Modulation-transfer-function analysis for sampled image

systems

Stephen K. Park, Robert Schowengerdt, and Mary-Anne Kaczynski

Sampling generally causes the response of a digital imaging system to be locally shift-variant and not directly
amenable to MTF analysis. However, this paper demonstrates that a meaningful system response can be
calculated by averaging over an ensemble of point-source system inputs to yield an MTF which accounts for
the combined effects of image formation, sampling, and image reconstruction. As an illustration, the MTF
of the Landsat MSS system is analyzed to reveal an average effective IFOV which is significantly larger than
the commonly accepted value, particularly in the along-track direction where undersampling contributes
markedly to an MTF reduction and resultant increase in image blur.

1. Introduction the location of the point source relative to the sampling

It is widely recognized that the modulation transfer
function (MTF) of an imaging system is of fundamental
importance in both the initial specification and design
of the system and in any subsequent detailed analysis
of the images it produces. Because the MTF is the
modulus of the system optical transfer function (OTF),
which is, in turn, the Fourier transform of the system
point-spread function (PSF), the MTF of an imaging
system can be determined, at least in principle, by
generating the modulus of the Fourier transform of the
image of a point source. Implicit in all of this is the
mathematical assumption that the system is both linear
and shift-invariant, i.e., that the location (and strength)
of the point source can be chosen arbitrarily. If the
shift-invariant (isoplanatic) assumption is not valid, the
image of a point source will depend on its location, and
the system MTF will have a spurious location-depen-
dent phase dependence.
Unfortunately, the MTF approach to system per-
formance analysis is not directly applicable to many
contemporary sampled imaging systems (e.g., elec-
trooptical line-scan and sensor-array devices) because
sampling causes these systems to have a particular kind
of local shift variance. That is, whenever these systems
form the (sampled) image of a point source, the ap-
pearance of the (reconstructed) image will depend on
Robert Schowengerdt is with University of Arizona, Office of Arid
Lands Studies, Tucson, Arizona 185721;the other authors are with
NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia 23665.
Received 22 December 1983.
(i.e., pixel) grid. This sample-scene phase phenomenon
is familiar to anyone who has tried to analyze system
performance by observing the appearance of small
high-contrast objects in a digital image. For such sys-
tems the basic question then is how can the MTF ap-
proach to system performance analysis be rigorously
modified to account for the particular kind of shift
variance that sampling introduces? This paper pro-
vides an answer to that question.
In this paper, the combined effects of imaging, sam-
pling, and reconstruction are analyzed in terms of the
spatial frequency response of a general sampled imaging
system. The (linear) system model used is 2-D and
sufficiently general so that the results of this MTF
analysis apply to most line-scan and sensor-array
imaging systems, particularly those used for remote
sensing. Sampling effects are accounted for by using
a point-source system input randomly located relative
to the sampling grid and by averagingthe system output
over all possible point-source locations. This random
sample-scene phase approach has been used success-
fully by the authors recently in related studies of the
radiometric error in remote-sensing imagery introduced
by the combined effects of sampling and reconstruc-
tion.1,2
A similar sample-scene phase approach to system
analysis was used recently by Wittenstein et al. 3
However, their approach is distinctly different from
ours in that it is nonrandom and is restricted to a class
of systems for which sample-scene phase dependence
is negligible. Our results, as well as those of Ref. 3, are
based on the basic research of many others. 4-11 In
particular, the paper by Peterson and Middleton4 and
the survey articles by Schade5 and Legault6 have been
most influential. However, we believe that our sto-

