1990
DOI: 10.1007/bf00310560
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

GLORIA image processing: The state of the art

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

1991
1991
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 39 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Details of the technical specification, data acquisition, processing and interpretation of GLORIA images have been included in a number of recent reviews (e.g. Somerset al, 1978;Laughton, 1981;Chavers, 1986;Searle et al, 1989), and only the main points are reiterated here. For the purpose of the interpretation of data presented in this paper, the GLORIA sonographs, all of which here have a total swath width of 45 kin, may be considered to record levels of energy backscattered from features or 'targets' to the seafloor.…”
Section: New Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Details of the technical specification, data acquisition, processing and interpretation of GLORIA images have been included in a number of recent reviews (e.g. Somerset al, 1978;Laughton, 1981;Chavers, 1986;Searle et al, 1989), and only the main points are reiterated here. For the purpose of the interpretation of data presented in this paper, the GLORIA sonographs, all of which here have a total swath width of 45 kin, may be considered to record levels of energy backscattered from features or 'targets' to the seafloor.…”
Section: New Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These images were digitally mosaicked and then merged with the Seabeam bathymetry data. This processing was performed with the Mini Image Processing System (MIPS) developped at the USGS and IOSDL (Chavez, 1986;Searle et al, 1990).…”
Section: Data Processing and Compilationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Images of signal backscattered from the seabed are a montage of image textures arising in large part from the backscattering characteristics of seabed materials. A sonar image is rendered more interpretable in terms of distributions of seabed materials if confounding nonseabed effects are corrected for (e.g., Reed and Hussong [9]; Searle et al [10]; Augustin and Lurton [11]), and effects of the seabed that are a function of angle are normalized to the effect at a reference angle. We summarize these effects as due to: 1) absorption by travel through water; 2) geometrical spreading (incorporating the area of the seabed ensonified by the sonar pulse); 3) the sonar beam function (i.e., the responses for the sonar's port and starboard transmitting-receiving transducer arrays verses inclination angle with respect to the sonar's reference frame); in this paper Beam Function is abbreviated to BF); 4) sonar vehicle roll; 5) seabed backscatter functions (the backscattering ratio response verses inclination angle with respect to the seabed's frame of reference-or grazing angle; in every day speech we refer to one of these as a Scatter Function and the abbreviation SF is employed in the paper); and 6) seabed slope.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%