English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

At first glance, shot-profile migration (Jacobs, 1982) and source-receiver (survey-sinking) migration (Claerbout, 1985) seem to be substantially different algorithms. The basic principles used by the two schemes are different. Shot-profile migration is performed by independently propagating the source wavefield and the receiver wavefield. The image is obtained by crosscorrelating the two wavefields (possibly normalized by the amplitude of the source wavefield). Source-receiver migration is based on the concept of survey sinking, by which we recursively synthesize equivalent data sets at increasing depth. At each depth step, imaging is performed by extracting the wavefield at zero time.Recently, the issue of the relation between shot-profile migration and source-receiver migration has become more relevant because of two important developments: (1) the increase in the practical applications of 3D prestack migration by wavefield continuation for imaging complex structures, and (2) the introduction of methods for computing angle-domain common-image gathers (ADCIG), both for velocity estimation (Biondi and Sava, 1999; Prucha et al., 1999; Clapp and Biondi, 2000) and for amplitude variation with angle (AVA) analysis (de Bruin et al., 1990; Wapenaar et al., 1999; Sava et al., 2001).

Equivalence of source‐receiver migration and shot‐profile migration