Paper
17 May 2006 Comparison of polar formatting and back-projection algorithms for spotlight-mode SAR image formation
Charles V. Jakowatz Jr., Neall Doren
Author Affiliations +
Abstract
The convolution/back-projection (CBP) algorithm has recently once again been touted as the "gold standard" for spotlight-mode SAR image formation, as it is proclaimed to achieve better image quality than the well-known and often employed polar formatting algorithm (PFA). In addition, it has been suggested that PFA is less flexible than CBP in that PFA can only compute the SAR image on one grid and PFA cannot add or subtract pulses from the imaging process. The argument for CBP acknowledges the computational burden of CBP compared to PFA, but asserts that the increased image accuracy and flexibility of the formation process is warranted, at least in some imaging scenarios. Because CBP can now be sped up by the proper algorithm design, it becomes, according to this line of analysis, the clear algorithm of choice for SAR image formation. In this paper we reject the above conclusion by showing that PFA and CBP achieve the same image quality, and that PFA has complete flexibility, including choice of imaging plane, size of illuminated beam area to be imaged, resolution of the image, and others. We demonstrate these claims via formation of both simulated and real SAR imagery using both algorithms.
© (2006) COPYRIGHT Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE). Downloading of the abstract is permitted for personal use only.
Charles V. Jakowatz Jr. and Neall Doren "Comparison of polar formatting and back-projection algorithms for spotlight-mode SAR image formation", Proc. SPIE 6237, Algorithms for Synthetic Aperture Radar Imagery XIII, 62370H (17 May 2006); https://doi.org/10.1117/12.673249
Lens.org Logo
CITATIONS
Cited by 6 scholarly publications.
Advertisement
Advertisement
RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS
Get copyright permission  Get copyright permission on Copyright Marketplace
KEYWORDS
Synthetic aperture radar

Image acquisition

Image processing

Image quality

Device simulation

Gold

Image quality standards

Back to Top