Multispectral Imagery

Multispectral Imagery

This is a sample lesson page from the Certificate of Achievement in Weather Forecasting offered by the Penn State Department of Meteorology and Atmospheric Science. Any questions about this program can be directed to: Steve Seman

Prioritize...

In this section, you should focus on the interpretation of multispectral imagery, and be able to identify clouds as low, middle, or high based on common color schemes used in the three-channel color composites shown in this section. Furthermore, you should be able to use multispectral imagery to identify the low-level circulation of a tropical cyclone when it's exposed.

Read...

Throughout your studies, we've looked at several different types of satellite imagery, each using a different wavelength of electromagnetic radiation to produce an image. Notably, each type of "conventional" satellite imagery (visible versus infrared, for example) uses a single wavelength (or "channel") to produce the image. But, as we already know, using different types of imagery (different "channels" from the satellite's imager) helps forecasters gain different information (about upper-level winds versus lower-level winds in the case of cloud-drift winds, for example). It turns out that combining multiple channels on the same image can sometimes help forecasters better identify certain features and cloud characteristics. Let's explore these "multi-channel," or more formally, multispectral images, which use multiple wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Polar-orbiting satellites have long played a pivotal role in remote sensing of tropical weather systems using a multispectral approach. You may recall that polar orbiters fly at much lower altitudes (opens in a new window) than geostationary satellites and are "sun synchronous" (meaning that they ascend or descend over a given point on the Earth's surface at approximately the same time each day). Multiple fleets of polar orbiting satellites currently circle the Earth (more in the Explore Further section below). Instruments aboard these satellites collect data at multiple wavelengths ("channels") across the visibile and infrared portions of the electromagnetic spectrum, which allows us to collect information about day and nighttime cloud cover, snow and ice coverage, sea-surface temperatures, and land-water boundaries. However, with improvements in geostationary satellites, including better resolution, they're also a common source of multispectral satellite composites. By the way, if you're interested in exploring the topic of satellite resolution in more detail, check out the Explore Further section below.

One product that has long been common in tropical forecasting is a three-channel color composite like the one below captured by a polar orbiting satellite, showing Category 5 Hurricane Katrina at 2011Z on August 28, 2005. The yellow shading in Katrina's eye really stands out, doesn't it? 

Three-channel color composite of Hurricane Katrina at 2011Z on August 28, 2005.

A "true color" (referring to the ocean and land on the map background) three-channel color composite of Hurricane Katrina captured by a polar-orbiting satellite at 2011Z on August 28, 2005. At the time, Katrina was a Category 5 storm with estimated maximum sustained wind speeds greater than 160 mph.
Credit: CIMSS

That yellowish shading corresponds to low-topped, relatively warm clouds within Katrina's eye (remember that the eye of a hurricane often contains low clouds). Meanwhile the thick, tall convective clouds with cold tops surrounding the eye appear bright-white on this three-channel color composite, and high, thin cirrus clouds appear blue/white.

How does it work?

How are useful color composites like this one created? The process can vary depending on the type of multispectral image, but most commonly, three individual channels are combined, with a filter being applied to each. To illustrate, let's walk through the scheme used to make the image above. It's not really all that complex. First, we start with a standard grayscale visible image, near (or "shortwave") infrared, and infrared images (check out the top row of satellite images in the graphic below). Next, we apply a red filter to the visible image, a green filter to the near-infrared image, and a blue filter to the infrared image, and we get strange looking satellite images like the ones in the second row of the graphic below. But, if we combine those "false-color" images together, we get a three-channel color composite!

Flow chart showing how multispectral images are created
When standard grayscale visible, near infrared, and infrared images have red, green, and blue filters added to them, respectively, and the false-color images are combined, the result is a three-channel color composite.
Credit: NOAA / David Babb @ Penn State is licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0 (opens in a new window) (opens in a new window)

Breaking down this three-channel color composite helps us to understand why high, thin clouds appear in blue on the final product like the image of Hurricane Katrina -- they're brightest on the infrared channel (which had blue hues added to it). Meanwhile, tall, thick convective clouds that show up bright white on the final product are bright on the individual images from all three channels, and low clouds appear yellow because they're brightest on the visible (red) and near-infrared (green) images. The combination of green and red provides the yellow shading (if you're curious about why yellow results, you may want to read about additive color models (opens in a new window)).