2572 APPLIED OPTICS/ Vol. 23, No. 15 / 1 August 1984

chastic approach to MTF analysis is unique to this
paper and that our results are new.
The results of this paper are illustrated by performing
an MTF analysis of the Landsat multispectral scanner
system (MSS).12 This example was chosen because the
MSS is a familiar and important (line-scan) imaging
system which has been in operation more than ten years,
and yet a comprehensive system analysis of its fre-
quency response, including the combined effects of
sampling and reconstruction, has never been published.
We show that (1) in the along-track direction, the MSS
response is seriously degraded by the undersampling
inherent to a system design in which consecutive in-
stantaneous fields of view (IFOVs) are nonoverlapping;
(2) in the along-scan direction, undersampling is not a
problem, instead the MSS response is dominated by the
scanning aperture and electronic filter; (3) the MSS
response is somewhat asymmetric with superior per-
formance in the along-scan direction; and (4) the com-
bined effects of the image-forming optics, scanning
aperture, electronic filter, 2-D sampling, and bilinear
image reconstruction, produce an effective IFOV
(EIFOV) which is 104 X 148 m.
II. Formulation
A general sampled imaging system is illustrated in
Fig. 1. All the quantities in this figure are referenced
to a common orthogonal spatial coordinate system (xy)
normalized so that the sampling interval in both di-
rections is unity. Because of this normalizing conven-
tion, when the system in Fig. 1 is analyzed in the Fourier
domain, the associated spatial frequencies (v) will
have units of cycles/sample interval, and the Nyquist
(or folding) frequency will be 0.5.
The input scene (radiance distribution) is f(x,y) and
the PSF of the (presampling) imaging subsystem is
h(xy). The imaging subsystem is assumed to be linear
and shift invariant; thus its output image g(xy) is the
spatial convolution of the input scene and the subsys-
tem PSF. The PSF of the imaging subsystem must
account for all the system processing prior to sampling.
Thus, in the analysis of an electrooptical scanner like
the Landsat MSS, for example, h (xy) accounts for the
combined effects of the image-forming optics, scanning
aperture, and electronic filter. In general, the effect of
the imaging subsystem is to low-pass filter the spatial
frequency components of the input scene, producing an
output image which is a smoothed (i.e., blurred) copy
of the scene.
Image sampling is the processing which occurs be-
tween the continuous output of the imaging subsystem
and the discrete input to the reconstruction subsystem.
Image sampling is accomplished mathematically by
multiplying the output of the imaging subsystem by the
2-D comb function
comb(x,y) = 6(x-my - n), (1)
m n
where the notation indicates that the double sum is over
all (positive, zero, and negative) integers m, n, and it is
assumed that sampling occurs on an equally spaced
f(x,y) Imaging glXy) Sampling g5 (x.y) Reconstruction
trX*YI
O- usystem - s usteSape
Scene *h X. yl Image srix
subsystem
y
-Reconstructed
image image
Fig. 1. General sampled image system.
b)
Fig. 2. (a) Illustration that the sampling process is not shift-in-
variant. A (binary) image g(x,y) with the sampling grid and sampled
imagegs(x,y) superimposed. The sampled image is b(xy). (b) The
(binary) image g(x - u, y - v) shifted relative to the sampling grid;
the sampled image is not (x - u, y - v).
rectangular grid. Typically, the image is both sampled
and quantized for digital transmission or storage prior
to image reconstruction. In this paper the effects of
quantization are ignored.
Because of the continuous input/discrete output
nature of the sampling subsystem, it is not shift-in-
variant. For example, Fig. 2 depicts a simple binary
(i.e., two-level) input image and demonstrates that
continuous subpixel shifts in the position of the input
image can produce significant discrete changes in the
output sampled image. This shift-variant nature of
image sampling has significant system implications; it
means that the sampling subsystem does not have a
transfer function, and so the transfer functions for each
of the three subsystems in Fig. 1 cannot simply be cas-
caded as one would do in a traditional system MTF
analysis.
The final output of the system in Fig. 1 is a continu-
ous reconstructed image gr (xy) which is formed by the
spatial convolution of the discrete sampled image
g' (X,y) with the reconstruction (i.e., interpolation)
function r(xy). The reconstruction function can be
thought of as the (continuous) output response corre-
sponding to a (discrete) reconstruction subsystem input
which is one at the origin of the sampling grid and zero
elsewhere. Because the reconstruction subsystem is
completely characterized by its PSF, in an analysis of
1 August 1984 / Vol. 23, No. 15 / APPLIED OPTICS 2573
 (a) (c)

(b) (d)

Fig. 3. Illustration of the combined effects of imaging, sampling, and reconstruction. The targets in (a) (upper left) are identical as are their
images in (b) (upper right). Image (c) (lower left) is a reconstruction of a sampled version of (b). Image (d) (lower right) is the difference
of (b) and (c); it illustrates the shift-variant image degradation associated with sampling and reconstruction.

a digital image rectification system, for example,' 3
r(x,y) must account for the combined effects of all
postsampling operations such as resampling and dis-
play.
Figure 3 is a digital simulation of the system in Fig.
1 which provides an illustration of the combined effects
of imaging, sampling, and reconstruction. In this
simulation the size of the targets, the effective size of the
imaging subsystem PSF, and the spacing (i.e., pixel size)
of the sampling grid are all equal. Figure 3(a) is a scene
consisting of identical (square) targets randomly located
on a uniformly black background, and Fig. 3(b) is the
imageof this scene prior to sampling and reconstruction.
Because the imaging subsystem is shift-invariant, each
object in Fig. 3(b) is blurred identically independent of
its location. Figure 3(c) is the reconstructed image
formed by first sampling the image in Fig. 3(b) and then
reconstructing the sampled image using bilinear inter-
polation. Figure 3(d) is the difference between Figs.
3(b) and (c), i.e., Fig. 3(d) illustrates the additional
shift-variant image degradation introduced by the
sampling and reconstruction subsystems. Two effects
are evident in Figs. 3(c) and (d): (1) the extent of the
image degradation introduced by sampling and recon-
struction is very much a function of sample-scene phase;
and (2) on the average, the effect of sampling and re-
construction is to further blur (low-pass filter) the
output of the imaging subsystem The intent of this
paper is to rigorously develop an approach to MTF
analysis which will account for the type of shift variance
illustrated in Fig. 3 and correctly characterize on the
average the net loss of resolution produced by the
combined effects of imaging, sampling, and recon-
struction.
The output of the system in Fig. 1 is given by
gr(x,y) = ilf(x,y)*h(xy)J comb(x,y)J*r(x,y), (2)
where * denotes spatial convolution. This equation is
the basis for all the analysis that follows, and, conse-
quently, the results of this paper are applicable to the

