Full text loading...
-
Are carpet geometries the way to go?
- Source: First Break, Volume 38, Issue 5, May 2020, p. 33 - 41
-
- 01 May 2020
- Previous Article
- Table of Contents
- Next Article
Abstract
In the recent literature the use of carpet geometries (usually with 50 × 50-m source sampling) is being defended and recommended on the basis of its high trace density that produces superior quality compared to older techniques. However, trace density is not the best criterion to judge the quality of an acquisition geometry. Earlier model studies show that geometries with the same trace density may show very different qualities, the geometry with the smallest binsize being the best because it allows better suppression of shot-generated noise in the basic subsets of the geometry. However, for land data acquisition it is too time-consuming and too expensive to use a carpet of sources that is dense enough to create well-sampled basic subsets. Orthogonal geometry does allow for small enough binsizes while being equally affordable as carpet geometries for which highly efficient acquisition techniques have been developed, but which lack a sufficiently small binsize.