RMSEY). RMSER = sqrt[∑((x data, i − x check, i)2 + (y data, i − y check, i)2 )/n], where i
represents coordinates of the ith check point and n represents the number of check points.
Parameter RMSEX RMSEY RMSER AccuracyR
Image 20 2.99 4.48 5.39 9.15
Image 27 2.58 1.89 3.20 5.48
Image 29 4.23 2.59 4.96 8.34
Image 42 3.53 5.81 6.80 11.43
Image 66 1.79 2.17 2.81 4.85
Average 4.63 7.85
Remote Sens. 2012, 4 2746

Figure 5. Examples of geometric errors (scan-line to scan-line and S-shape) apparent in the
flightline imagery analyzed in this study. Note the scan-line to scan-line errors indicated by
the linear runway markers.

These results are consistent with other findings, in that the application of autopilots designed for
small UAVs are limited when used for directly georeferencing remotely sensed image data [23]. This
is primarily due to the accuracy of the microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) inertial sensors and
the time synchronization between image acquisition and the telemetry data. Because the PIKA II
records at a higher rate than the GPS/INS, an interpolation method is used in GeoReg to link the GPS
and image data, resulting in georegistration errors. Incorporation of a fiber-optic gyroscope could
improve results; however, as Gurtner et al. [37] state, this would be counter to the low-cost nature of
the intended approach.

4.2. Radiometric Analysis

The in-flight calibration results show a high degree of congruency between the PIKA II measured
radiance and the MODTRAN predicted radiance. Figure 6(A) shows the average PIKA II spectra, and
Figure 6(B) shows the high-resolution MODTRAN modeled signatures. The average PIKA II
measured and resampled MODTRAN predicted at-sensor radiance for each tarp is shown in
R
Remote Senss. 2012, 4 27447

Figure 6(C)). The MODTRAN sppectral radiiance valuees were ressampled in ENVI to the PIKA II
F
r
response usiing a Gausssian model with
w FWHM M equal to the band sppacing of thhe PIKA II. For the 56% %
a 24% caalibration taarps, there was
and w an absoolute averag ge agreemennt of 96.3% % (~2% witth 1 standarrd
d
deviation) a 93.7% (~3%
and ( with 1 standard deviation)
d respectively
r y. This is coomparable to
t Green annd
P
Pavri’s repoorted results for AVIRIS [32]; however, results should only be used as a a general
c
comparison since AVIIRIS colleccts spectral informatio on from 400 to 2,5000 nm, and the t PIKA II
c
collects dataa from 400 to 900 nm m. In additioon, we used an averagged spectruum of all 12 2 overpassees
w
where Greenn and Pavrii present ressults from a single oveerpass. For thet 2.5% taarp, the abso olute averagge
a
agreement d
drops to 85.77%, with inncreasing ressiduals afterr the 798 nm
m channel ((Figure 6(D))).

Figuree 6. (A) Pika II measured

m raadiance of calibrationn tarps. Sttandard deeviation
(STD = ±1σ). (B)) MODTRA AN predicteed radiance of calibratiion tarps. (C
C) Comparrison of
MODT TRAN preddicated and PIKA II measured
m rad
diance of caalibration taarps. (D) Th
he ratio
of thee PIKA II I measured radiancee over thee MODTR RAN prediccted radian nce of
calibraation tarps.

In order tot further evvaluate the quality of the

t acquired d image datta, the SNR was estimaated from thhe
5
56% tarp RO OI which reesulted in an
a average maximum
m value
v of 1333, with peakks at 465, 478,
4 566, annd
5 nm, as shown
591 s in Fiigure 7. Whhile this is much
m lower than reportted AVIRIS S and HyMaap SNRs, anny
d
direct compparisons cannnot be maade because of the differences
d in spectral and spatiaal resolutionn.
H
However, thhe SNR is sufficient forf many mapping
m ap
pplications and
a follows a similar response as a
R
Resonon’s r
reported SN
NR for thee PIKA II (Figure 7 and a under conditions stated in Section
S 2.1).
D
Differences between thhe data repoorted in Figuure 7 are ex
xpected because Resonnon’s SNR was w recordeed
R
Remote Senss. 2012, 4 27448

