Introduction to Supervised Classification

GISC9216 Digital Image Processing

R. Konrad Hunter

GISC9216 Digital Image Processing Introduction to Supervised Classification

January 28, 2014 D1 - Introduction to Supervised Classification

Janet Finlay Instructor / Coordinator Niagara College Post Grad GIS - Geospatial Management Niagara College, NOTL Campus 135 Taylor Rd, S.S.#4 Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON, L0S 1J0

Dear Mrs. Finlay, RE: GISC9216 Deliverable 1 Introduction to Supervised Classification Please accept this letter as a formal submission of Deliverable 1 Introduction to Supervised Classification for GISC9216 Digital Image Interpretation. This submission is comprised of a formal report which investigates and compares image classification using both a supervised and unsupervised classification. The findings of this report have compared and contrasted the utilization of a supervised classification with an unsupervised classification of a 512 x 512 subset image of Cooks Bay, Ontario. The report outlines the advantages and disadvantages of both classification methods, as well as examines the three types of supervised classifications used for this assignment: Maximum likelihood, Mahalanobis distance and Minimum distance classification. It was determined that a supervised classification using the Minimum distance classification approach produced the most effective representation of the subset image of the Cooks Bay area. An unsupervised classification of this image data failed to account for the high variance within the pixels data of land cover classes. This produced a highly generalized image that did not distinguish the unique land classes, especially for the various agriculture classes. If you have any questions regarding these documents or the assignment in general, please feel free to email me at your convenience. Thank you. Sincerely,

R Konrad Hunter
R. Konrad Hunter - B.A GIS-GM Candidate Project Manager: Hunter Geosystems R.K.H Enclosures: i) Report Introduction to Supervised Classification

GISC9216 Digital Image Processing Introduction to Supervised Classification

Table of Contents
1.0 2.0 Introduction: ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Analysis ............................................................................................................................................. 2

2.1 Histograms .......................................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Maximum Likelihood Classification .................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Mahalanobis Distance Classification ................................................................................................... 4 2.3 Minimum Distance Classification ........................................................................................................ 5 3.0 4.0 5.0 Supervised Classification V.S. Unsupervised Classification............................................................... 7 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 11 References ...................................................................................................................................... 11

Appendix A: Subset Image of Cooks Bay, Ontario ....................................................................................... A Appendix B: Unsupervised Classification of Cooks Bay, Ontario .................................................................. B Appendix C: Supervised Classification of Cooks Bay, Ontario ...................................................................... C

GISC9216 Digital Image Processing Introduction to Supervised Classification

1.0

Introduction:

This assignment examines the classification process for which all of the pixels in a digital image are categorized into specific land cover classes using both the unsupervised and supervised classification methods of an image subset. Training areas were created to execute the supervised classification of the features within the subset image. Three supervised classification methods were used to determine the most accurate display of image data: Maximum likelihood, Mahalanobis distance and Minimum distance. This report will further analyze and compare the images produced using the three supervised classification methods as well as the unsupervised classification of the Cook's Bay area subset image (Figure 1). The final maps created using the supervised and unsupervised classification images as well as the original subset image can be found in the Appendix.

Figure 1 Subset image of Cook's Bay

GISC9216 Digital Image Processing Introduction to Supervised Classification

2.0

Analysis

2.1 Histograms

Figure 2

Figure 3

The x-axis on a histogram displays the range of minimum to maximum data values (brightness value) sampled in the statistics. The y-axis displays the range of the frequency for each specific data value occurring in the image (Contrast Adjustments, ERDAS Help). The image data can be further analyzed when viewing the histograms of a supervised classification. When comparing Figure 2 and Figure 3, the frequency values are much higher for the land cover class WATER, while the brightness values are relatively close. This is due to the large body of water that accounts for the largest land cover class within the image subset. Therefore, the frequency values deemed WATER will be much higher than the other land cover classes.

GISC9216 Digital Image Processing Introduction to Supervised Classification

2.2 Maximum Likelihood Classification

Figure 4 Maximum likelihood Classification of Cooks Bay

Maximum likelihood considers the statistical probability of a given pixel value belonging to a specific land cover class assuming that these probabilities are equal for all classes following a normal distribution, and quantitatively evaluates both the variance and covariance of the category spectral response patterns when classifying unknown pixels (Lillesand and Kiefer, 2008). Figure 4 displays an image of the Cook's Bay area classified using maximum likelihood classification. The road features are distinguishable, yet become heavily clustered in the developed areas making it difficult to interpret whether the land feature class is actually road or residential property. The minimum distance classification worked better for clearly distinguishing the road features in all areas. However, the maximum likelihood classification (Figure 4) improved the display of specific land cover classes such as 3

GISC9216 Digital Image Processing Introduction to Supervised Classification bare soil, planted fields and forest features when compared to the Mahalanobis distance classification (Figure 5).

