This archive contains answers to questions sent to Unidata support through mid-2025. Note that the archive is no longer being updated. We provide the archive for reference; many of the answers presented here remain technically correct, even if somewhat outdated. For the most up-to-date information on the use of NSF Unidata software and data services, please consult the Software Documentation first.
>From: Darren Gallant <address@hidden> >Organization: UCAR/JOSS >Keywords: 200107091620.f69GKI102721 McIDAS HDF AREA Darren, >I have consulted the docments you mentioned. If I created a pre-calibrated >WV areafile and a raw WV areafile, would the resulting images be the same? No. >Is any information lost by creating a pre-calibrated image? Yes. The difference is basically a quantization of data values in the 1-byte image. The displays of the two images would be the same (since the McIDAS image display is 8-bit), but math using the images would probably be different. I just checked the GOES-10 10.7 um AREAs that MSFC is creating (from HDF files, I believe) and I see that they do NOT have calibration blocks and store raw values: imglist.k MSFC/GW-IR FORM=EXP Pos Satellite/ Date Time Center Res (km) Image_Size sensor Lat Lon Lat Lon --- ------------- ------------ -------- ---- ---- ----- ----- ------------ 3 G-10 IMG 18 JUL 01199 19:46:00 33 133 Band: 4 10.7 um Surface temp; longwave window 5.31 2.37 983 x 2856 proj: 0 created: 2001199 201543 memo: type:GVAR cal type:RAW offsets: data= 2816 navigation= 256 calibration= 0 auxillary= 0 doc length: 0 cal length: 0 lev length: 0 PREFIX= 0 valcod: 0 zcor: 1 avg-smp: A lcor: 2645 ecor: 10053 bytes per pixel: 2 ss: 74 Resolution Factors (base=1): Line= 4.0 Element= 4.0 imglist.k: done lwu.k LIST G10-200107181830.ir4.ara 0 64 0. 0 4 HEX: 0 4 ASCII: 2. 74 101199 HEX: 4A 18B4F ASCII: J O 4. 183000 2525 HEX: 2CAD8 9DD ASCII: 6. 7845 1 HEX: 1EA5 1 ASCII: 8. 1357 3312 HEX: 54D CF0 ASCII: M 10. 2 4 HEX: 2 4 ASCII: 12. 4 1 HEX: 4 1 ASCII: 14. 0 0 HEX: 0 0 ASCII: 16. 101199 195613 HEX: 18B4F 2FC1D ASCII: O 18. 8 0 HEX: 8 0 ASCII: 20. 0 0 HEX: 0 0 ASCII: 22. 0 0 HEX: 0 0 ASCII: 24. 0 0 HEX: 0 0 ASCII: 26. 0 0 HEX: 0 0 ASCII: 28. 0 0 HEX: 0 0 ASCII: 30. 0 0 HEX: 0 0 ASCII: 32. 0 2816 HEX: 0 B00 ASCII: 34. 256 0 HEX: 100 0 ASCII: 36. 0 0 HEX: 0 0 ASCII: 38. 0 0 HEX: 0 0 ASCII: 40. 0 0 HEX: 0 0 ASCII: 42. 0 0 HEX: 0 0 ASCII: 44. 0 0 HEX: 0 0 ASCII: 46. 0 0 HEX: 0 0 ASCII: 48. 0 0 HEX: 0 0 ASCII: 50. 0 1196835154 HEX: 0 47564152 ASCII: GVAR 52. 1380013856 0 HEX: 52415720 0 ASCII: RAW 54. 0 0 HEX: 0 0 ASCII: 56. 0 0 HEX: 0 0 ASCII: 58. 0 0 HEX: 0 0 ASCII: 60. 0 0 HEX: 0 0 ASCII: 62. 0 1 HEX: 0 1 ASCII: 64. 1196835154 0 HEX: 47564152 0 ASCII: GVAR --END OF LISTING Furthermore, the result from IMGPROBE shows the calibrated value of the 2-byte counts in image: <output from IMGPROBE> Frame Latitude Longitude Tvline Tvelem Line Elem 11 37:48:35 118:55:47 202 640 4253 17721 Image Name Day Nominal Time Scan Time Band ---------------- ------- ------------ --------- ---- MSFC/GW-IR.3 18 Jul 01199 19:46:00 MISSING 4 File Nominal Image RAW RAD TEMP BRIT Lat/Lon Line/Element Line/Element * K 37:48:35 / 118:55:47 402/ 1917 4253/17721 20928 122.08 306.50 48 * milliwatts/meter**2/steradian/(cm-1) IMGPROBE: Done So, it looks as if there is an interpretation of 2-byte counts to things like Temperature for GVAR IR images even if a calibration block does not exist. I am suprised by this, but stand corrected. I first figured that the temperature must be calculated after scaling the 2-byte raw values to 1-byte brightnesses. This, however, gives a TEMP of 306 K, not 306.5 like is listed above. Further reading of area2.doc did not shed additional light on what is going on, so I looked at the GVAR calibration module code, kbxgvar.dlm and see that there is a calculation for Tempertature based on radiance which is calculated (actually, a lookup table is generated for the range of raw values and then temperatures are interpolated). All of this seems to mean that you should create your AREAs with the 2-byte data and then _assume_ that the standard calculations apply. I believe that this is what Anthony G. meant by (the last sentence is the operative one): > Yes, we do have an HDF to McIDAS converter. It should in theory work for most > datasets, except with the caveat that it expects navigation data to be in a > separate file and different format (ascii). And as for calibration - it > assumes it is GOES-8 so the cal. is internal to McIDAS so we don't do anything > with that. I hope that this helps... Tom