AI Chat Paper
Note: Please note that the following content is generated by AMiner AI. SciOpen does not take any responsibility related to this content.
{{lang === 'zh_CN' ? '文章概述' : 'Summary'}}
{{lang === 'en_US' ? '中' : 'Eng'}}
Chat more with AI
Article Link
Collect
Show Outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Article | Open Access

The differences, advantages, and disadvantages of various image compositing methods on the Google Earth Engine platform: an exploration

Hanqiu Xua,b ( )Guifen Sua,bChunqiang Lic Wenhui Denga,b
College of Environment and Safety Engineering, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou, China
Institute of Remote Sensing Information Engineering, Fujian Provincial Key Laboratory of Remote Sensing of Soil Erosion and Disaster Prevention, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou, China
School of Geography and Ocean Science, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China
Show Author Information

Abstract

Google Earth Engine (GEE) is a cloud-based platform that provides powerful capabilities for remote sensing image compositing, processing, and analysis. Among GEE’s diverse applications, temporal aggregation of multiple images is one of its widely used techniques. Nevertheless, a systematic exploration of the advantages and disadvantages of its five primary image compositing methods – minimum (Min), maximum (Max), Median, Mean, and Mode – has not been conducted. It remains unclear whether the commonly used Median method is genuinely universal. Additionally, it is usually unknown which input images and their seasonal origins predominantly contribute to the final composite image. Therefore, this study systematically explores the performance of the five compositing methods across four regions in China and Uganda, with different geographic locations and climatic conditions, by examining their strengths, weaknesses, and applicable scenarios. A novel quantitative metric, contribution percentage (CP), is developed to identify which input images and bands in a time series primarily contribute to the final composite image. The results show that the commonly used Median metric is not always the optimal choice. The Min and Mode methods perform better than the Median method in haze and cloudy regions, particularly in haze removal and vegetation monitoring. The Max method also exhibits superior performance in compositing thermal infrared and near-infrared images compared to the Median. Based on this study, the applicable scenarios for the five compositing methods have been clarified. Furthermore, the proposed CP metric effectively reveals the input images and bands that contribute principally to the final composite. Understanding these insights is crucial for users to choose appropriate GEE compositing methods and study plant phenology and surface thermal environments, thereby providing a foundation for the scientific application of GEE compositing methods.

References

【1】
【1】
 
 
Geo-Spatial Information Science
Pages 2081-2108

{{item.num}}

Comments on this article

Go to comment

< Back to all reports

Review Status: {{reviewData.commendedNum}} Commended , {{reviewData.revisionRequiredNum}} Revision Required , {{reviewData.notCommendedNum}} Not Commended Under Peer Review

Review Comment

Close
Close
Cite this article:
Xu H, Su G, Li C, et al. The differences, advantages, and disadvantages of various image compositing methods on the Google Earth Engine platform: an exploration. Geo-Spatial Information Science, 2026, 29(3): 2081-2108. https://doi.org/10.1080/10095020.2025.2542534

1

Views

0

Crossref

0

Web of Science

0

Scopus

0

CSCD

Received: 12 January 2025
Accepted: 28 July 2025
Published: 03 September 2025
© 2025 Wuhan University.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.