Reprocessing

An inexpensive alternative to shooting a new line is reprocessing an existing one, whether purchased from
without, or found somewhere in our own files. The data may have been shot within the year, or they may be two
decades old. Our objective may be to apply a newly written program, or it may be to correct apparent flaws in
the previous work. Whatever the case, all our previous considerations of interpretation objective and uality!
control standards apply. And, as so often happens, we may be faced with some unfamiliar problems.
The first chore " and sometimes it is that " is to ascertain that we have all the support material that is
available. #n addition to the usual field notes, we may need a record of analog!to!digital transcription, or one of
tape!copying. The latter must include format information.
#t is often useful to have a recent line map, as it may contain other lines that have been shot and processed since
the one we are reprocessing. $or marine work, the minimum reuirement in this regard is the post!plot of the
survey, which we remember is often not available at the time of the first processing.
Once we have all the tapes and support information, we consult with the interpreting geophysicist or his
representative. We learn of the present objective, and acuire from him any further relevant information, from
check!shots or well logs or other sources.
The ideal item of support information is the previously generated stacked or migrated section, for these purposes
called a check section. %uch sections are better than near!trace plots, for they provide a clearer picture of event
continuity. They may also help us to locate whatever deficiencies exist in the previous processing.
We also benefit from the fact that we generally receive, for reprocessing, trace!seuential tapes. This saves us
the task of demultiplexing and removing the instrument gain. &articularly for old data, however, we are watchful
for gain!recovery problems that are uncommon in our processing of new data. Another problem is multiplex
skew, the channel!to!channel time difference due to non!instantaneous multiplexing. 'any times, the total
difference across the spread may be as much as a sample interval ( $igure ) *. %kew is corrected by a simple
static shift, added to the datum statics, the amount of shift being eual to the channel number minus one, times
the sampling interval, divided by the total number of data and auxiliary channels.
Figure 1
As with multiplex skew, many problems with older data occurred because the instruments were not as good as
they are now. At the same time, however, the needs of the interpreter were coarse enough to disguise the
deficiencies. #n reprocessing, then, we find many instances of poorly recorded control sweeps, or suspect or
nonexistent waterbreaks, or blindly accepted offset distances. #f we have good fragments of a sweep, we may be
able to reconstitute it. We must certainly check waterbreaks as closely as we do with new data, and we must use
these to verify the offsets.
%ometimes instrument limitations are the problem. #n the old days of analog recording, gain control was not
instantaneous. The amplitude of the output was used to determine the gain applied subsequently. The initial gain
was manually controlled by the observer. This has at least two implications in reprocessing. $irst, there may be a
lot of clipping on the data. We have to make a judgement whether to mute these portions. +enerally, we do not,
we are prepared, however, to go back and mute, if we find that our decision not to do so has affected later
processes (particularly deconvolution*. %econd, where the data have been transcribed from paper records or
analog tapes, it is not generally feasible to remove the effect of the analog agc employed.
Old marine data can be particularly troublesome. -efore multiple tape drives became commonplace, some
records were lost during tape changes. We must check the notes carefully, lest we set up geometry for
nonexistent shots. We also ascertain which part of the ship was kept on line, the antenna or the near group. As
we see in $igure . , this can mean a difference of /0 m in the offline distance of the far!group midpoint.
Figure 2
Thus we may have to replot the maps, in addition to reprocessing the sections.
$or recent data, the purpose of reprocessing may be to recover higher freuencies. We may need to reconsider
some of the previously used options " in particular the processing sample interval " but we do so in light of
some of the precepts earlier discussed. Our new goals must be compatible with what is on tape1 processing at .
ms is a waste of time if the crew used a )0!/2 34 sweep.
#t is a good idea to know, for reprocessing, what the processing flow and variables were the first time. #f the
check section had no instrument or source corrections applied, we can expect our new section to have a mis!tie
with it. The same thing can occur if the old processing was 4ero!phase throughout and ours is minimum phase.
This is not a bad thing for us, and such mis!ties are certainly defensible. -ut it does point out a danger in trying
to tie with the past.
$inally, we redouble all our efforts to find and correct bad traces or records. &erhaps a good rule!of!thumb is to
approach each complete reprocessing job with the attitude that we can do it better. And, we add with a wink,
there is no reason to believe otherwise.