2574 APPLIED OPTICS/ Vol. 23, No. 15 / 1 August 1984


MTF analysis of any sampled imaging system whose
performance is characterized by Eq. (2). This equation
is also consistent with the system model used by Wit-
tenstein et al. ,3 except that their model only included
a 1-D sampling subsystem.
From Eq. (2), the system response to an impulsive
input scene 5(x - u,y - v) is the
(i.e., point-source)
system PSF (SPSF) given by
SPSF(x,y;u,v) = [h(x - uy - v) comb(xy)]*r(x,y).
As the notation indicates, the system is shift-variant,
and the SPSF is not simply a function of the difference
(x - uy - v). As in Refs. 1 and 2, the parameters u and
v which locate the point-source input relative to the
sampling grid are the sample-scene phase parameters.
Because the sampling grid is periodic, it is sufficient to
restrict these parameters to the range 0 < u < 1, 0 < v
< 1, i.e., to restrict the point sourceto the sampling grid
cell defined by the vertices (0,0), (0,1), (1,1), and (1,0).
Furthermore, it is natural to assume that both u and v
are uniformly distributed random variables so that the
point source is equally likely to lie at any position within
the grid cell. Equation (3) describes the reconstructed
image of the point source for each possible value of (u,v)
and accounts for the combined effects of imaging,
sampling, and reconstruction. This stochastic ap-
proach simulates the process of imaging a scene which
is an ensemble of point sources randomly located in the
(x,y) plane and pairwise separated by at least several
sampling cells to avoid response overlap. An average
over all the point-source reconstructions yields a sta-
tistical estimate of the average system point-spread
function (ASPSF) which includes the combined effects
of imaging, sampling, and reconstruction.
From Eq. (3) and the assumption that the sample-
scene phase parameters are uniformly distributed, the
ASPSF is given by
ASPSF(x,y) = fS JS SPSF(x,y;u,v)dudv.
Since the system in Fig. 1 is linear, as is the averaging
process in Eq. (4), and since the ensemble of impulsive
inputs are equally likely to lie anywhere within a sam-
pling grid cell, it follows that
ASPSF(x,y) = {Frect (x- 2' Y -2) *h(xy)]
X comb(xy)l *r(x,y).
where
rect 1)=(1 O<x<1, 0 < y <1
~ - 2, t0 elsewhere.
(x
rec
Equation (5) is fundamental in that it represents the
average PSF of the entire system and, therefore, ac-
counts for the combined effects of imaging, sampling,
and reconstruction. Provided the PSF of the imaging
subsystem, h(x,y), and the PSF of the reconstruction
subsystem, r(x,y), are known in a common coordinate
system normalized to the sampling grid, the average
system PSF can be generated as follows: (1) convolve
h(x,y) with rect(xy) and center the result at (xy) =
Il(x,yl r(x,y)
(a) (b)
(3) ASPSF
(c)
Fig. 4. Average system PSF (c) corresponding to an idealized system
with a square-imaging subsystem PSF (a) and a bilinear image re-
construction PSF (b). All three PSFs are scaled relative to a common
sampling grid.
(0.5,0.5); (2) sample the result of step (1) at all integer
values of (xy); (3) reconstruct the discrete result of step
(2) by convolving with r(x,y).
Figure 4 illustrates the ASPSF for an idealized system
in which the imaging subsystem PSF [Fig. 4(a)] is a
square aperture function (i.e., the detector aperture
dominates the response of the imaging subsystem), and
image reconstruction [Fig. 4(b)] is bilinear interpo-
lation. In the situation illustrated, the IFOV of the
imaging subsystem is matched to the sampling grid so
that consecutive sampled IFOVs are just contiguous, a
common design for some line-scan systems and most
sensor array systems. As illustrated in this example,
the ASPSF [Fig.4(c)] is considerably broader than ei-
(4)
ther the imaging subsystem's PSF (whose width is de-
termined by the IFOV) or the reconstruction subsys-
tem's PSF (whosewidth is determined by the sampling
grid). This broadening is caused not only by the inev-
itable blurring introduced by the imaging and recon-
struction subsystems but also by the combined effects
of sampling and sample-scene phase averaging.
Although considerable insight into system response
can be gained from Eq. (5), this equation is more easily
(5)
analyzed and understood in the frequency domain. In
Sec. III of this paper we derive the Fourier transform
of Eq. (5), thereby using the concept of sample-scene
(6) phase averaging to provide an MTF analysis of the
system in Fig. 1.
Ill. Fourier Analysis
We define the system optical transfer function
(SOTF) as the Fourier transform of the system PSF
[Eq. (3)], i.e.,
= S
SOTF(A,v;u,v) ¢JSPSF(x,y;u,v)
X exp[-2iri(,ux + vy)]dxdy, (7)
where the spatial frequencies ,,v have units of cycles/
1 August 1984 / Vol. 23, No. 15 / APPLIED OPTICS 2575
 Imaging-sampling 1.0
I nput imaging I Reconstruction Response
I_Ima-ingo- Sampling ---- a

I I i j i)l
i(p.
Fig. 5. General sampled image system is amenable to MTF analysis
provided the imaging and sampling subsystems are combined to form
an imaging-sampling subsystem whose sample-scene phase-averaged
MTF is Ii(! t ,v)I.

"
sample interval. From the convolution theorem and M1F
the transform properties of the comb functions it fol- .5 1.0
lows that
SOTF(Mv;u,v) = P(,,v) L E exp -22ri[u(u - m)
m n

+ (v- n)]&lh(- m,v-n), \\\ \ tV)

