Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

EWS-G1 settings for .json file #70

Closed
creinemann opened this issue Feb 6, 2021 · 6 comments
Closed

EWS-G1 settings for .json file #70

creinemann opened this issue Feb 6, 2021 · 6 comments
Assignees
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@creinemann
Copy link

creinemann commented Feb 6, 2021

Corrected after initial post changed from band 02 to 04

Using EWS-G1 GVAR imagery from Band 04 IR- Upped the brightness to 1.3 and changed the file name prefix to match the naming convention used by @Aang and @Zybichu to EWS-G1_2_

// Preliminary EWS-G1 configuration
{
"DisplayName": "EWS-G1",
"FilenamePrefix": "EWS-G1_4_",
"FilenameParser": "Goesproc",
"Invert": true,
"Longitude": 61.5,
"Brightness": 1.3,
"Crop": [
0.01,
0.05,
0.0,
0.0

@creinemann creinemann added the bug Something isn't working label Feb 6, 2021
@nullpainter
Copy link
Owner

Thanks, Carl. To clarify, you note that the update is to EWS-G1_2_ but the JSON has EWS-G1_4_. Should this actually be EWS-G1_[0-9]_ to support all channels? If so, having separate non-inverted config is presumably also desirable.

Also, it could just be the old file that I have floating around, but I'm sure we can do a better job of the crop. Any volunteers?

image

@nullpainter nullpainter added enhancement New feature or request and removed bug Something isn't working labels Feb 8, 2021
@creinemann
Copy link
Author

I would reccomend the EWS-G1_[0-9]_ though currently there are only 1-5, and that photo is an old one from when I used the SSEC imagery which was cropped by them, and a gif. the current version with the latest EWS-G1 looks good

@nullpainter
Copy link
Owner

Okay, just refamiliarised myself with the EWS-G1 processing. To be honest, it leaves a bit to be desired right at the moment.

Firstly, we do need two entries in the Satellites.json - one with invert: false for channel 1, and the other for invert: true for channels 2-5.

Secondly, that brightness is too high for single-image rendering and results in some seriously blown highlights (see below). I know it's required for stitching. I'm wondering whether I'm going to have to think of a less brute-force / manual brightness method for blending images. In any case, I think I'm going to have to leave the brightness as it is for now.

Thirdly, yes - some serious crop work required.

And finally, I seem to be producing greyscale output images if the output is a .PNG (Unrelated to EWS - I just noticed. This seems to be a regression).

image

@nullpainter
Copy link
Owner

Secondly, that brightness is too high for single-image rendering and results in some seriously blown highlight

Actually, brightness adjustment does nothing (good) for single images, as we are already performing histogram equalisation. If I change it so Brightness is only read for stitching, we can have our cake and eat it.

Okay, one problem down...

@creinemann
Copy link
Author

I experienced the B/W in .png creation as well.
And I have two entries in the JSON file like this invert: false for channel 1, and the other for invert: true for channel 4.
In your image above the only way I could get the white blowout was to adjust -S 0.3 and use this in the json and use ch01
// Preliminary EWS-G1 VIS configuration
{
"DisplayName": "EWS-G1",
"FilenamePrefix": "EWS-G11",
"FilenameParser": "Goesproc",
"Invert": false,
"Longitude": 61.5,
"Brightness": 1.0,
"Crop": [
0.01,
0.05,
0.0,
0.0
]
}
EWS-G1vis05km_02082021

nullpainter added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 28, 2021
@nullpainter
Copy link
Owner

Fixed in v1.0.18.

nullpainter added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 16, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants