1887
Volume 72, Issue 5
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478
PDF

Abstract

Abstract

Improving the resolution of seismic migration images plays an important role for geophysical interpreters to characterize underground reservoirs. However, the classical image domain least‐squares migration method based on the local‐stationary assumption cannot obtain a satisfactory high‐resolution seismic image due to the significant spatial variant characteristics of the point spread function. To mitigate this problem, we proposed a high‐resolution point spread function deconvolution method and applied it to two‐dimensional cases. Nevertheless, extending the two‐dimensional method to three‐dimensional problems directly would fail due to the intrinsic complexity in three‐dimensional cases. In this study, we resolve the differences encountered in the point spread function deconvolution method for two‐ and three‐dimensional cases and provide specific strategies for achieving high‐resolution imaging with low computational cost when extending the point spread function deconvolution method to three‐dimensional cases. The main schemes include (1) incorporating the analytical expression of the point spread function to guide the generation of three‐dimensional point spread function distributions, (2) extending the point spread function filter calculation method from a two‐dimensional square to a three‐dimensional rectangular prism and (3) interpolating to obtain more compact point spread functions for reducing migration artefacts. Results from the three‐dimensional synthetic Overthrust model and field data set demonstrate that our techniques could effectively enhance the spatial resolution of the migration images with reduced migration artefacts. With these specific strategies, the space‐variant point spread function deconvolution algorithm shows superior performance on three‐dimensional cases at a much lower computational cost compared with the classical least‐squares migration method and the local‐stationary deblurring method. Synthetic tests and real data applications confirm that the space‐variant point spread function deconvolution method has distinct advantages over both two‐ and three‐dimensional problems and can be widely adopted in practice.

© 2024 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers. © 2024 The Authors. Geophysical Prospecting published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13477
2024-05-21
2026-02-11

