Surveys in Geophysics

, Volume 12, Issue 6, pp 531–551 | Cite as

The use and abuse of image analysis in geophysical potential field interpretation

  • Andrew J. W. McDonald
Article

Abstract

Images of geophysical potential field data are becoming more common as a result of the increased availability of image analysis systems. These data are processed using techniques originally developed for remotely sensed satellite imagery. In general, geophysicists are not familiar with such techniques and may apply them without due consideration. This can lead to abuses of the geophysical data and reduce the validity of the interpretation. This paper describes some critical processes which can introduce errors to the data. The production of a regular grid from scattered data is fundamental to image processing. The choice of cell size is paramount and must balance the spatial distribution of the data. The necessary scaling of data from real values into a byte format for display purposes can result in small anomalies being masked. Contrast stretching of grey level images is often applied but can alter the shape of anomalies by varying degrees and should be avoided. Filters are often used to produce shaded relief images but without due regard to their frequency response and the effect on images expanded to fill the display space. The generation of spurious numerical artefacts can be reduced by ensuring that the filter is applied at real precision to the original data grid. The resultant images can then be processed for display. The use of image analysis systems for data integration requires careful consideration of the sampling strategy and information content of each dataset. It is proposed that such procedures are more appropriately conducted on a geographic information system.

Keywords

Image Analysis System Satellite Imagery Regular Grid Data Grid Scattered Data 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aarnisalo, J.: 1984, ‘Image Processing and Integration of Geophysical, Landsat and Other Data as a Tool for Mineral Exploration in Glaciated Precambrian Terrain’, inERIM Proceedings of International Symposium on Remote Sensing for Exploration Geology 1, 107–128.Google Scholar
  2. Billingsley, F. C.: 1983, ‘Data Processing and Reprocessing’, in R. N. Colwell (ed.)Manual of Remote Sensing (2nd edn) American Society of Photogrammetry, Falls Church, Virginia, pp. 719–792.Google Scholar
  3. Briggs, I. C.: 1974, ‘Machine Contouring using Minimum Curvature’,Geophysics 39, 39–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Crain, I. K.: 1970, ‘Computer Interpolation and Contouring of Two-Dimensional Data: A Review’,Geoexploration 8, 71–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davies, E. R.: 1984, ‘Circularity — A New Principle Underlying the Design of Accurate Edge Orientation Operators’,Image and Vision Computing 2, 134–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davis, J. C.: 1973,Statistics and Data Analysis in Geology, John Wiley & Son, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Drury, S. A.: 1987,Image Interpretation in Geology, Allen & Unwin, London.Google Scholar
  8. Drury, S. A. & Walker, A. S. D.: 1987, ‘Display and Enhancement of Gridded Aeromagnetic Data of the Solway Basin’,Int. J. Remote Sensing 8, 1433–1444.Google Scholar
  9. Dynamic Graphics: 1988,Interactive Surface Modeling User's Guide Release 6.93, Dynamic Graphics Inc., Berkely, California.Google Scholar
  10. Gaál, G. (ed.): 1988, ‘Exploration Target Selection by Integration of Geodata Using Statistical and Image Processing Techniques: an Example from Central Finland’,Geological Survey of Finland, Report of Investigation 80.Google Scholar
  11. Greenbaum, D.: 1987, ‘Lithological Discrimination in Central Snowdonia Using Airborne Multispectral Scanner Imagery’,Int. J. Remote Sensing 8, 799–816.Google Scholar
  12. Pratt, W. K.: 1975,Digital Image Processing, John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Turnbull, G.: 1987, ‘Gravity Data Bank on the Keyworth GEC 4090 and VAX 8600 Computers at March 1987’,Regional Geophysics Research Group Project Note PN 87/5, British Geological Survey, Keyworth.Google Scholar
  14. Uniras: 1986,UNIMAP Users Guide Version 5.4, Uniras A/S, Copenhagen.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew J. W. McDonald
    • 1
  1. 1.British Geological SurveyNatural Environment Research CouncilNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations