nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Focal statistics problem values

RobertoFilloramo

Hi,

I am using ArcGIS 10.1 and I am working with the Focal Statistics tool in order to get a smoother surface (I set "neighborhood rectangle 3x3 cell units" and as statistics type "mean"). The obtained result it looks like not so fine since the focal st. values seem increased respect to the input raster (see figures), but I don't understand the reason. The doubt arose making some comparison with other results in which the focal st. raster values are smaller than the input raster.

Could someone help me?

Thank you

Focal_Sample.jpg

Find more posts tagged with

Accepted answers

All comments

JuanLaguna

Hi Roberto.

I'm sorry you're having some difficulty. Let's see if we can help get this sorted out.

First off, I notice the your input raster is identified as a 64-bit double-precision TIFF. Is this intentional? I don't often come across this particular type of Tiff data. If you use the Copy Raster GP tool to make a new version of the data with the Pixel Type set to a regular 32-bit float, does the resulting raster have the same outcome when used in the Focal Statistics tool?

If you convert your input raster to an Esri GRID format raster and use that as input, does the problem recur?

I did some testing with some local data that I mapped to a value range similar to what you report, but could not produce any unexpected results. Would it be possible to provide a copy of your data to test with? If you could prepare a smaller section of it that still demonstrates the problem, then it would facilitate the investigation.

Thanks,

Juan

DanPatterson_Retired

Roberto, the nodata value may not have been set, it doesn't mean that there are areas that shouldn't be treated as nodata.

If this is a dem, it would be unlikely that you would have '0' unless your area is at sea level. If it is some other file type (ie landuse), then It would be useful to know what the areas of low value (near or at 0) represent

RobertoFilloramo

Concerning the "nodata value in the input rasters set", I meant the "ignore_nodata" set (optional) in the focal st. window tool.

Regarding the "...05.tif" file, it showed no nodata, as you can see in the fig.

Therefore, according to what you wrote the nodata lack in the input file ("...05.tif") may be the problem, at this point. In order to get a smoother surface, how could I solve this issue?

I wanted a smoother surface to use it as input for the least cost path analysis, in order to avoid that the process could take into account small and medium surface variations/modern structures (such as a street or a roundabout) during the path estimation.

DanPatterson_Retired

What is the nodata value in the input rasters set to in all cases?

And can you confirm that you have nodata areas in the rasters especially the ...05.tif file. That one may be the culprit

RobertoFilloramo

Thank you Lance Cole‌ and Dan Patterson‌ for your response. As suggested I tried to compare the focal st. results ignoring the NODATA, but in both cases the values were bigger than the input raster (see fig. "FocalSt_IgnorNoData" stands for the Ignore NoData flagged option, contrary to "FocalSt_NoData").

For what concerns the holes/voids, I used the Fill tool. The output raster had bigger values (see fig.), I presumed because of the filling operation, but using the new output for the focal st. I noticed the same problem (see fig.).

I am just wondering now if the problem is since the raster file "ALS_Erwitte_geotif_05m.tif" was generated in CouldCompare using nearly 8 get-together tiles. Each tile was represented by a .csv containing the coordinates points of the entire area.

What do you think?

Thank you!

DanPatterson_Retired

from Pro but the same for Map

Focal Statistics—Help | ArcGIS Desktop

The last optional parameter can have an effect on the results.

ignore_nodata (Optional)

compare the results with this set to DATA (default) versus NODATA

LanceCole

Roberto,

Seeing the zero (0) in your data makes me wonder if you may have holes or voids in your original data. You may want to try and combine focal statistics with another function such as Elevation Void Fill, Fill, or possibly even Nibble depending upon your data type.

Join the Conversation

Signed in members can post, follow updates, and more. New here? Register a free account.

Quick Links

Community Help
Find useful guides, FAQs, and documents to help you navigate and make the most of Esri Community.