Stephan Finkensieper
Stephan Finkensieper
@ninahakansson might be interested in this, too :)
Thanks @rouault for your swift reply! I can understand your position, we'll discuss it downstream then.
Yes I hope so, too :) And I completely agree with your reasoning, that's why I asked the PROJ developers in the first place. Making this behaviour optional sounds like...
@snowman2 For sure! I don't have much experience with Cython, but so I can improve my knowledge.
Alright, sounds good!
Thanks for looking into this @BENR0! I agree that the more complete name is better. Regarding the attribute name: `sensor` is certainly more consistent in the Satpy world. You could...
> In this PR I just added writing of this attribute to the cf writer because the cf reader complains otherwise Yes that's good, reader and writer should be consistent!...
On [NOAA's GOES Calibration](https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Operations/GOES/calibration/goes-vis-ch-calibration.html) page they call the uncorrected value "reflectance factor" or "effective albedo" with the additional explanation: > The value of 1 corresponds to the radiance of a...
@frarue I'm not sure there is such a factor for each sensor. In some places I have seen lookup tables being used for calibration. What about making both datasets available:...
A separate ``standard_name`` is probably the more pragmatic solution than adding a new calibration. Users performing a qualitative study wont't care so much. And users performing a quantitative study will...