Quick
Search: 		  
advanced search
 GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help 
The Leading Edge Signup for GSW Email News
JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The Leading Edge; December 2000; v. 19; no. 12; p. 1282-1284; DOI: 10.1190/1.1438522
© 2000 Society of Exploration Geophysicists
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gavrilov, D.
Right arrow Articles by Kocurko, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation

3-D depth migration

Parallel processing and migration movies

Dmitri Gavrilov

Multimedia Advanced Computer Infrastructure Project, Redmond, Washington, U.S.

Larry Lines and Henry C. Bland

University of Calgary

Tony Kocurko

Memorial University of Newfoundland

Corresponding author: L. Lines, lines@geo.ucalgary.ca

The first 20% of the full text of this article appears below.

The advantages of parallel processors are shown by Figure 1 (taken from Kalantzis, 1994), which illustrates scalar, vector, parallel, and vector/parallel processes for putting out a fire with buckets of water. In scalar mode, a single processor performs the operation (one bucket carrier). In vector mode, the task is performed by a series of simultaneous operations on a vector or array of elements (the bucket brigade). In parallel mode, a number of processors perform similar tasks (several bucket carriers running in parallel). The vector/parallel operation has several lines of bucket brigades operating at once. Obviously, the latter would perform the fastest.


Figure Removed (Available Only in the Full Text)
View larger version (60K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 1. Different processing architectures: (a) scalar, (b) vector, (c) vector/parallel, and (d) parallel. (After Kalantzis, 1994.)

 
The beauty of Kirchhoff depth migration is that individual traces or shot records can be selectively migrated to depth and summed. The aplanatic surfaces for each trace can be generated by computing seismic wavefronts emanating from the source and summing these wavefronts to those wavefronts generated for each receiver. Total reflection traveltime equals the time from source to reflector plus the time from reflector to receiver; hence, the total reflection time map, or "aplanatic surface," equals the sum of the wavefront traveltimes mapped from the source with those mapped out from the receiver.

Seismic amplitudes are distributed over the aplanatic surfaces for each trace. One should also account for obliquity factors in the amplitude (Scales, 1995). These depth images are summed together for all traces. Since the same source wavefronts are used in the computation of all aplanatic surfaces in a shot gather, it may be convenient to give each processor a shot gather. The computation of shot migrations can be done on individual processors and then summed together to form . . . [Full Text of this Article]






JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2009 by Society of Exploration Geophysicists