Standard test images for Remote Sensing
When doing a course in Computer Vision last year I was introduced to the Lena image:
This was originally a scan from PlayboyÂ magazine in 1972, but has taken on a life of its own as a test image in the field computer vision. The (very interesting) history of it is described on the Wikipedia pageÂ and in the Complete Story of Lena. The image, freely available online, has been used as a test image for a huge amount of research in computer vision including image compression, face recognition, edge detection and more. Of course, Lena isn’t the only test image used in computer vision and image processing, there are many others (see, for example, these images). The use of a standard set of test images has a number of benefits:
- It allows easy comparison between methods -Â Statistical measures of error will be comparable as they are based on the same underlying image data. Visual comparisons by humans will also be possible.
- A range of test images can be chosen which range from easy to difficult to process – Â Lena is a good image to use for compression tests as it has a number of areas with high detail, but also larger flat areas. The subtly varying tones of the skin are also important, particularly when dealing with compression to lower colour depths.
- Everyone working in the field can have access to the same images – 30 years ago, if you didn’t have a colour scanner (which were very expensive at the time), there was little you could do to get a colour test image – but the free distribution of the Lena image changed that. Similarly now, everyone from a Professor at a top research lab to a hobbyist working in their garage can have access to the same original data and perform tests which can easily be compared with the state of the art.
- Research becomes more reproducibleÂ – Using test images means that other researchers can get hold of the data used in a study, and if they either get access to the code used to produce the results, or manage to re-implement the method themselves from a description in the paper (not always easy), they can then try and reproduce the results.
Why don’t we have similar test images in remote sensing?
One of the things I leant on my computer vision course is that image processing for remote sensing is actually very similar to image processing for computer vision (whether it is face recognition, checking for cracks in contact lenses or anything else). In both fields, when you’re trying to do something (for example compress a photo or classify a satellite image) there are many methods to choose from. You want to choose the best for your situation, or decide whether you need to develop a new approach, and so you need to be able to compare the approaches easily.
A simple set of test remote sensing images would allow this. Of course the major questions are:
- What sort of images do we want to pick?
- How on earth are we going to deal with copyright, file format and distribution issues?
- Small segment of urban area -Â Interesting because of the huge range of land covers, and notoriously difficult to classify. Three resolutions (high, medium, low) would be good, allowing comparisons between results at different resolutions. Ground truth data would be brilliant, but is likely to be expensive to collect.
- MERIS (300m)
- Landsat (30m)
- IKONOS (4m)
- Airborne (0.5m)
- Extended area of vegetationÂ – useful for testing vegetation data extraction algorithms. In this case, a phenological time-series would be useful, as well as different resolutions (as above).
- Mixed landscapeÂ – a mixture of land-cover types including water, vegetation, urban and others. Preferably again at a number of resolutions.
Categorised as: Academic, Remote Sensing
The format should include TIFF, and some of the scenes should include water, both rivers and ocean.
Of course – why didn’t I put GeoTIFF in the list of formats. Duh! Thanks for reminding me of that.
Yes, some images with various types of water would be good too – rivers, oceans, lakes, various depths of water etc.
[…] you might know from some of my previous posts, I’m a big fan of making my scientific workÂ reproducible. My main reasons for being so keen […]