uunder 100% % saturationn conditionss (i.e., integgrating spheere) whereaas our data results aree from a tarrp
w 56% reflectance. Improvemeents to the SNR of ou
with ur system could
c be mmade with slower
s flyinng
s
speeds, allow wing lowerr integrationn times, andd an increaase in flightt altitude. Inn addition, the PIKA II
p
provides thee ability to adjust sensor configuuration, and d special coonsiderationn should bee taken wheen
e
evaluating thhe trade-offfs between spectral ressolution, spaatial resoluttion, and acchievable sig
gnal-to-noisse
r
ratio with reespect to thee intended application.
a

Figuree 7. Averagge signal-to--noise ratio (SNR) estim

mated in-fliight from thhe 56% tarp
p and as
providded by Resoonon for the PIKA II.

Finally, thet intrafligght stabilityy of the PIKA II waas evaluatedd for all thhree tarps. Overall, thhe
v
variation bettween the 12
1 overpasses was fairlly consisten nt between the t 427 andd 729 nm ch hannels, witth
a baseline variation
v off 1.51%, 2.19%, and 4.32% 4 for the
t 56%, 24%,2 and 2.5% tarps, respectivelyy.
W
When the entire
e spectrral range iss evaluated,, minimal increases
i inn the percennt mean deeviation werre
o
observed forr the 56% tarp
t (+0.15%) and thee 24% (+0.3 30%); howeever, the 2.5% tarp inccreased from m
9
9.36% to 133.68% (Figuure 8). Thesse results deemonstrate that the PIK KA II’s raddiometric caalibration annd
inntraflight sttability perfform well under
u operaational condditions for thhe spectral range betwween 409 annd
8 nm. However, the stability forr darker targgets is degrraded below
804 w 427 and aabove 804 nmn due to thhe
loower SNR. This is likeely due to thhe decreaseed SNR on each end off the spectraal response of the PIKA A
a the low
and w reflectivityy of the tarrp (2.5%). Small
S chang ges in path radiance aand systemss noise coulld
e
easily accouunt for this error
e and is highlightedd with the abbsolute averrage agreem ment calculaations.

Figuree 8. The percent deeviation froom the mean for thhe 12 overrpasses of the 3
calibraation tarps.
Remote Sens. 2012, 4 2749

5. Conclusions

While this research experiment demonstrated the ability to collect and directly georeference
hyperspectral data acquired from a UAV platform through the autopilot navigation data, the utility of
the data is limited by the achieved accuracy. The georeferencing was found to have an average RMSER
of 4.63 m and an approximated circular standard error of 7.85 m. The limited accuracy resulted from
sensor accuracies of the INS and the state-estimation process implemented by the autopilot, which was
designed for autonomous navigation and not for remote sensing applications. Utilization of these data
was further complicated by the dynamic image formation process of pushbroom sensors, the PIKA II
narrow field of view, and the vibration from the aircraft, which together results in weak internal image
geometry [38]. One path to improve the results is to incorporate more accurate inertial measurement
devices, but this would increase the cost and complexity of the overall system. The second path is to
develop better post-processing methodologies, such as the utilization of point correspondence and
mutual information workflows [39].
The PIKA II in-flight radiometric calibration experiment and associated SNR estimates suggested
that the system, under operating conditions described herein, may be of limited use for quantitative
remote sensing of vegetation applications, such as vegetation stress studies requiring the red edge or
specific bands such as 530 and 570 nm for Photochemical Reflectance Indices (PRI) [40,41]. The
average agreement of the modeled radiance between the PIKA II and reflective tarps was
85.7%–96.3%. The estimated SNR using the 56% reflective tarp had an average maximum value of
133. Improved radiometric performance of the PIKA II could be achieved through applying a specific
airborne configuration, such as a reduction in band numbers or an increase in flight altitude.
Ultimately, a UAV-mounted PIKA II system could overcome scheduling and acquisition limitations
for some applications as well as open new areas of research by providing an on-demand platform that
can rapidly collect data and stay on station for hours.
Future work will focus on improving the post-processing georeferencing workflow to increase
positional accuracy. In addition, the incorporation of a low-cost magnetometer will be investigated to
improve yaw measurements and reduce geometric error. Finally, radiometric calibration will continue
to be evaluated during future flight campaigns in order to optimize sensor performance.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Jodie Boyce and Mark McKay for their support and dedication in developing a
safe and reliable UAV platform; without their help we would never have made it off the ground. The
authors also thank Casey Smith and Rand Swanson of Resonon, Inc. for coming to Idaho and taking
the time to help ensure a successful data collection, and Carol Moore for her editorial assistance.

