In my understanding, hyperspectral remote sensing data is equivalent to imaging spectroscopy. But more and more often I see the term used for point spectroscopy (field or laboratory measurements) that of course also fulfill the literal sense of the word since they have lots of spectral bands.
Some people have argued for abolishing the term altogether and only using imaging or point spectroscopy instead.
Is there a consensus on using the term?
Should we use it for
a) all reflectance measurements using many bands, or
b) only for imaging spectroscopy, or
c) not use it at all?
The term hyperspectral remote sensing means remote sensing sensors with hundreds of narrow bands (10-20 nm) as opposed to multispectral remote sensing which contains only 3-15 wider bands. These can encompass both imaging and non-imaging sensors. So in my opinion, the term hyperspectral remote sensing should be there and should be applicable for both imaging and non-imaging sensors.
The distinction between imaging spectroscopy and point spectroscopy in hyperspectral remote sensing is crucial but can be ambiguous. Historically, 'hyperspectral remote sensing' referred to imaging spectroscopy, where a sensor collects high-resolution spectral information for each pixel in an image. However, the term has also been used for point spectroscopy, which measures spectra at individual points using a spectrometer with many bands. There's no strict consensus on the terminology, but I prefer using 'hyperspectral remote sensing' only for imaging spectroscopy. To avoid confusion, it's important to specify whether you're referring to imaging or point spectroscopy explicitly.
Hyperspectral imaging collects and processes information from across the electromagnetic spectrum. The goal of hyperspectral imaging is to obtain the spectrum for each pixel in the image of a scene, with the purpose of finding objects, identifying materials, or detecting processes.
Hey Henning,
I also stumbled upon that a few times. I guess the term hyperspectral does not imply any information on the technique itself.
In our publication on the topic, we therefore always used "hyperspectral imaging" to be clear about the technique.
That's why I'd answer your question with a), however, I'm happy to hear about different concepts.
Best,
Chris
Thanks for starting such a discussion, Henning. In my opinion, we only need to be more precise when we mention different techniques. I agree with Chris and would refer to imaging and non-imaging techniques if needed. I don´t necessarily think of "imaging" when I hear the term "hyperspectral". I like to refer to this publication for reference: Article Quantitative Remote Sensing at Ultra-High Resolution with UA...
All the best from Göttingen, Rene
Hyperspectral sensors could generate data at hundreds of wavelengths. This technology provides detailed information across the electromagnetic spectrum. It can be used for imaging and point spectroscopy at high radiometric resolution.
Sincerely,
Abdelkrim