I’ve been working on preparing my thesis presentation for the world to see, and by world, I mean maybe 10 people. I’ll present it live on facebook or youtube too probably.
My thesis is Friday August 3rd at 1PM.
In other news, I have an updated manuscript that is mostly ready to share with the Cassini team. However, there is one more thing I need to do.
I used this figure to show that SARTopo data is on par with Stereo data. SARTopo is ~10km per pixel will stereo is ~2 km per pixel. The worry is SARTopo will artificially lower the highest peaks by averaging the sharpest peaks with lower terrain around it.
For example, the average terrain height on the left and right of the depth profile above is not a perfect fit, the peaks are not seen there because they are averaged over a large span of heights including lower heights. However, if stereo doesn’t do that averaging and gives the same result as SARTopo, then we say it probably isn’t a big problem in SARTopo. The problem is, past stereo measurements of stereo data did a 2D averaging of measurements with the stereo. The method we are using with SARTopo is done along the lines of Bray et al. (2012) were they take, I think, 8 profiles and do what we did, measuring the values for each profile then averaging it. If we are going to use stereo as a proof that SARTopo is reliable for measuring sharp terrain changes, then we need to make sure the results were acquired using the same methodology. Unfortunately, that leaves me with the responsibility of having to do the measurements with the stereo data. The only reason I had not done that already was because my study was using updated, and possibly changed, data sets. Stereo data has not changed since these measurements were done, so I thought this wouldn’t be necessary.