This final color scheme (yellow for low clouds, white for tall, thick convective clouds, and blue for thinner cirrus) isn't universal, however. For another example of a three-channel color composite from a geostationary satellite, check out the image below. This particular image shows Tropical Storm Arthur near the Texas Coast on June 17, 2026. This composite was created using two different visible channels and one infrared channel. Using these channels, this type of composite (formally called a "Day Cloud Phase RGB") helps to discern between low clouds composed of liquid water (in blue), clouds where ice crystals are starting to form (in green), tall, convective clouds (yellow), and thinner cirrus clouds (reddish-orange). Given the presence of thick convective clouds and cirrus in the large convective cluster over the Gulf, the clouds take on a a reddish-yellowish appearance.

Multispectral image of Tropical Storm Arthur along the Texas Coast
On this three-channel color composite image of Tropical Storm Arthur, low clouds composed of liquid appear blue. Clouds where ice crystals are starting to form (typically in the middle troposphere) appear in green, while tall, thick convective clouds appear yellow, and cirrus appear reddish-orange.
Credit: College of DuPage

At this time, Arthur was a highly sheared system, with all of the deep convection displaced well to the east of the low-level center (the surface center of low pressure is marked with an "L."). The fact that lower clouds comprised of liquid drops appear in blue on this type of image helps forecasters quickly recognize the displacement between the low-level center and the deep convective clouds (appearing reddish yellow) over the Gulf. At the time, Arthur was obviously not a "healthy" storm.

The multispectral approach ultimately made it much easier to diagnose cloud types and discern the low-level circulation from the rest of the storm than any single visible image or infrared image. The image slider below helps to illustrate this. The first image is a conventional visible image of Arthur at the same time as the multispectral image above. If you advance the slider to the second image, you'll see the corresponding enhanced infrared image, on which it's very difficult to pick out circulation in the low clouds. Finally, advancing the slider to the final image shows the multispectral image above for comparison. The striking color contrasts help forecasters get a quick read on the sheared structure of the storm.

A visible image shows the cloud pattern associated with Tropical Storm Arthur on June 17, 2026. Advancing the image slider to the next image shows the corresponding infrared satellite image, which highlights the cold cloud tops of deep convection very well, but doesn't show the low clouds near the center of circulation very well. Finally, advancing to the third image shows the corresponding multispectral image, which highlights the low, liquid clouds near the center in blue, and the tall, cold clouds associated with deep convection to its east in yellows and reddish-orange.
Credit: College of DuPage

I should point out that many types of multispectral images exist, beyond three-channel color composites like the ones I've already described. Indeed, another example is so-called "sandwich" imagery, which combines one visible channel and one infrared channel to provide the high-resolution details of visible imagery, along with color enhancements to accentuate cold cloud tops (from infrared imagery). The result can be a visually spectacular image where you can see the bubbly texture of cumulonimbus clouds along with infrared color enhancement (see Arthur's corresponding sandwich image (opens in a new window), for example). So, I've just scratched the surface here (we haven't covered all types of multispectral images), but hopefully you can see how the multispectral approach can make it easier to pick out specific details of tropical cyclone structure and discern details about cloud type and altitude, even though color conventions may vary.

Specifically, when a tropical cyclone is highly sheared like Arthur was, the color scheme of three-channel color composites can really expose the structure of the storm. For another striking example, check out this loop of three-channel color composite images of a weak tropical depression (opens in a new window) in the Atlantic. Not long after the storm was classified as a depression, the deep convective clouds (bright white) got displaced to the northwest thanks to strong southeasterly wind shear. The yellow swirl of clouds left behind clearly marks the storm's low-level circulation. The completely exposed low-level circulation signaled that intensification wasn't in the cards for this storm (in fact, it never did become a tropical storm and dissipated entirely a couple of days later). 

There's no doubt that this multispectral approach to satellite imagery can produce some striking and very insightful images, and in case you're wondering, the false-color approach of multispectral images has a number of other applications. The Hubble and James Webb Space Telescopes (opens in a new window) employ a similar approach, as do polar-orbiting satellites that study features on the Earth's surface. But, for analyzing tropical cyclones, the uses of multiple wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation don't stop with what we've covered here. It turns out that other remote sensing equipment aboard polar-orbiting satellites can detect things like rainfall rates, temperatures, and wind speeds by employing different wavelengths of radiation. We'll begin our investigation of those topics in the next section.

Explore Further...

Multispectral Satellite Images Online

Where can you find multispectral images online? Many interfaces that offer conventional visible, infrared, and water vapor images also offer multispectral images. You may find these resources to be of interest:

Polar-Orbiting Satellite Programs

If you're interested in learning about some major satellite programs (you'll encounter some of the instruments aboard satellites in these programs in the remaining sections of this lesson), you may like exploring the following links:

Among the instruments aboard these polar orbiters that contribute to the creation of multispecral imagery are the Visibile Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) and the METImage instrument. If you're interested in learning more about the details of these instruments or its applications, you can read more about VIIRS (opens in a new window) and METImage (opens in a new window).

