Ghansham,
Yes, that's a conical scanning in a low inclination orbit. So, the specs
I outlined in my previous email [orbit & scanning information] will also
apply to this type of satellite.
Dave
On 8/22/12 9:03 AM, ghansham sangar wrote:
Here is the attached snapshot of one of the parameter.
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:22 PM, ghansham sangar
<ghanshamsangar@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:ghanshamsangar@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Hello Sir..
Hope you are doing fine.
I understand you point of frame of reference. Even I was also
confused when
I saw that dataset for the first time. But later I realized in one
of the conversation with
Tom Rink Sir, also, this is what came out (as told in earlier mail
too):
The orbit has an inclination of as low as 20 deg (no coverage on
poles).
The reason is to improve the temporal resolution over the tropics.
And the sensor scans across track w.r.t to such low inclination track.
And that is why the data is packed also in that manner (up down).
The best thing I can do is post one snapshot generated from
toolsUI of one
of the parameter displayed as image to have a better understanding
of what exactly
the data looks like. I know its a pretty tough scanning geometry
to understand.
regards
Ghansham
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:35 AM, Tom Whittaker <whittaker@xxxxxxxx
<mailto:whittaker@xxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Hello Ghansham...
I hope you are well.
I believe the "scan direction" (either "up/down" or
"left/right") is a
matter of perspective -- if the frame of reference is on the
satellite, looking "forward" along the flight path, then I
would be
more inclined to say "left/right", as "up/down" would refer to
some
vertical scanning -- from my frame of reference on the satellite.
Regarding CF Conventions. There are no conventions for
dealing with
this. There have been discussions in the past dealing with "swath
data", and you might have a Google of that (plus 'netcdf') and see
what others have been thinking about.
There is also at least one reference to some data already being
written to hdf files, which might prove of interest. The sad
fact is
that the satellite community for the longest time did not embrace
NetCDF, and so we must play "catch-up" with the people who have
defined conventions for model/gridded data and in-situ data.
My take is that some common characteristics (like 'band' and
'central_wavelength' (or _wavenumber) should be defined using
conventions and "standard_names", but that characteristics of
particular platforms must, by necessity, be defined for those
platforms. I also think that the use of the "standard_names"
will go
a long way toward helping application developers in writing file
readers that can understand some of the basic structures of
the data,
while at the same time providing end users an opportunity to write
specialized interfaces that meet their particular research or
operational needs.
Best wishes,
tom