Given so many possible uses of band data, promote the use of meta data
embedded in the image to suggest how the image should be rendered.
There is no way to make everyone happy. To me, a raster is
multidimensional data storage and has absolutely nothing to do with the
data source. Trying to anticipate every possible use now and in the
future would be quite the feat.
Scott
On 8/31/24 07:21, Even Rouault via gdal-dev wrote:
Hi,
The GDAL Color Interpretation enumeration is a good start, but is quite
limited regarding band spectral properties with just Red, Green, Bland,
and nothing for other band wavelengths, particularly for infra-red.
I was looking a bit at the classifications at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared#Regions , and there are several
ones, like the "commonly used subdivision scheme" (NIR, SWIR, MWIR,
LWIR, FIR) or "CIE division scheme" (IR-A, IR-B, IR-C) or "ISO 20743
scheme" (NIR, MIR, FIR).
My inclination would rather to re-use the STAC EO classification at
https://github.com/stac-extensions/eo?tab=readme-ov-file#common-band-names, which shows a lot of similarities with https://github.com/awesome-spectral-indices/awesome-spectral-indices#expressions , and has a nice mapping with a few popular instruments.
While we are it, should we standardize central wavelength and full width
half max (FWHM), has special properties of a bands rather than generic
text-based metadata, like:
double GDALRasterBand::GetCentralWaveLengthMicrometer() -> NaN if unknown
double GDALRasterBand::GetFWHMMicrometer() -> NaN if unknown
void GDALRasterBand::SetCentralWaveLengthMicrometer(double)
void GDALRasterBand::SetFWHMMicrometer(double)
Or maybe just standardize a "CENTRAL_WAVELENGTH" and "FWHM" metadata
items in the "IMAGERY" metadata domain:
https://gdal.org/en/latest/user/raster_data_model.html#imagery-domain-remote-sensing ?
Thoughts?
Even
_______________________________________________
gdal-dev mailing list
gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