References

1. Vane, G.; Green, R.O.; Chrien, T.G.; Enmark, H.T.; Hansen, E.G.; Porter, W.M. The airborne
visible/infrared imaging spectrometer (AVIRIS). Remote Sens. Environ. 1993, 44, 27–143.
Remote Sens. 2012, 4 2750

2. Cocks, T.; Jenssen, R.; Stewart, A.; Wilson, I.; Shields, T. The HYMAP Airborne Hyperspectral
Sensor: The System, Calibration, and Performance. In Proceedings of the 1st EARSEL Workshop
on Imaging Spectroscopy, Zurich, Switzerland, 6–8 October 1998; pp. 37–42.
3. Mitchell, J.; Glenn, N.; Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula L.) classification performance using
hyperspectral and multispectral sensors. Rangeland Ecol. Manag. 2009, 62, 16–27.
4. Zhang, Y.; Slaughter, D.C.; Staab, E.S. Robust hyperspectral vision-based classification for
multi-season weed mapping. ISPRS J. Photogramm. 2012, 69, 65–73.
5. Hestir, E.L.; Khanna, S.; Andrew, M.E.; Santos, M.J.; Viers, J.H.; Greenberg, J.A.;
Rajapakse, S.S.; Ustin, S.L. Identification of invasive vegetation using hyperspectral remote
sensing in the California Delta ecosystem. Remote Sens. Environ. 2008, 112, 4034–4047.
6. Yang, C.; Everitt, J. Using spectral distance, spectral angle and plant abundance derived from
hyperspectral imagery to characterize crop yield variation. Precis. Agric. 2012, 13, 62–75.
7. Corp, L.A.; Middleton, E.M.; Campbell, P.E.; Huemmrich, K.F.; Daughtry, C.S.T.; Russ, A.;
Cheng, Y.B. Spectral indices to monitor nitrogen-driven carbon uptake in field corn. J. Appl.
Remote Sens. 2010, 4, 043555–043555.
8. Ye, X.; Sakai, K.; Sasao, A; Shin-Ichi, A. Estimation of citrus yield from canopy spectral features
determined by airborne hyperspectral imagery. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2009, 30, 4621–4642.
9. Haboudane, D.; Tremblay, N; Miller, J.R.; Vigneault, P. Remote estimation of crop chlorophyll
content using spectral indices derived from hyperspectral data. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens.
2008, 46, 423–437.
10. Zhang, Q.; Middleton, E.M.; Gao, B.; Cheng, Y. Using E0-1 hyperion to simulate products for a
coniferous forest: The fraction of PAR absorbed by chlorophyll (fAPARchl) and Leaf Water
Content (LWC). IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2012, 50, 1844–1852.
11. Mitchell, J.; Glenn, N.; Sankey, T.; Derryberry, D.; Germino, M. Hyperspectral remote sensing of
sagebrush canopy nitrogen. Remote Sens. Environ. 2012, 124, 217–223.
12. Kokaly, R.F.; Asner, G.P.; Ollinger, S.V.; Martin, M.E.; Wessman, C.A. Characterizing canopy
biochemistry from imaging spectroscopy and its application to ecosystem studies. Remote Sens.
Environ. 2009, 113, S78–S91.
13. Kaufman, H.; Segl, K.; Itzerott, H.; Bach, A.; Wagner, J.; Hill, B.; Heim, K.; Oppermann, K.;
Heldens, W.; Stein, E.; et al. Hyperspectral Algorithms: Report in the Frame of EnMAP
Preparation Activities; Scientific Technical Report STR 10/08; Deutsches GeoForschungsZentrum
GFZ: Potsdam, Germany, 2010.
14. Jacquemond, S.; Verhouf, W.; Baret, F.; Bacour, C.; Zarco-Tejada, P.J.; Asner, G.P.; François, C.;
Ustin, S. PROSPECT + SAIL models: A review of use for vegetation characterization. Remote
Sens. Environ. 2009, 113, S56–S66.
15. Acevo-Herrera, R.; Aguasca, A.; Bosch-Lluis, X.; Camps, A.; Martínez-Fernández, J.;
Sánchez-Martín, N.; Pérez-Gutiérrez, C. Design and first results of an UAV-borne L-band
radiometer for multiple monitoring purposes. Remote Sens. 2010, 2, 1662–1679.
16. Rango, A.; Havstad, K.; Estell, R. The utilization of historical data and geospatial technology
advances at the jornada experimental range to support western America ranching culture. Remote
Sens. 2011, 3, 2089–2109.
Remote Sens. 2012, 4 2751

