Comparison of Masking Algorithms for Sentinel-2 Imagery

Masking of clouds, cloud shadow, water and snow/ice in optical satellite imagery is an important step in automated processing chains. We compare the performance of the masking provided by Fmask (“Function of mask” implemented in FORCE), ATCOR (“Atmospheric Correction”) and Sen2Cor (“Sentinel-2 Correction”) on a set of 20 Sentinel-2 scenes distributed over the globe covering a wide variety of environments and climates. All three methods use rules based on physical properties (Top of Atmosphere Reflectance, TOA) to separate clear pixels from potential cloud pixels, but they use different rules and class-specific thresholds. The methods can yield different results because of different definitions of the dilation buffer size for the classes cloud, cloud shadow and snow. Classification results are compared to the assessment of an expert human interpreter using at least 50 polygons per class randomly selected for each image. The class assignment of the human interpreter is considered as reference or “truth”. The interpreter carefully assigned a class label based on the visual assessment of the true color and infrared false color images and additionally on the bottom of atmosphere (BOA) reflectance spectra. The most important part of the comparison is done for the difference area of the three classifications considered. This is the part of the classification images where the results of Fmask, ATCOR and Sen2Cor disagree. Results on difference area have the advantage to show more clearly the strengths and weaknesses of a classification than results on the complete image. The overall accuracy of Fmask, ATCOR, and Sen2Cor for difference areas of the selected scenes is 45%, 56%, and 62%, respectively. User and producer accuracies are strongly class- and scene-dependent, typically varying between 30% and 90%. Comparison of the difference area is complemented by looking for the results in the area where all three classifications give the same result. Overall accuracy for that “same area” is 97% resulting in the complete classification in overall accuracy of 89%, 91% and 92% for Fmask, ATCOR and Sen2Cor respectively.

[1]  Patrick Hostert,et al.  Operational Coregistration of the Sentinel-2A/B Image Archive Using Multitemporal Landsat Spectral Averages , 2021, IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters.

[2]  David Frantz,et al.  FORCE - Landsat + Sentinel-2 Analysis Ready Data and Beyond , 2019, Remote. Sens..

[3]  Olivier Hagolle,et al.  Validation of Copernicus Sentinel-2 Cloud Masks Obtained from MAJA, Sen2Cor, and FMask Processors Using Reference Cloud Masks Generated with a Supervised Active Learning Procedure , 2019, Remote. Sens..

[4]  Dirk Tiede,et al.  AutoCloud+, a "Universal" Physical and Statistical Model-Based 2D Spatial Topology-Preserving Software for Cloud/Cloud-Shadow Detection in Multi-Sensor Single-Date Earth Observation Multi-Spectral Imagery - Part 1: Systematic ESA EO Level 2 Product Generation at the Ground Segment as Broad Context , 2018, ISPRS Int. J. Geo Inf..

[5]  Andreas Uhl,et al.  Improvement of the Fmask algorithm for Sentinel-2 images: Separating clouds from bright surfaces based on parallax effects , 2018, Remote Sensing of Environment.

[6]  M. Nieuwenhuijsen,et al.  Outdoor blue spaces, human health and well-being: A systematic review of quantitative studies. , 2017, International journal of hygiene and environmental health.

[7]  Luis Guanter,et al.  Ready-to-Use Methods for the Detection of Clouds, Cirrus, Snow, Shadow, Water and Clear Sky Pixels in Sentinel-2 MSI Images , 2016, Remote. Sens..

[8]  Andreas Kääb,et al.  Glacier Remote Sensing Using Sentinel-2. Part II: Mapping Glacier Extents and Surface Facies, and Comparison to Landsat 8 , 2016, Remote. Sens..

[9]  Lin Yan,et al.  An Automated Approach for Sub-Pixel Registration of Landsat-8 Operational Land Imager (OLI) and Sentinel-2 Multi Spectral Instrument (MSI) Imagery , 2016, Remote. Sens..

[10]  Xiaodong Li,et al.  Water Bodies' Mapping from Sentinel-2 Imagery with Modified Normalized Difference Water Index at 10-m Spatial Resolution Produced by Sharpening the SWIR Band , 2016, Remote. Sens..

[11]  Joachim Hill,et al.  Improving the Spatial Resolution of Land Surface Phenology by Fusing Medium- and Coarse-Resolution Inputs , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing.

[12]  Joachim Hill,et al.  An Operational Radiometric Landsat Preprocessing Framework for Large-Area Time Series Applications , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing.

[13]  C. Atzberger,et al.  First Experience with Sentinel-2 Data for Crop and Tree Species Classifications in Central Europe , 2016, Remote. Sens..

[14]  Stephen V. Stehman,et al.  Optimizing sample size allocation to strata for estimating area and map accuracy , 2015 .

[15]  C. Woodcock,et al.  Improvement and expansion of the Fmask algorithm: cloud, cloud shadow, and snow detection for Landsats 4–7, 8, and Sentinel 2 images , 2015 .

[16]  Giles M. Foody,et al.  Good practices for estimating area and assessing accuracy of land change , 2014 .

[17]  Marc Niezette,et al.  Sentinel-2 Level 2A Prototype Processor: Architecture, Algorithms And First Results , 2013 .

[18]  A. Cazenave,et al.  The ESA Climate Change Initiative: Satellite Data Records for Essential Climate Variables , 2013 .

[19]  Jan G. P. W. Clevers,et al.  Remote estimation of crop and grass chlorophyll and nitrogen content using red-edge bands on Sentinel-2 and -3 , 2013, Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinformation.

[20]  Matthias Drusch,et al.  Sentinel-2: ESA's Optical High-Resolution Mission for GMES Operational Services , 2012 .

[21]  Zhe Zhu,et al.  Object-based cloud and cloud shadow detection in Landsat imagery , 2012 .

[22]  Michael J. Wilson,et al.  Implementation on Landsat Data of a Simple Cloud-Mask Algorithm Developed for MODIS Land Bands , 2011, IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters.

[23]  Gérard Dedieu,et al.  A multi-temporal method for cloud detection, applied to FORMOSAT-2, VENµS, LANDSAT and SENTINEL-2 images , 2010 .

[24]  Giles M. Foody,et al.  Sample size determination for image classification accuracy assessment and comparison , 2009 .

[25]  Stephen V. Stehman,et al.  Sampling designs for accuracy assessment of land cover , 2009 .

[26]  B. N. Chatterji,et al.  An FFT-based technique for translation, rotation, and scale-invariant image registration , 1996, IEEE Trans. Image Process..

[27]  Russell G. Congalton,et al.  A review of assessing the accuracy of classifications of remotely sensed data , 1991 .

[28]  L. Lymburner,et al.  Remote Sensing of Environment , 2017 .