Interpretation of Solar Reflection Data

  • Ravi P. Gupta


This part of the spectrum is the most intensively studied region for remote sensing of the Earth. Solar reflected energy reaching the sensor depends upon a number of factors, viz. Sun attitude, atmospheric-meteorological conditions, topography, slope and aspect, sensor look angle and target reflectance. Different objects have different response on different spectral band images. This forms the basis of remote sensing. Interpretation can be made from panchromatic black-and-white products as well as from colour composites. In modern times, computation of reflectance and topographic correction are considered as important in data interpretation.


  1. Avery TE, Berlin GL (1985) Interpretation of aerial photographs, 4th edn. Burgress, Minneapolis, MinnGoogle Scholar
  2. Chander G, Markham BL, Helder DL (2009) Summary of current radiometric coefficients for Landsat MSS, TM, ETM+, and EO-1 OLI sensors. Rem Sens Environ 113:893–903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Civco DL (1989) Topographic normalization of landsat thematic mapper digital imagery. Photogram Eng Remote Sens 55(9):l303–l309Google Scholar
  4. Duguay CR, LeDrew EF (1992) Estimating surface reflectance and albedo from landsat-5 Thematic Mapper over rugged terrain. Photogram Eng Remote Sens 58:551–558Google Scholar
  5. Gratton DJ, Howarth PJ, Marceau DJ (1993) Using landsat-5 thematic mapper and digital elevation data to determine the net radiation field of a mountain glacier. Rem Sens Environ 43:315–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gupta RP, Ghosh A, Haritashya UK (2007) Empirical relationship between near-IR reflectance of melting seasonal snow and environmental temperature in a Himalayan basin. Rem Sens Environ 107:402–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kawata Y, Ueno S, Ohtani A (1995) The surface albedo retrieval of mountainous forest area from satellite MSS data. Appl Math Comput 69:41–59Google Scholar
  8. Markham BL, Barker JL (1986) Landsat MSS and TM post-calibration dynamic ranges, exoatmospheric reflectances and at-satellite temperatures. EOSAT Tech Notes 1:3–8Google Scholar
  9. Mekel JFM (1978) ITC textbook of photo-interpretation. Chapter 8. The use of aerial photographs and other images in geological mapping. ITC, EnschedeGoogle Scholar
  10. Miller VC, Miller CF (1961) Photogeology. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Minnaert M (1941) The reciprocity principle in lunar photometry. J Astrophysics 93:403–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Nelson R (1985) Reducing landsat MSS scene variability. Photogram Eng Remote Sens 51:583–593Google Scholar
  13. Nichol J, Hang LK, Sing WM (2006) Empirical correction of low sun angle images in steeply sloping terrain: a slope matching technique. Int J Rem Sens 27(3–4):629–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pandey SN (1987) Principles and applications of photogeology. Eastern Wiley, New Delhi, p 366Google Scholar
  15. Riano D, Chuvieco JS, Aguado I (2003) Assessment of different topographic corrections in landsat-TM data for mapping vegetation types. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 41(5):1056–1061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Richter R, Kellenberger T, Kaufmann H (2009) Comparison of topographic correction methods. Remote Sensing, (open access) 1, 184–196. doi: 10.3390/rs1030184
  17. Robbins J, Seigel HO (1982) The luminex method—a new active remote sensing method for exploration for mineral deposits. In: Proceedings of the international symposium remote sensing environment, 2nd thematic conference remote sensing exploration geology, Fort Worth, Texas, pp 203–204Google Scholar
  18. Robinove CJ (1982) Computation of physical values from Landsat digital data. Photogram Eng Remote Sens 48:781–784Google Scholar
  19. Sandmeier S, Itten KI (1997) A physical-based model to correct atmospheric and illumination effects in optical satellite data of rugged terrain. IEEE Trans Geosci Rem Sens 35(3):708–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schanda E (1986) Physical fundamentals of remote sensing. Springer, Berlin, p 187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Shepherd JD, Dymond JR (2003) Correcting satellite imagery for the variance of reflectance and illumination with topography. Int J Rem Sens 24:3503–3514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Soenen SA, Peddle DR, Coburn CA (2005) SCS+C: a modified sun-canopy-sensor topographic correction in forested terrain. IEEE Trans Geosci Rem Sens 43(9):2148–2159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stohr CJ, West TR (1985) Terrain and look angle effects upon multispectral scanner response. Photogram Eng Remote Sens 51:229–235Google Scholar
  24. Sundaram RM (1998) Integrated GIS studies for delineation of earthquake-induced hazard zones in parts of Garhwali Himalaya. Ph.D. Thesis (unpublished), University of Roorkee, RoorkeeGoogle Scholar
  25. Teillet PM, Guindon B, Goodenough DG (1982) On the slope-aspect correction of multispectral scanner data. Canad J Remote Sens 8(2):84–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Von Bandat HF (1983) Aerogeology. Gulf Publ, Houston, TexasGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Formerly Professor, Earth Resources Technology, Department of Earth SciencesIndian Institute of Technology RoorkeeRoorkeeIndia

Personalised recommendations