(8)
where Ih and P are the Fourier transforms of h and r, \\1V-
respectively, i.e., i (u,v) is the OTF of the imaging sub- (-
(V 1) sic ( - 1) \\
system and P(,,v) is the reconstruction filter.
Just as the average system PSF [Eq. (4)] is the sam-
ple-scene phase-averaged system PSF, we define the
average system OTF (ASOTF) as the sample-scene -1.0'
phase-averaged system OTF, i.e., Fig. 6. Comparison of the image subsystem OTF 4(v) and the av-
erage MTF of the imaging-sampling subsystem It(v)l. Below the
ASOTF(,u,v) = ' Jo STF(ku,v;uv)dudv. (9) Nyquist frequency, 0.5 cycles/sample interval, the combined effects
Equation (9) can be reduced by combining Eqs. (8) and of imaging,sampling, and sample-scene phase averaging reduce the
MTF from (v) l to ji(v) j. Above the Nyquist frequency, spectrum
(9) and making use of the identity replication causes a spurious MTF increase.
0'exp(-2iruti)du = exp(-rti) sinc(Q), (10a)
where as usual nificance; it is a consequence of the coordinate con-
iismr ~(10b)
sinc(Q) -
ventions used in this paper which yield an ASPSF [see
Fig. 4(c)] centered at (xy) = (0.5,0.5)rather than at the
The result is the expression origin.1
In practice, the modulus of the system frequency re-
ASOTF(p,v) = P(!t,v) E L sponse is the quantity of primary interest. Therefore,
m n we define the sample-scene phase-averaged systems
X exp[-7r( - m + v - n)i sinc( - m) MTF (ASMTF) as the modulus of the average system
X sinc( - n) ( - m, v - n), (11) OTF [Eq. (12a)], i.e.,
which characterizes completely the sample-scene ASMTF(,4,v) = Ii(,u,v)jjP(,,v)j. (13)
phase-averaged system OTF in terms of the imaging Equation (13) is particularly significant because it re-
subsystem OTF and reconstruction filter. It can also veals that a sampled imaging system is amenable to
be verified directly that the Fourier transform of Eq. (5) MTF analysis provided the imaging and sampling
is Eq. (11). subsystems are combined into a single imaging-sam-
It is important to recognize that Eq. (11) can be pling subsystem whose sample-scene phase-averaged
written as MTF is It (y,v)I as illustrated in Fig. 5. This MTF is
ASOTF(uv) = i(,uvW(,e,v) exp[-r(,u + v)i], (12a) cascaded with the MTF of the reconstruction subsystem
to form the MTF of the entire system.
where
IV. Imaging-Sampling Subsystem MTF
= (-l)-+n sinc( - m)
m n Because the coordinate system in this paper is nor-
X sinc( - n) ( - m,v - n)
(12b)
malized so that both sampling intervals have unit length
(and so the Nyquist frequency is 0.5), the MTF of the
accounts for the combined effects of imaging, sampling, imaging-sampling subsystem Ii(yu,v) is determined by
and sample-scene phase averaging. As Eq. (12) reveals, the OTF of the imaging subsystem 1(4,v). In an un-
a frequency response analysis of the system in Fig. 1 normalized coordinate system, I t (yu,v)I would also de-
consists of cascading t (,uv) with the reconstruction filter pend explicitly on the size of both sampling intervals.
P(u,v) to yield the average system OTF. The phase Figure 6 illustrates (in 1-D)an imaging subsystem OTF
term exp[-7r( + )i] in Eq. (12a) is of no practical sig- and the corresponding average MTF of the imaging-
2576 APPLIED OPTICS/ Vol. 23, No. 15 / 1 August 1984
 1.0
OFF .5 - 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 vc =0.8
rl(v)
0 .5 1.0
v (12b) can be derived which provides insight into the
-cos (lr )
1.0
MIF
Clvi
0 .5 0 .5
v v
Fig. 7. Comparison of the optical subsystem OTF (a) with the as-
sociated imaging-sampling subsystem average MTF [(b) and (c)].
The dashed lines indicate in (b) the approximation lI(v)l (v)I for
v = 0.2, 0.3 and in (c) the approximation I (v) I I cos(rv) . In (b)
and (c) only the frequency band 0 S v 0.5 is illustrated; at higher
frequencies I (v) is periodic as indicated in Fig. 6.
sampling subsystem. As this figure illustrates, Itk(Mv)I
and h(,i,v)I are nearly identical only at very low
frequencies; at higher frequencies they differ signifi-
cantly because of three effects: (1) The infinite series
in Eq. (12b) represents frequency spectrum replication,
which is the inevitable consequence of periodic sam-
pling. 4 Because of this replication, I (pt,v)I is periodic,
while Ih (/,,v) I is not, resulting in a spurious undesirable
MTF increase at frequencies beyond 0.5. (2) If, as il-
lustrated, the effective cutoff for Ih (i,,v) I is typically not
sharp, and some significant image subsystem response
is present at frequencies above 0.5, adjacent terms in Eq.
(12b) will overlap. Since these adjacent terms have
opposite signs, cancellation will occur causing significant
modulation suppression, particularly at frequencies
close to 0.5. This suppression is a mixed blessing:
above the Nyquist frequency it is desirable; below the
Nyquist frequency it is not. (3) The sinc terms in Eq.
(12b) are the result of the combined effects of sampling
and sample-scene phase averaging; these terms are the
primary source of frequency suppression at interme-
diate frequencies.
To what extent does It(u,v)J depend on h(,uv)?
Figure 7 illustrates this dependence (in 1-D) for a family
of imaging subsystem OTFs [Fig. 7(a)] with effective
cutoff frequencies v, [i.e., h(v) = 0.5] between 0.2 and
0.8. In the discussion that follows it is convenient to
define the effective sampling passband as 0 < v < 0.5,
where 0.5 is the Nyquist frequency. For the OTFs il-
lustrated in Fig. 7, the effective passband of the imaging
subsystem 0 < v < vi and the effective passband of the
sampling subsystem are matched when v, = 0.5. As
Figs. 7(b) and (c) illustrate, the average imaging-sam-
pling subsystem MTF is relatively insensitive to changes
in the optical subsystem OTF if v, > 0.5. In general,
Ii (,v) I must be evaluated using Eq. (2b); this is par-
