Resampling

The proper digitization of a waveform requires two samples per period of the highest frequency present in the
waveform. If we use less than two samples, spurious (aliased) frequencies are introduced.
In discussing array dimensions, we think in terms of the highest frequency present in the waveform. In this
context, it is the highest reflection frequency that we may realistically hope to maintain through the field work
and the processing. That this frequency defines the permissile length of an array, the permissile elevation
change across an array, and the effect of an array on the first reak.
The same frequency defines our maximum feathering angle, and it defines a myriad other variales in processing.
!onsequently, this frequency is the most asic of all the variales to e decided, oth in the field and in
processing.
"e know that this highest reflection frequency is defined y the emitted spectrum of the source, y the ghost
reflection(s), and y the earth filter. #ecause of the progressive high$cut action of the earth filter, we know that
the highest frequency present in the reflection waveform is likely to e associated with the shallow reflections. "e
then have to make a %udgement as to what the highest &significant& frequency is, or is likely to e, on the
shallowest reflection of exploration interest. This %udgement is crucial to the entire seismic technique.
's if that were not difficult enough, the higher frequencies attenuated in the earth can e partially recovered (to
an extent that depends on the signal$to$noise ratio) y the process of deconvolution. (ur %udgement therefore
has to take into account a later improvement of unknown degree.
)ot surprisingly, we seek to postpone this %udgement as late as possile. In particular, we do not want to make it
in the field (except that, in *iroseis, we are forced to do so). Therefore the standard practice is to assume a
frequency a little higher than we think it could possily e, and to ase the recording sampling interval on that. If
we set this frequency too low, we lose useful data+ if we set it too high, all it costs us is tape. ,o the decision is
fairly easy, in the field.
Typically, we take the highest reflection frequency to e aout -./ 0z, in the field. If this were the highest
frequency present, we could otain two samples per period y sampling at ./1 0z 2 every 3 ms. #ut there may
e noise present at higher frequencies, and possily also at higher amplitudes. Therefore we dare not digitize at 3
ms.
The solution is to apply an antialias filter. In the field, we usually set the cutoff frequency of this filter to coincide
with the highest expected reflection frequency (in our example, -./ 0z).
The slope of the analog filter used in the field is unlikely to e much less than 41 d#5octave+ therefore we can
expect the noise to e 41 d# down at ./1 0z. In practice, such noise is negligile. ,o ./1 0z, or something
approaching it, is definitely the highest frequency present in the waveform. Therefore we must digitize at two
samples per period of this frequency+ our sampling frequency is /11 0z, and the sampling interval . ms.
The field assumption that the highest reflection frequency is -./ 0z therefore leads us to digitize at . ms
sampling interval in the field. If it were ./1 0z we would digitize at - ms+ if 67 0z, at 3 ms.
'fter the data are safely recorded, however, we can determine the highest reflection frequency present. 8urther,
digital filters applied in processing can have slopes steeper than those of the analog filters in the field+ this means
that we can reduce the noise to negligile proportions at a frequency closer to the highest reflection frequency
( 8igure - ).
Figure 1
,o if we find, for example, that the highest reflection frequency is 91 0z, and if a digital antialias filter allows us
to suppress the noise adequately y a very steep slope etween 91 0z and -./ 0z, then our waveforms would e
completely and safely specified y sampling at 3 ms. The volume of data would e halved, and our processing
costs would e much reduced.
The process of resampling thus involves the application of a digital antialias filter, followed y the dropping of
alternate sample values.
The antialias filter must e specified as to its cutoff frequency, its slope, and its phase response. The cutoff
frequency is determined y our estimate (or measurement) of the highest significant reflection frequency. The
slope is that necessary to yield negligile noise output at the new sampling frequency+ ideally, we should explore
this y tests, ut in practice we usually seek the safety of a steep slope. The phase response should normally e
that of minimum phase.
The economies otainale y resampling are greater than the proportional reduction in data volume. This is
ecause several of the later processes involve convolutions and correlations, which take computer time in
proportion to the square of the numer of samples. :esampling, therefore, is a much$used process+ in the field, it
avoids the need to make restrictive decisions aout frequency content, and in the processing it allows us to
minimize the cost after the frequency content is known.
In 8igure . , we see the comined effect of data reduction y array formation and resampling.
Figure 2
8igure . illustrates a test segment of a section processed to preserve ./$m arrays, ./$m group intervals, 71$fold
stack, and .$ms sampling. 8igure . illustrates the effect of forming -;.;- arrays at /1$m group intervals (thus
reducing to -/$fold stack), and resampling to 3 ms. 8or the purposes of the survey, the economies of 8igure .
were considered %ustified.