Interpreter input for seismic image segmentation |

(2) |

where is the amplitude value at point as determined by equation (1), and is the distance between the two points. As seen in Figure 7(b), the interpreter's picks now influence amplitude values in all three directions, but the magnitude of that influence decays with distance from the manual picks. Accordingly, the updated 3D segmentation result in Figure 8 is improved throughout the image cube, and not just on the two inline sections where manual picks were provided. For example, Figure 9 shows image slices far away from the two crosslines for which manual interpretations were supplied. In Figures 10(a) and 10(b), the effects of the 3D interpreter input procedure on the envelope volumes are apparent. Figures 11(a) and 11(b) compare the original and interpreter-guided segmentation results for this location, demonstrating that the 3D segmentation results can improve dramatically even far away from any manual pick locations.

o3d-far
Slices from the 3D image cube far away from any interpreter-supplied salt picks.
Figure 9. |
---|

o3d-env-orig-far,o3d-env-new-far
Envelope volumes at the position of the image slices seen in Figure 9, (a) before and (b) after incorporating interpreter input from a distant location. In (b), continuity of the salt boundary is improved, allowing a more accurate segmentation result.
Figure 10. |
---|

3d-origseg-far,3d-newseg-far
A comparison of segmentation results (a) without using interpreter input, and (b) after incorporating information from the picks in Figure 5(b). Even though the data slices shown here are far from the location of the manual picks, the strategy of spreading information from 2D picks into the third dimension allows for a much more accurate result in (b).
Figure 11. |
---|

Interpreter input for seismic image segmentation |

2011-05-24