ticularly true when vP 0.5. However, it is instructive
to consider the two cases vc < 0.5 [Fig. 7(b)] and vc > 0.5
[Fig. 7(c)], for in each case an approximation to Eq.
MTF of the imaging-sampling process.
It is intuitive that, if vPis significantly <0.5, the fre-
quency response of the imaging subsystem will domi-
nate the frequency response of the composite imag-
ing-sampling subsystem, i.e.,
it(,uv) -; h (,'v) (14)
for u < 0.5, v < 0.5. In this case it can be seen that Eq.
(12b) reduces to Eq. (14), because at low frequencies the
sideband terms [correspondingto (m,n) is (0,0)]can be
ignored and sinc(A) sinc(v) 1. The dashed lines in
Fig. 7(b) illustrate (in 1-D) the validity of Eq. (14) for
two values of vc. If v, = 0.2, Eq. (14) is nearly exact, but
if v, is much larger than 0.2, Eq. (14) is not valid except
at very low frequencies. Of course, for any value of v,
Eq. (14) is not valid at frequencies above 0.5 because of
the periodicity of I (/Lv) I.
It is also intuitive that, if v, is significantly >0.5, the
frequency response of the composite imaging-sampling
subsystem will be dominated by what can be thought
of as the average effective MTF of the sampling sub-
system. This response can be determined from Eq.
(12b) by first recognizing that an equivalent represen-
tation for t(g,v) is
1 1
i(,u) = exp[7r(,u + v)il Z Z[rect(x - /2,y - 12 )*h(X,y)]mn
X exp[-2r(mp + nv)i], (15)
where [rect(x - 1
/2,y - 2)*h(xy)]mn denotes the value
of the convolution at x = m,y = n. The equivalence of
Eqs. (12b) and (15) can be verified by taking the inverse
Fourier transform of each. If vPis significantly larger
than the Nyquist frequency 0.5, the size of the imaging
subsystem PSF will be so small that [rect(x - 1 /2,y -
1/2)*h(xY)]mn will be effectively nonzero only at (m,n)
= (0,0), (0,1), (1,0), and (1,1). In addition, if h(x,y) is
symmetric in x and y, these four nonzero values will be
equal with a common value of 0.25. Thus Eq. (15) will
reduce to
i(uv) 1/4exp[7r(,u + v)i][1 + exp(-27rii)][1 + exp(-27rvi)],
(16a)
which reduces further to
i(yv) ~cos(7rb) cosOrv). (16b)
Equation (16b) is an approximation to Eq. (12b), which
is valid provided vi is significantly larger than 0.5.
1 August 1984 / Vol. 23, No. 15 / APPLIED OPTICS 2577
 1.0
MIF .5
.5 1.0
v
1.0
MIF 5
0 .5 1.0
Fig. 8. (a) Comparison of the average imaging-sampling subsystem
MTF Ii(v)I and the reconstruction system MTF I (v)I corresponding
(in 2-D) to bilinear interpolation. (b) Resulting average system MTF,
which is the product of I(v)I and IP(v)I.
Figure 7(c) illustrates the accuracy of this approxima-
tion; for vP= 0.8 the approximation is nearly exact.
Again, it should be emphasized that, in the situation
when the effective passbands of the imaging and sam-
pling subsystems are nearly matched, neither Eq. (14)
nor Eq. (16b) is a particularly good approximation.
Instead, Eq. (12b), or equivalently Eq. (15), should be
used to accurately calculate the average frequency re-
sponse of the imaging-sampling subsystem.
V. Reconstruction Subsystem MTF
It is well-known that ideal image reconstruction is
accomplished with a low-pass filter whose response is
one within the sampling passband and zero elsewhere.
However, the reconstruction functions commonly used
in practice are spatially limited, and at best their re-
sponse is only a crude approximation to the ideal. That
is, they do not have either a flat response at low
frequencies or a sharp frequency cutoff, and they have
a significant response at frequencies above 0.5. This
is illustrated in Fig. 8 for a reconstruction filter which
corresponds (in 1-D) to bilinear interpolation. Al-
though there are other practical reconstruction filters
with somewhat better frequency characteristics,1 5 the
use of bilinear interpolation in this illustration is ap-
propriate because it is a standard reconstruction tech-
nique which enjoys widespread use in remote-sensing
applications where reconstructed images are routinely
resampled onto different coordinate grids.
2578 APPLIED OPTICS/ Vol. 23, No. 15 / 1 August 1984
1.0
ASMIF .5
0 .5 1.0
v
Fig. 9. Comparison of the average system MTF for two recon-
struction filters: linear and parametric cubic convolution (PCC) with
a = -0.5. For comparison, the ASMTF associated with ideal re-
construction [r(x) = sinc(x)] is also shown. Below the Nyquist fre-
quency (0.5), PCC is clearly superior to linear interpolation.
Figure 8(b) illustrates the average system MTF (in
1-D) which is the product of I(Eu,v)i and IP(/,,v)I.The
nonideal response of the reconstruction filter leads to
two distinctly different effects: (1) within the sampling
passband the nonideal (z 1) response has the net effect
of reducing system MTF and creating additional blur
in the reconstructed image; (2) beyond the sampling
passband the nonideal (iz 0) response fails to suppress
any spurious system response created by sampling and
out-of-band imaging subsystem response. It is this
latter effect which produces aliasing in, the recon-
structed image if the scene has significant energy at
frequencies outside the sampling passband.
In a recent article,1 5 the authors discussed a new al-
gorithm, parametric cubic convolution (PCC), which
can be implemented efficiently and yet contains a pa-
rameter a which can be adjusted to tailor the MTF of
the reconstruction filter. For a particular choice of this
parameter, a = -0.5, the MTF is nearly flat at low
frequencies and effectively zero for frequencies beyond
1.0. Figure 9 illustrates the ASMTF improvement
which is possible if PCC (with a = -0.5) is used in place
of bilinear interpolation for image reconstruction. The
superior ASMTF achieved with PCC has been shown
to produce reconstructed images with less radiometric