2.2 Mahalanobis Distance Classification

Figure 5 Mahalanobis Distance Classification of Cooks Bay

Mahalanobis distance uses the covariance matrix equation and assumes the histograms have a normal distribution. This algorithm accounts for variance and covariance, which allows for clusters with high variance to be placed as similarly varied classes and vice versa (Classification Decision Rules, ERDAS Help). This classification method produced a similar image to the maximum likelihood however the 4

GISC9216 Digital Image Processing Introduction to Supervised Classification classification of the agriculture classes was less accurate and grouped the cropped fields with the bare fields (Figure 5). The road features were also heavily clustered in residential/developed areas, similar to the maximum likelihood classification which resulted in a poor representation of these areas. This was improved upon when running the minimum distance classification method of the same subset image (Figure 6).

2.3 Minimum Distance Classification

Figure 6 Minimum Distance Classification of Cooks Bay

GISC9216 Digital Image Processing Introduction to Supervised Classification Minimum Distance assigns each unknown pixel to the closest category mean by calculating the spectral distance between the measurement vector for the candidate pixel and the mean vector for each signature, therefore leaving no unclassified pixels. This classification method is insensitive to different degrees of variance in the spectral response data and not recommended when spectral classes are close to one another (Lillesand and Keifer, 2008). However, the minimum distance classification produced the most accurate image of the Cooks Bay area when comparing the original subset file (Figure 1). This can be seen in Figure 6. The majority of land cover classes are displayed accurately and easily distinguishable from others, with few discrepancies regarding pixel classification. This is apparent for road features, water and various agriculture classes, unlike in Figure 4 and Figure 5.

GISC9216 Digital Image Processing Introduction to Supervised Classification

3.0

Supervised Classification V.S. Unsupervised Classification

Figure 7 Unsupervised Classification of Cook's Bay

Image classification is an important component of remote sensing and image interpretation. A supervised classification requires the identification of specific areas of interests (AOI) known as 'training sites' to determine the land cover classes within the image (Figure 8). "Each pixel in the image data set is than categorized into the land cover class it most closely resembles" (Lillesand and Kiefer, 2008). These land classes are added to the signature file, which represents all the land cover classes to be used for the supervised classification. 7

GISC9216 Digital Image Processing Introduction to Supervised Classification

Figure 8 Defining Training Sites for WATER Using Subset Image

An unsupervised classification examines unknown pixels and organizes the pixel values by dividing them into classes based on natural groupings or clusters within the image (Lillesand and Kiefer, 2008). This method analyzes the proximity of pixels representing a land cover classes and determines those within close proximity as falling into that specific spectral class. In order to determine the true identity of the spectral classes, an unsupervised classification requires reference data such as the original image/map (Lillesand and Kiefer, 2008).

GISC9216 Digital Image Processing Introduction to Supervised Classification

Figure 9 Signature file for Supervised Classification

A supervised classification requires the analyst to define "information categories and then examine their spectral separability" (Lillesand and Kiefer, 2008). The advantage to this type of classification method is that the analyst has control over the land cover classes that are to be developed for the signature file (Figure 9), therefore known land features within the image are considered when producing the image classification (via AOI/training sites). This provides the opportunity for analysts to identify errors within the classification and make the necessary corrections to produce an accurate and effective image classification. The supervised classification also allows the analyst to view histograms of the different classes to determine if they have good separability. A disadvantage of this classification approach is that it is subject to human error. Some classes may be over looked and unclassified, or classified incorrectly. Training site selection represents the only way to classify pixel values for a supervised classification. Unlike the unsupervised approach, pixel values that are not accounted for within the training sites will not be recognized in the signature file. Also, training site selection and land class identification can be time consuming. However, once the signature file is created running the supervised classification is a relatively quick process compared to an unsupervised classification. An unsupervised classification determines "spectrally separable classes and then defines their informational utility" (Lillesand and Kiefer, 2008). The advantage of using an unsupervised approach is that it produces uniform classes and minimizes human error (Lillesand and Kiefer, 2008). Another advantage of this method is that prior knowledge of the study area is not required, unlike the supervised classification approach. One of the disadvantages of an unsupervised classification is that this approach will group together spectral clusters that may actually represent unique features in the image, such as considering residential areas as farmland due to similarities in the pixel values of these features. This is due to the generalization of spectral classes which results from an unsupervised classification. Also, the