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13477
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/gpr/72/5/gpr13477.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13477&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Aoki, N. & Schuster, G.T. (2009) Fast least‐squares migration with a deblurring filter. Geophysics, 74(6), WCA83–WCA93.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Bai, J. & Yilmaz, O. (2020) Image‐domain least‐squares reverse‐time migration through point spread functions. In: SEG technical program expanded abstracts 2020. Houston, TX: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 3063–3067.
  3. Biondi, B. (2003) 3‐D seismic imaging. https://sepwww.stanford.edu/sep/biondo/3DSI_frame.html
  4. Chavent, G. & Plessix, R.‐E. (1999) An optimal true‐amplitude least‐squares prestack depth‐migration operator. Geophysics, 64(2), 508–515.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Chen, C., Hansen, H.H., Hendriks, G.A., Menssen, J., Lu, J.‐Y. & de Korte, C.L. (2019) Point spread function formation in plane‐wave imaging: A theoretical approximation in Fourier migration. IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, 67(2), 296–307.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Chen, S., Li, D. & Jin, C. (2022) An efficient least‐squares reverse time migration in image domain. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 65(8), 3098–3107.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Clapp, M.L. (2005) Imaging under salt: Illumination compensation by regularized inversion. PhD thesis, Stanford University.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Clapp, M.L., Clapp, R.G. & Biondi, B.L. (2005) Regularized least‐squares inversion for 3‐D subsalt imaging. In: SEG technical program expanded abstracts 2005. Houston, TX: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 1814–1817.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Dai, W., Wang, X. & Schuster, G.T. (2011) Least‐squares migration of multisource data with a deblurring filter. Geophysics, 76(5), R135–R146.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Dong, S., Cai, J., Guo, M., Suh, S., Zhang, Z., Wang, B. & Li, e.Z. (2012) Least‐squares reverse time migration: Towards true amplitude imaging and improving the resolution. In: SEG technical program expanded abstracts 2012. Houston, TX: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 1–5.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Feng, Z., Guo, B. & Schuster, G.T. (2018) Multiparameter deblurring filter and its application to elastic migration and inversion. Geophysics, 83(5), S421–S435.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Ficker, T. & Martišek, D. (2015) 3D image reconstructions and the Nyquist–Shannon theorem. 3D Research, 6, 1–18.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Fletcher, R.P., Archer, S., Nichols, D. & Mao, W. (2012) Inversion after depth imaging. In: SEG technical program expanded abstracts 2012. Houston, TX: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 1–5.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Fletcher, R.P., Nichols, D., Bloor, R. & Coates, R.T. (2016) Least‐squares migration‐data domain versus image domain using point spread functions. The Leading Edge, 35(2), 157–162.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Gelius, L.‐J., Lecomte, I. & Tabti, H. (2002) Analysis of the resolution function in seismic prestack depth imaging. Geophysical Prospecting, 50(5), 505–515.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Greer, S., Xue, Z. & Fomel, S. (2018) Improving migration resolution by approximating the least‐squares hessian using nonstationary amplitude and frequency matching. In: SEG technical program expanded abstracts 2018. Houston, TX: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 4261–4265.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Guitton, A. (2004) Amplitude and kinematic corrections of migrated images for nonunitary imaging operators. Geophysics, 69(12), 1017–1024.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Guitton, A. (2017a) Fast 3D least‐squares RTM by preconditioning with nonstationary matching filters. In: SEG technical program expanded abstracts 2017. Houston, TX: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 4395–4399.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Guitton, A. (2017b) Preconditioned 3D least‐squares RTM with non‐stationary matching filters. In: 79th EAGE Conference and Exhibition 2017, volume 2017. Houten, the Netherlands: European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, pp. 1–5.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Guo, S. & Wang, H. (2020) Image domain least‐squares migration with a hessian matrix estimated by non‐stationary matching filters. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering, 17(1), 148–159.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Harris, F.J. (1978) On the use of windows for harmonic analysis with the discrete Fourier transform. Proceedings of the IEEE, 66(1), 51–83.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Hu, J., Schuster, G.T. & Valasek, P.A. (2001) Poststack migration deconvolution. Geophysics, 66(3), 939–952.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Hu, J. & Valasek, P. (1999) Migration deconvolution of 3D seismic data. In: SEG technical program expanded abstracts 1999. Houston, TX: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 1118–1121.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Huang, B., Bates, M. & Zhuang, X. (2009) Super‐resolution fluorescence microscopy. Annual Review of Biochemistry, 78, 993–1016.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Huang, W. & Zhou, H.‐W. (2015) Least‐squares seismic inversion with stochastic conjugate gradient method. Journal of Earth Science, 26(4), 463–470.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Jensen, K., Lecomte, I., Gelius, L.J. & Kaschwich, T. (2021) Point‐spread function convolution to simulate prestack depth migrated images: a validation study. Geophysical Prospecting, 69(8‐9), 1571–1590.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Jensen, K., Lecomte, I. & Kaschwich, T. (2018) Analyzing PSDM images in complex geology via ray‐based PSF‐convolution modeling. In: 2018 SEG international exposition and annual meeting. Houston, TX: OnePetro, pp. 3843–3847.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Krist, J. (1993) Tiny Tim: an HST PSF simulator. In: Astronomical data analysis software and systems II. Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, volume 52. San Francisco, CA: Astronomical Society of the Pacific, pp. 536–540.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Lecomte, I. (2008) Resolution and illumination analyses in PSDM: A ray‐based approach. The Leading Edge, 27(5), 650–663.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Li, B., Sun, M., Xiang, C. & Bai, Y. (2022) Least‐squares reverse time migration in imaging domain based on global space‐varying deconvolution. Applied Sciences, 12(5), 2361.