error than those produced with bilinear interpolation
and standard bicubic convolution.2
VI. Example: Landsat MSS
The results of this paper are applicable to any line-
scan or sensor-array imaging system provided it is
characterized by Eq. (2). As an illustrative example,
these results will be applied to the Landsat multispec-
tral scanner system (MSS). This example was chosen
because the MSS is a familiar and important line-scan
imaging system whose multispectral images have been
used in a multitude of remote-sensing applications, and
yet, to date, a comprehensive system analysis of the
MSS frequency response has not been published.
Fortunately, the paper by Slater1 6 and the four re-
sponses that followed by Colvocoresses 17
Thompson, 18
Slater,19 and Friedmann20 provided all the information
 1.0
Imageformingoptics
MIF .5 i …_ -- Scanning aperture
I (a)
Nyquist I I
Imagingsubsystem
frequency I
lI
Iw I ~ Butterworth filter introduces an undesirable non-neg-
0 .01
v' cycles/n
1.0
MTF .5
/ Butterworth
.005 .01 .015
i' cycles/m
Fig. 10. Imaging subsystem MTF of the Landsat MSS. In the
along-track direction, the frequency response is significantly
I undersampled.
and data needed to prepare this example. As is com-
mon in remote sensing, all the MSS system parameters
are referenced to equivalent ground-projected dimen-
sions at nadir. Thus, for example, 76
ground-projected area of the IFOV.
Scene radiance entering the MSS is first low-pass
filtered by the imaging-forming optics whose PSF can
be approximated by a Gaussian with a 30-m blur cir-
cle.1 6 The image-forming optics is followed by a scan-
ning aperture (formed by optical fibers in the focal
plane) which has the effect of convolving the output of
the imaging imaging-forming optics with the IFOV.
Thus the combined effect of the imaging-forming optics
and the scanning aperture is to low-pass filter (i.e., blur)
the input scene equally in both the along-scan (x) and
the along-track (y) directions.
The scanning aperture has the effect of sampling in
the along-track direction with an 81.5-m sampling in-
terval. It is a consequence of the MSS design that ad-
jacent sampled IFOVs in the along-track direction
cannot overlap and, in fact, they are not even contiguous
because of the cladding that surrounds the optical fi-
bers. 16
As the scan mirror of the MSS oscillates, the analog
output of the detectors is electronically processed with
a low-pass three-pole Butterworth filter and then
sampled at a rate corresponding to a ground-projected
58-m sampling interval in the along-scan direction.
The electronic signal processing in the along-scan di-
rection has led to some confusion in the remote-sensing
literature, apparently for the following reasons: (1) The
Butterworth filter produces significant low-pass fil-
tering and thus additional image blur, but only in the
along-scan direction. (2) Unlike the PSFs for the
image-forming optics and the scanning aperture, the
PSF for the Butterworth filter does not have spatial
Along-track symmetry, and, as a result, its Fourier transform is
complex; that is, the three-pole Butterworth filter has
MTF
an amplitude response and a phase response. At low
spatial frequencies the phase response is linear, but at
higher spatial frequencies it is not, and, as a result, the
.02 ligible scene-dependent lag in the along-scan direction
as illustrated by Thompson. 1 8 (3) The analog-to-digital
conversion (sampling) in the along-scan direction re-
quires some nonzero integration time and thus intro-
eforming
optics
duces some additional image blur. However, this time
(80 nsec) is so small that the resultant image blur is
negligible, i.e., it corresponds to <0.5 m in the along-
Along-scan scan direction. 1 6
Il)
In summary, the spatial-frequency response of the
MSS imaging subsystem is given by
2
h(,,v) = exp[-(kh.,) ] sinc(s.,)fib(kbA)
2
filter
X exp[-(kv) ] sinc(syv), (17a)
.02 where ib is the (complex) three-pole Butterworth
transfer function defined by21
2) - i(2 - W2)
(1- 2W
Iib(@)= 6 (c = kbat), (17b)
1+ W
and the constants are determined from those published
by Friedmann 20 :
76.2
31.1 76.2 138 31.1
58 58 58 81.5 81.5
X 76 m is the
The first three terms in Eq. (17a) account for the spa-
tial-frequency response of the imaging subsystem in the
along-scan direction, and the last two terms account for
the response in the along-track direction.
Figure 10 illustrates the MTF (I F(,u,v)I)of the MSS
imaging subsystem in unnormalized spatial frequencies
1u',v', where it' = A158 [cycles/m] and v' = v/81.5 [cy-
cles/m]. For reference, the Nyquist frequencies (163)-i
= 0.00613 cycles/m and (116)-i = 0.00862 cycles/m in
the along-track and along-scan directions, respectively,
are also indicated. In the along-track direction [Fig.
10(a)], the effective cutoff frequency of the imaging
subsystem (0.00765 cycles/m) is larger than the Nyquist
frequency corresponding to the case illustrated in Fig.
7(c). In contrast, for the along-scan direction [Fig.
10(b)], the effective cutoff frequency (0.0065cycles/m)
is smaller than the Nyquist frequency corresponding to
the case illustrated in Fig. 7(b).
Figure 11 illustrates the average imaging-sampling
subsystem MTF (It(,i,v)l) of the MSS. In the along-
track direction [Fig. 11(a)], sampling produces a sub-
stantial MTF reduction (the effective cutoff frequency
is 0.0041 cycles/m) because the sampling passband is
significantly smaller than the imaging subsystem
passband. This mismatch of passbands is, of course,
an inevitable consequence of the MSS design; in retro-
spect, it could have been avoided by shaping the scan-
1 August 1984 / Vol. 23, No. 15 / APPLIED OPTICS 2579
 1.0
Average
systemMTF,along-track
Averageimaglng-saipllirg
A subsystem
MTF Average
systemMTF,along-scan