More on satellite resolution...

The word "resolution" came up a few times in this section (and has other times in your previous studies). It's very common for camera or smartphone manufacturers to boast about resolution in terms of a number of "pixels" (even though that's not a true measure of resolution). So, what is "resolution" anyway? The short video below demonstrates in the context of satellite imagery.

Satellite Resolution (4:34)

Transcript: Satellite Resolution (4:34)

Satellite resolution refers to the minimum spacing between two objects, such as clouds, that allows the objects to appear as two distinct objects on the image. The smallest individual elements of an image are pixels, so your ability to see the separation between two objects on a satellite image ultimately depends on at least one pixel lying between the objects. If you zoomed in close enough on a satellite image, the details would look all boxy like they do in the bottom right inset image here. Zooming in enough makes the clouds look highly pixelated, but whether the clouds can be resolved just depends on whether there's a separation of at least one-pixel between two clouds. If not, the objects would simply blend together, and can't be resolved.

To get a visual idea of how satellite resolution works, check out this simulated visible satellite image. Our simulated image is very zoomed in, so the clouds look very pixelated. On this image, the two clouds can be resolved – the image shows two distinct clouds, A and B, because the distance between them exceeds one pixel. 

If we pretend that each pixel’s width is 1 kilometer, then these two clouds are a little more than 3 kilometers apart.

Now what happens if the clouds are closer together? Now our two clouds, A and B, are still separate clouds, but now the distance between them is less than one pixel. Parts of each cloud lie in adjacent pixels. 

If we still assume that our pixels are 1 kilometer wide, the two clouds might be a little less than a half kilometer apart. On our simulated visible image now the clouds blend together as one cloud because they can no longer be resolved. So, even though the breadth of each cloud on the simulator is greater than one pixel – each one happens to be close to 3 pixels wide, we can’t resolve them as distinct objects at this resolution because the distance between them is less than one pixel. So, if our pixels are 1 kilometer wide, can we broadbrush things and just say that as long as clouds are more than 1 kilometer apart, they can be resolved? 

Not really. Imagine if clouds A and B drifted a bit apart, such that the edge of cloud A was on the left side of one pixel and the edge of cloud B was on the right side of the adjacent pixel. First, you might notice that, even though the size of the clouds didn’t change here, each one is now spread across parts of four pixels instead of 3, because their position changed within the pixels. 

But,  even though the clouds are now closer to 2 kilometers apart, because parts of them still occupy adjacent pixels, they still couldn’t be resolved and would blend together as one cloud on a satellite image. After doing some math, if our pixels are 1 kilometer by 1 kilometer, we can’t guarantee that two different clouds can be completely resolved unless they are almost 3 kilometers apart, in a scenario where, say the edge of one cloud is in the southwest corner of one pixel and the edge of another cloud is in the northeast corner of a pixel just to the northeast of the first pixel. So, with pixels that are 1 kilometer by 1 kilometer, a minimum of 1 kilometer between clouds is required to resolve them distinctly, but close to 3 kilometers might be needed, depending on the spatial orientation of the objects and where they’re located within pixels. So, basically, satellite resolution is related to the size of the pixels -- smaller pixels allow objects to be closer together and still be resolved distinctly. 

Resolving objects distinctly depends on the distance between objects, not the size of the objects themselves. For example, in the simulated visible satellite image, the clouds don't look very much like clouds. They look more like white blocks even though they can be resolved distinctly when there's at least one pixel between them. The clouds would need to be larger for them to be clearly identified as clouds on the satellite image. The bottom line is that by and large, satellite resolution and the minimum size of an object that allows it to be identified are not the same, although they are related. 

To see what I mean, check out this tool that allows us to view the same image at different resolutions. At a resolution of 250-meters, which would be a very high resolution, small objects like individual cumulus clouds can be seen. Each pixel spans just 250 by 250 meters, so clouds that are at least 250 meters apart have a chance to be resolved.

But, as resolution decreases, each pixel is an average of a larger area, so small features which occupy less than a pixel in areal coverage get averaged with their surroundings, and the features start to look more blocky. At very low resolutions, small objects like individual cumulus clouds can no longer be seen, and a field of broken clouds can fade into the background.

Credit: Penn State University
mjg8