17. Green, R.O. Spectral calibration requirement for earth-looking imaging spectrometers in the
solar-reflected spectrum. Appl. Opt. 1998, 37, 683–690.
18. Schaepman-Strub, G.; Schaepman, M.E.; Painter, T.H.; Dangel, S.; Martonchik, J.V. Reflectance
quantities in optical remote sensing—Definitions and case studies Remote Sens. Environ. 2006,
103, 27–42.
19. Hunt, E.R.; Everitt, J.H.; Ritchie, J.C.; Moran, M.S.; Booth, D.T.; Anderson, G.L. Applications
and research using remote sensing for rangeland management. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sensing
2003, 69, 675–693.
20. Hardin, P.J.; Jackson, M.W. An unmanned aerial vehicle for rangeland photography. Rangeland
Ecol. Manag. 2005, 58, 439–442.
21. Laliberte, A.S.; Rango, A. Texture and scale in object-based analysis of subdecimeter resolution
unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) imagery. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2009, 47, 761–770.
22. Berni, J.A.J.; Zarco-Tejada, P.J.; Suarez, L.; Fereres, E. Thermal and narrowband multispectral
remote sensing for vegetation monitoring from an unmanned aerial vehicle. IEEE Trans. Geosci.
Remote Sens. 2009, 47, 722–738.
23. Nagai, M.; Chen, T.; Shibasaki, R.; Kumagai, H.; Ahmed, A. UAV-Borne 3-D mapping system
by multisensor integration. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2009, 47, 701–708.
24. Laliberte, S.A.; Goforth, M.A.; Steele, C.M.; Rango, A. Multispectral remote sensing from
unmanned aircraft: Image processing workflow and application for rangeland environments.
Remote Sens. 2011, 3, 2529–2551.
25. Kelcey, J.; Lucieer, A. Sensor correction of a 6-band multispectral imaging sensor for UAV
remote sensing. Remote Sens. 2012, 4, 1462–1493.
26. Lin, Y.; Hyyppä, A. Mini-UAV-borne LIDAR for fine-scale mapping. IEEE Geosci. Remote
Sens. Lett. 2011, 8, 426–430.
27. Koo, V.C.; Chan, Y.K.; Gobi, V.; Chua, M.Y.; Lim, C.H.; Lim, C.-S.; Thum, C.C.; Lim, T.S.;
Ahmad, Z.; Mahmood, K.A.; et al. A new unmanned aerial vehicle synthetic aperture radar for
environmental monitoring. Prog. Electromagn. Res. 2012, 122, 245–268.
28. Watts, A.C.; Ambrosia, V.G.; Hinkley, E.A. Unmanned aircraft systems in remote sensing and
scientific research: Classification and considerations of use. Remote Sens. 2012, 4, 1671–1692.
29. Zarco-Tejada, P.J.; Gonzalez-Dugo, V.; Berni, J.A.J. Fluorescence, temperature and narrow-band
indices acquired from a UAV platform for water stress using a micro-hyperspectral images and a
thermal camera. Remote Sens. Environ. 2012, 117, 322–337.
30. Skaloud, J. Problems in Direct-Georeferencing by INS/DGPS in the Airborne Environment. In
Proceedings of the ISPRS Workshop WG III/1, Barcelona, Spain, 25–26 November 1999;
pp. 25–26.
31. Federal Geographic Data Committee. Geospatial Positioning Accuracy Standards, Part 3:
National Standards for Spatial Data Accuracy. Subcommittee for Base Cartographic Data;
Standard FGDC-STD-007.3-1998; Federal Geographic Data Committee: Reston, WV, USA,
1998.
32. Green, R.; Pavri, B. AVIRIS in-flight Calibration Experiment, Sensitivity Analysis, and
Intraflight Stability. In Proceedings of the 9th JPL Airborne Earth Science Workshop, Pasadena,
CA, USA, 23–25 February 2000; pp. 207–221.
Remote Sens. 2012, 4 2752