i X I: \ / - I magingsubsystemMTF
MIF .5 ASMTF
I \ Nyquist Along-track
I requency

. -.I . .I _I| ve , |. @ | |
JJJI § I
---
0 .01 .02 0 .005 .010 .015
v' cyrles/m Spatialfreauency.cycles/m
1.0 Fig. 12. Average system MTF of the Landsat MSS, including the
effects of bilinear image reconstruction. Frequency response is sig-
Averagelinaging-sampling
subsystem
MTF nificantly better in the along-scan direction.
,,x Imagingsubsystem
MIF

MIF .5
:\ \ Along-scan
I \~~~~~~~~b

Nyquist
frequency

0 .01 .02
Fig. 11. Average imaging-sampling subsystem MTF of the Landsat
MSS. In the along-track direction, undersampling has produced
large MTF reductions; in the along-scan direction that is not the
case.

ning aperture in the along-track direction and by

staggering the optical fibers in the focal plane to yield
overlapping consecutive IFOVs (see Refs. 22 and 23).
In the along-scan direction [Fig. 11(b)] sampling
produces very little MTF reduction (the effective cutoff
frequency is 0.0058 cycles/m) because the sampling
passband is larger than the imaging subsystem pass-
band. This more desirable relation between passbands
is the result of the low-pass electronic filter and the
overlapping of consecutive IFOVs along the line scan.
As Fig. 5 illustrates, to determine the MTF of the
MSS system (including ground processing), it is nec-
essary to cascade the MTFs in Fig. 11 with the MTF of
the filter used for image reconstruction (i.e., resam-
pling); for this example, we have chosen bilinear inter-
polation. The 2-D reconstruction filter associated with
bilinear image resampling is
2 2
P(liv) = sinc (Ae)sinc (v).
The result of cascading this filter (see Fig. 8) with the
MTF in Fig. 11 is the average system MTF illustrated
in Fig. 12. For comparison the ASMTF in both direc-
tions is plotted on a common frequency axis; this com-
parison illustrates the superior MTF of the MSS in the
along-scan direction.
Figure 12 reveals that the Landsat MSS system
produces images which are somewhat more blurred in
the along-track direction. That is to be expected be-
cause, even though the IFOV is square, there are 1.31
samples per IFOV in the along-scan direction and just
Fig. 13. Simulated image of a target as it would be formed by a
system whose EIFOV is as indicated. The additional blur associated
with the larger asymmetric EIFOV is much more evident than the
associated asymmetry.
0.93 samples per IFOV in the along-track direction.
However, this asymmetric blurring is not readily ap-
parent in visual examinations of Landsat images.17
Why? To answer this question, we need to relate the
MTF to spatial dimensions which are a measure of the
averagesystem PSF size. Such a measure was proposed
in 1973 by a NASA working group1 0 and later refined
by Slater"1 ; it is the effective IFOV (EIFOV). In the
notation of this paper,
(EIFOV)aiong-scan= I-- = 104 m, (19a)
2A'c
(18)
(EIFOV)' 1 = 148 m,
=g-track (19b)
x~~along-track 2v~
where Ac and v are the effective system cutoff
frequencies, i.e., where Muc and 'c are the spatial
frequencies (cycles/m) at which the ASMTF (Fig. 12)
is reduced to 0.5. Thus the combined effects of imag-
ing, sampling, and resampling produce on the average
a rectangular EIFOV which is 104 X 148 m. For most
targets this rectangular EIFOV is not sufficiently
asymmetric to produce an evident asymmetric target
blur. We demonstrate this with Fig. 13 using a target
suggested by Colvocoresses.1 7 The target is in the

