| ²é¿´: 498 | »Ø¸´: 0 | ||
| ¡¾ÐüÉͽð±Ò¡¿»Ø´ð±¾ÌûÎÊÌ⣬×÷Õßtomsun0305½«ÔùËÍÄú 30 ¸ö½ð±Ò | ||
tomsun0305ͳæ (СÓÐÃûÆø)
|
[ÇóÖú]
×îºóÁË£¬±à¼»¹²»ÍüÌáЩÓïÑÔÎÊÌ⣬Çë¸ßÊÖ°ïæÈóɫһС¶Î¾ä×Ó
|
|
|
ÇëÈóÉ«»ú¹¹ÈóÉ«ºó°´ÕÕ±à¼ÒªÇó£¬Ôö¼ÓÁËÒ»¶ÎÕë¶Ô¹À¼ÆÎó²î³ß¶ÈµÄ»°£¬ÈçÏ£º With respect to the error-scale of assessment, objective indices such as CLA in tables 2 and 3 are calculated by DN value of original image or correction image. They are not directly related to the satellite parameters such as GSD, flight height. We primarily used these indices to evaluate the radiometric quality of image with different correction methods. Thus, using the approximated value to the third place after decimal point doesn¡¯t affect the judgments of assessment. ʺ󣬱à¼Õë¶ÔÕâ¶Î»°Ìá³öÁËһЩÓïÑÔÎÊÌ⣬ÈçÏ£º There is an entire paragraph in page 13, which is new, and it appears to have not gone through language editing, because it has multiple errors. "error-scale of assessment" is not the way to write things. "DN value of original image or correction image" has two errors. There is a more language friendly way to write "such as GSD, flight height." and so in "the radiometric quality of image" there is an error, etc... This paragraph must have changed after language editing. You need to make sure that language editing is absolutely done after you make all the scientific corrections. ÓÉÓÚÖ»ÓÐ7ÌìÐÞ¸ÄÆÚ£¬Åµ¢Îó·µ»ØÊ±¼ä²»ÏëÔÙ·µ»Ø¸øÈóÉ«»ú¹¹ÁË£¬ÇóÖúСľ³æ£¬Çë¸ßÊÖ°ïæÈóɫһÏ£¬Íò·Ö¸Ðл£¡ |
» ²ÂÄãϲ»¶
307·Ö²ÄÁÏרҵÇóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ10È˻ظ´
304Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ16È˻ظ´
336Çóµ÷¼Á£¬Ò»Ö¾Ô¸Öпƴó
ÒѾÓÐ9È˻ظ´
Çóµ÷¼Á Ò»Ö¾Ô¸Î÷ÄϽ»Í¨´óѧ085701»·¾³¹¤³Ì 282·Ö
ÒѾÓÐ15È˻ظ´
»¯Ñ§¹¤³Ìµ÷¼Á289
ÒѾÓÐ24È˻ظ´
284Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ16È˻ظ´
275 Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ6È˻ظ´
²ÄÁϹ¤³Ì322
ÒѾÓÐ16È˻ظ´
»¯¹¤Ñ§Ë¶ 285Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ24È˻ظ´
293µ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ18È˻ظ´














»Ø¸´´ËÂ¥