33. Anderson, K.; Milton, E.J.; Rollin, E.M. Sources of Uncertainty in Vicarious Calibration:
Understanding Calibration Target Reflectance. In Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE International
Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, Toulouse, France, 21–25 July 2003; pp. 2072–2074.
34. Berk, A.; Bernstein, L.S.; Anderson, G.P.; Acharya, P.K.; Robertson, D.C.; Chetwynd, J.H.;
Adler-Golden, S.M. MODTRAN cloud and multiple scattering upgrades with application to
AVIRIS. Remote Sens. Environ. 1998, 65, 367–375.
35. Fujimoto, N.; Takahashi, Y.; Moriyama, T.; Shimada, M.; Wakabayashi, H.; Nakatani, Y.;
Obayani, S. Evaluation of SPOT HRV Image Data Received in Japan. In Proceedings of the
International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 10–14 July
1989; pp. 463–466.
36. Lee, C.; Bethel, J. Georegistration of airborne hyperspectral image data. IEEE Trans. Geosci.
Remote Sens. 2001, 39, 1347–1351.
37. Gurtner, A.; Greer, D.G.; Glassock, R.; Mejias, L.; Walker, R.A.; Boles, W.W. Investigation of
fish-eye lenses for small-UAV aerial photography. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2009, 47,
709–721.
38. McKeown, D.M., Jr.; Cochran, S.D.; Ford, S.J.; McClone, J.C.; Shufelt, J.A.; Yocum, D.A.
Fusion of HYDICE hyperspectral data with panchromatic imagery for cartographic feature
extraction. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 1999, 37, 1261–1277.
39. Cariou C.; Chehdi, K. Automatic Georeferencing of airborne pushbroom scanner images with
missing ancillary data using mutual information. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2008, 46,
1290–1306.
40. Gao, B. An operational method for estimating signal to noise ratios from data acquired with
imaging spectrometers. Remote Sens. Environ. 1993, 43, 23–33.
41. Smith, G.M.; Curran, P.J. The Effects of Signal Noise on the Remote Sensing of Foliar
Biochemical Concentration. In Proceedings of the JPL AVIRIS Airborne Geoscience Workshop,
Pasadena, CA, USA, 25–29 October 1993; pp. 161–164.

© 2012 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).