2580 APPLIED OPTICS/ Vol. 23, No. 15 / 1 August 1984

 Alony-track
148 In
104 in
Fig. 14. (Sample-scene) phase-averaged EIFOV of the Landsat
MSS: (a) based on only the scanning aperture; (b) based on the
scanning aperture, image-forming optics, and electronic filter; (c)
including also the effects of sampling; (d) the system EIFOV with
bilinear image reconstruction; (e) the system EIFOV using PCC
(a = 0.5) in place of bilinear image reconstruction.
upper left, and the object in the upper right is the image
of this target as it would be formed by convolution with
the square EIFOV indicated. The two objects in the
lower left and right are more blurred images of this
target as they would be formed by convolving with the
larger rectangular 104- X 148-m EIFOV. Two orthog-
onal orientations of this rectangular EIFOV are shown
to illustrate, when compared with the object in the
upper right, just how little asymmetry is present in MSS
images of this target. In addition, the actual appear-
ance of this object in MSS images would be further de-
graded by system noise, and, as a result, any asymme-
tries would be even less evident than that illustrated.
It should be possible to demonstrate the asymmetric
blurring of the MSS by imaging a point source, for ex-
ample, a small highly reflective mirror, as was done in
the Shadow Mountain Eye Project.2 4 However, it is
misleading to consider just one or two point source im-
ages because of the sample-scene phase phenomena il-
lustrated in Fig. 3. If an ensemble of properly regis-
tered point-source images were averaged, the result
would be the ASPSF, and the magnitude of its Fourier
transform would be the ASMTF. This ASMTF should
be asymmetric as indicated in Fig. 12. Unfortunately,
to the best of our knowledge, such an analysis has never
been published.
The results of this system MTF analysis for the
Landsat MSS are summarized in Fig. 14 in terms of
ground-projected EIFOVs using Eq. (19) and the vari-
ous effective cutoff frequencies illustrated in Figs.
10-12. In each case, in the discussion that follows, the
EIFOV dimension in the along-scan direction will be
listed first. However, it is first necessary to recognize
that, because Slater's definitional of the EIFOV is based
on a 50% MTF reduction level and because the solution
to sinc(v) = 0.5 is v 0.60 rather than v = 0.50, the
EIFOV of the 76- X 76-m scanning aperture is just 63 X
63 m. Thus, all the EIFOVs listed in the next para-
graph and illustrated in Fig. 14 can be meaningfully
compared in a relative sense, but some might argue that
all are too small by some common multiplicative
factor.
If it is assumed that the system response is just the
image subsystem response (Fig. 10), the (erroneous)
conclusion would be that the EIFOV is 77 X 65 m.
Comparing this EIFOV with the scanning aperture 63-
X 63-m EIFOV, we see that the imaging-forming optics
cause very little increase in EIFOV. However, the
electronic filter causes (on the average) an increase of
-12 m but only in the line-scan direction. The EIFOV
corresponding to the average imaging-sampling sub-
system response (Fig. 11) is 86 X 122 m. Thus the
(average) effect of sampling is to increase the EIFOV
by just 9 m in the along-scan direction. However, in the
along-track direction the EIFOV increase is 57 m, il-
lustrating dramatically the consequences of under-
sampling. Finally, since the system EIFOV is 104 X 148
m, we see that bilinear image resampling yields an ad-
ditional EIFOV increase of 18 m in the along-scan di-
rection and 26 m in the along-track direction. This
additional EIFOV increase can be reduced by using
reconstruction filters with superior frequency response.
For example, using PCC with a =-0.5 in place of bi-
linear interpolation (see Fig. 9) yields a smaller system
EIFOV of 93 X 132 m. However, image resampling
with PCC involves computations with a 4- X 4-pixel
mask; for bilinear resampling the pixel mask is just 2 X
2. Thus the superior ASMTF (and smaller system
EIFOV) associated with PCC image reconstruction is
achieved at the cost of increased digital processing.
VII. Summary
This paper has presented a general approach to de-
termining the frequency response of a sampled imaging
system. The approach accounts for the local system
shift variance induced by sampling and the combined
effects of image formation, sampling, and image re-
construction by using an ensemble of point-source
system inputs and averaging over all possible point-
source locations. The resultant expression for the
average system MTF has general applicability and
provides a numerical measure of system performance
which is easily evaluated in either of two equivalent
forms.
As an example, the average system MTF of the
Landsat MSS was analyzed. The results of this analysis
provide for the first time a comprehensive examination
of all the interacting factors which contribute to the
total MSS frequency response. The results were
summarized in terms of a system EIFOV which turned
out to be significantly larger than the commonly ac-
cepted IFOV, particularly in the along-track direction
where the effect of undersampling contributes markedly
to an MTF reduction and resultant increase in image
blur.
This paper is based on one presented at the Second
Topical Meeting on Coherent Laser Radar, Aspen,
Colo., 1-4 Aug. 1983.
1 August 1984 / Vol. 23, No. 15 / APPLIED OPTICS 2581
 References
13. R. J. Arguello, Proc. Soc. Photo-Opt. Instrum. Eng. 271, 86
(1981).
14. J. D. Gaskill,Linear Systems, Fourier Transforms, and Optics
1. S. K. Park and R. A. Schowengerdt, Appl. Opt. 21, 3142 (1982). (Wiley, New York, 1978).
2. R. A. Schowengerdt, S. K. Park, and R. Gray, "Topics in the 15. S. K. Park and R. A. Schowengerdt, Comput. Vision Graphics and
Two-Dimensional Sampling and Reconstruction of Images," Int. Image Process. 23, 258 (1983).
J. Remote Sensing, to be published. 16. P. N. Slater, Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sensing 45, 1479
3. W. Wittenstein, J. C. Fontanella, A. R. Newberry, and J. Baars, (1979). .,
Opt. Acta 29, 41 (1982). 17. A. P. Colvocoresses, Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sensing 46,765
4. D. P. Peterson and D. Middleton, Inf. Control 5, 279 (1962). (1980).
5. 0. H. Schade, in Perception of Displayed Information, L. M. 18. L. L. Thompson, Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sensing 46, 766
Biberman, Ed. (Plenum, New York, 1973), pp. 233-278. (1980).
6. R. Legault, Perception of Displayed Information, L. M. Biber- 19. P. N. Slater, Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sensing 46, 767
man, Ed. (Plenum, New York, 1973), pp. 279-312. (1980).
7. W. K. Pratt, Digital Image Processing (Wiley, New York, 20. D. E. Friedmann, Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sensing 46, 1541
1978). (1980).
8. W. D. Montgomery, J. Opt. Soc. Am., 65, 700 (1975). 21. D. E. Johnson, Introduction to Filter Theory (Prentice-Hall,
9. D. F. Barbe and S. B. Campana, in Advances in Image Pickup Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1976).
and Display, Vol. 3, B. Kazan, Ed. (Academic Press, New York, 22. S. J. Katzberg, F. 0. Huck, and S. D. Wall, Appl. Opt. 12, 1054
1977), pp. 171-296. (1973).
10. Advanced Scanners and Imaging Systems for Earth Observations, 23. F. 0. Huck, S. K. Park, and N. Halyo, Appl. Opt. 19, 2174
NASA Spec. Publ. 335, (1973), pp. 104-109. (1980).
11. P. N. Slater, Opt. Acta 22, 277 (1975). 24. D. S. Simonett, Manual of Remote Sensing (American Society
12. J. C. Lansing and R. W. Cline, Opt. Eng. 14, 312 (1975). of Photogrammetry, 1983), Chap. 1, pp. 21, 22.

Jack Parmley
McPherson Instruments

John Weis
Northrup Corp.

OSA 1983
New Orleans
Stanley S. Ballard
Photos: F. S. Harris, Jr.
U. Florida

2582 APPLIED OPTICS/ Vol. 23, No. 15 / 1 August 1984