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Lipari, V., Picetti, F., Panizzardi, J., Bienati, N. & Tubaro, S. (2019) Approximate least squares RTM via matching filters and regularized inversion. In: SEG International Exposition and Annual Meeting. Houston, TX: OnePetro, pp. 4186–4190.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Liu, C. & Fu, H. (2021) Enhance 3d seismic images resolution by deconvolving point spread function. In: SEG/AAPG/SEPM First International Meeting for Applied Geoscience & Energy. Houston, TX: OnePetro, pp. 2759–2763.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Liu, C., Sun, M., Dai, N., Wu, W., Wei, Y., Guo, M. & Fu, H. (2022) Deep learning‐based point‐spread function deconvolution for migration image deblurring. Geophysics, 87(4), S249–S265.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Liu, S., Gu, H., Han, B., Yan, Z., Liu, D. & Cai, J. (2018) Band‐limited beam propagator and its application to seismic migration. Geophysics, 83, S311–S319.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Liu, S., Wu, R., Feng, B., Wang, H. & Guo, S. (2020) A true‐amplitude imaging method based on Gaussian beam migration and demigration. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 177, 4707–4718.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Liu, S., Yan, Z., Zhu, W., Han, B., Gu, H. & Hu, S. (2021) An illumination‐compensated Gaussian beam migration for enhancing subsalt imaging. Geophysical Prospecting, 69, 1433–1440.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Nemeth, T., Wu, C. & Schuster, G.T. (1999) Least‐squares migration of incomplete reflection data. Geophysics, 64(1), 208–221.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Petibon, Y., Huang, C., Ouyang, J., Reese, T.G., Li, Q., Syrkina, A., Chen, Y.‐L. & El Fakhri, G. (2014) Relative role of motion and PSF compensation in whole‐body oncologic PET‐MR imaging. Medical Physics, 41(4), 042503.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Piotrowski, L., Batsch, T., Czyrkowski, H., Cwiok, M., Dabrowski, R., Kasprowicz, G., Majcher, A., Majczyna, A., Malek, K., Mankiewicz, L., et al,. (2013) PSF modelling for very wide‐field CCD astronomy. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 551, A119.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Plessix, R.‐E. & Mulder, W. (2004) Frequency‐domain finite‐difference amplitude‐preserving migration. Geophysical Journal International, 157(3), 975–987.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Ren, H.‐R., Huang, G.‐H., Wang, H.‐Z. & Chen, S.‐C. (2013) A research on the Hessian operator in seismic inversion imaging. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 56(7), 2429–2436.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Rossmann, K. (1969) Point spread‐function, line spread‐function, and modulation transfer function: tools for the study of imaging systems. Radiology, 93(2), 257–272.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Shen, H., Du, L., Zhang, L. & Gong, W. (2012) A blind restoration method for remote sensing images. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 9(6), 1137–1141.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Tang, Y. (2009) Target‐oriented wave‐equation least‐squares migration/inversion with phase‐encoded Hessian. Geophysics, 74(6), WCA95–WCA107.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Tarantola, A. (1984) Inversion of seismic reflection data in the acoustic approximation. Geophysics, 49(8), 1259–1266.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Toxopeus, G., Thorbecke, J., Wapenaar, K., Petersen, S., Slob, E. & Fokkema, J. (2008) Simulating migrated and inverted seismic data by filtering a geologic model. Geophysics, 73(2), T1–T10.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Valenciano, A.A., Biondi, B. & Guitton, A. (2006) Target‐oriented wave‐equation inversion. Geophysics, 71(4), A35–A38.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Wang, J. (2005) 3‐D least‐squares wave‐equation AVP/AVA migration of common‐azimuth data.
  49. Wang, P., Gomes, A., Zhang, Z. & Wang, M. (2016) Least‐squares RTM: Reality and possibilities for subsalt imaging. In: SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2016 (pp. 4204–4209) Houston, TX: Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
  50. Xu, P., Feng, B., Wang, H. & Liu, S. (2022) Noniterative least‐squares reverse time migration based on an efficient asymptotic Hessian/point‐spread function estimation. Geophysics, 87(4), S169–S184.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Yang, J., Huang, J., Zhu, H., McMechan, G. & Li, Z. (2022) An efficient and stable high‐resolution seismic imaging method: point‐spread function deconvolution. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 127(7), e2021JB023281.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Yu, J., Hu, J., Schuster, G.T. & Estill, R. (2006) Prestack migration deconvolution. Geophysics, 71(2), S53–S62.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Zand, T., Gorszczyk, A., Gholami, A., Ghasemzadeh, H. & Malcolm, A. (2022) Least‐squares RTM with shifted total variation regularization for depth imaging of sparse short‐offset seismic data. In: Second International Meeting for Applied Geoscience & Energy. Houston, TX: Society of Exploration Geophysicists and American Association of Petroleum, pp. 2714–2718.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Zhang, J., Liu, L., Cheng, Q., Gao, H. & Yang, K. (2020) Yielding true‐amplitude migrated gathers for 3D imaging using a diagonalizable Hessian matrix. In: 82nd EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition, volume 2020. Houten, the Netherlands: European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, pp. 1–5.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Zhang, W. & Gao, J. (2022) 2‐D and 3‐D image‐domain least‐squares reverse time migration through point spread functions and excitation‐amplitude imaging condition. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 60, 1–15.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Zhang, W., Gao, J., Cheng, Y., Su, C., Liang, H. & Zhu, J. (2022) 3‐D image‐domain least‐squares reverse time migration with L1 norm constraint and total variation regularization. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 60, 1–14.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Zhao, Z. & Sen, M.K. (2018) Fast image‐domain target‐oriented least‐squares reverse time migration. Geophysics, 83(6), A81–A86.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13477
Loading
Enhancing the resolution of three‐dimensional migration images based on space‐variant point spread function deconvolution
Geophysical Prospecting 72, 1672 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.13477
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13477
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13477
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): enhance the spatial resolution; point spread function deconvolution method; reduce computational costs; space‐variant; specific strategies; three‐dimensional

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error