** Next:** Discussion and Conclusions
** Up:** Alvarez: Multiple attenuation
** Previous:** Comparison of Radon Transforms

In this section I examine the difference between the estimate of the multiples
and primaries obtained with the Radon transforms computed with both approximations.
I use the same ADCIGs from the previous section.

**mul_comp1
**

Figure 6 Comparison of the multiple model for the synthetic
ADCIG of Figure . Panel (a) shows the
multiples obtained with the straight-ray approximation and panel (b) the
multiples obtained with the ray-bending approximation.

**prim_comp1
**

Figure 7 Comparison of the primary model for the synthetic
ADCIG of Figure . Panel (a) shows the
primaries obtained with the straight-ray approximation and panel (b) the
primaries obtained with the ray-bending approximation.

Figure shows the comparison of the multiple model estimated
with both transforms for the synthetic data shown in Figure .
The better focusing of the multiples in the Radon domain with the ray-bending
approximation translates into a slightly better estimate of the multiples,
especially at the
large aperture angles. Some weak residual primary still leaks into the multiples,
although with higher amplitude amplitude with the straight-ray approximation
(see the primary at 200 m). Figure shows the comparison of
the primary estimates. Again, a better result is obtained with the ray-bending
approximation. In particular, less energy from the multiples leaks into the primaries.

Figure shows the comparison of the multiple model for the real
dataset of Figure . Notice that again, the new transform [panel (b)],
recovers a little better the multiple energy on the large aperture angles,
especially above 1000 m.
This energy will otherwise leak into the estimate of the primaries.
Finally, Figure shows the comparison of the primary estimate
with both transforms. Although the two panels look similar, careful examination of
the large aperture angles specially above 1000 m shows that the new transform
[panel (b)] has recovered the primaries better.

**mul_comp2
**

Figure 8 Comparison of the multiple model for the real
ADCIG of Figure . Panel (a) shows the
multiples obtained with the straight-ray approximation and panel (b) the
multiples obtained with the ray-bending approximation.

**prim_comp2
**

Figure 9 Comparison of the primary model for the real
ADCIG of Figure . Panel (a) shows the
primaries obtained with the straight-ray approximation and panel (b) the
primaries obtained with the ray-bending approximation.

** Next:** Discussion and Conclusions
** Up:** Alvarez: Multiple attenuation
** Previous:** Comparison of Radon Transforms
Stanford Exploration Project

4/5/2006