GISC9216 Digital Image Processing Introduction to Supervised Classification analyst has limited control over the 'menu' classes created, unlike the user-defined classes determined when executing a supervised classification. For the Cook's Bay area, the supervised classification (Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5) was the best approach due to the factors mentioned above. The high variance in pixel values within the subset required unique land cover classes to be established in order for the classification to account for the differences. This became most apparent for the agriculture land classes because of the numerous types including bare soil, cropped fields, and densely planted fields. The creation of training sites was critical for producing an effective classification of the image. Choosing specific training sites allowed the analyst to account for the unique land class features within the image, most notably the different agricultural features. This was only possible when executing a supervised classification. The distinction of such land classes produced an accurate display of the Cook's Bay area. The unsupervised classification (Figure 6) failed to account for the different classes of agricultural land by only classifying the pixels as either bare fields or planted fields, which did not effectively distinguish agricultural land classes from forest and residential/commercial land classes. The water features in Figure 6 appear to be the most accurately displayed data in the image, clearly distinguishing the areas of shallow and deep water. However, road features are not apparent and residential/commercial land is not distinguishable from agricultural land, unlike the supervised classification method. Therefore, the unsupervised classification of the original subset image was highly generalized and less accurate when compared to the supervised classification of the same image. A solution would be to increase the number of classes for the unsupervised classification to account for high variances within the image data, such as the different agriculture lands. When comparing the three types of supervised classifications, the minimum distance classification produced the most accurate display of data (Figure 5). The residential areas appear as defined lines rather than clusters of black features as seen in the other methods (Figure 3 and Figure 4). Both the deep and shallow water features in the image are displayed accurately, especially for the wetland area at the southern point of Cook's Bay. The minimum distance classification also effectively distinguished the various agricultural land classes, which becomes apparent when comparing it to the original subset image (Figure 1). The strong contrast between bare fields, cropped fields and planted fields within the image must be taken into account when running a supervised classification. This was most effective when running the minimum distance classification, however all three classification methods produced relatively accurate images in comparison to the unsupervised classification (Figure 6).

10

GISC9216 Digital Image Processing Introduction to Supervised Classification

4.0

Conclusion

This assignment examined the process of image classification using both the unsupervised and supervised classification methods. Three methods of supervised classification were executed using a subset image of Cook's Bay, Ontario. Maximum likelihood, mahalanobis distance and minimum distance classification methods were used to produce three classified images which were analyzed and compared to determine the most accurate display of image data. The results of the supervised classifications were examined and the minimum distance approach produced the most effective classification of image data. The findings of this report suggest that running a supervised classification produces an image that best represents the data values when to the unsupervised classification. The unsupervised classification failed to account for the high variance within the pixel values of the land class features, most notably the three unique agriculture features. However, this image had many unique spectral clusters which challenge the effectiveness of an unsupervised classification. Therefore, the supervised classification remained the best approach. In conclusion, both a supervised and unsupervised classification are useful tools for image classification using remotely sensed data.

5.0

References

Lillesand, T and Kiefer, R. (2008). Remote Sensing and Image Interpretation. New Delhi: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Classification Decision Rules. (N.d.). ERDAS Help. Retrieved January 20, 2014 from ERDAS IMAGINE 2013. Contrast Adjustments. (N.d.). ERDAS Help. Retrieved January 20, 2014 from ERDAS IMAGINE 2013.

11

GISC9216 Digital Image Processing Introduction to Supervised Classification

Appendix A: Subset Image of Cooks Bay, Ontario

GISC9216 Digital Image Processing Introduction to Supervised Classification

GISC9216 Digital Image Processing Introduction to Supervised Classification

Appendix B: Unsupervised Classification of Cooks Bay, Ontario

GISC9216 Digital Image Processing Introduction to Supervised Classification

GISC9216 Digital Image Processing Introduction to Supervised Classification

Appendix C: Supervised Classification of Cooks Bay, Ontario

GISC9216 Digital Image Processing Introduction to Supervised Classification