GEOPHYSICS, VOL. 64, NO.5 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 1999); P 1546-1552,10 FIGS.
Downloaded 03/07/15 to 137.195.150.201. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
Manual seismic reflection tomography
Gary E. Murphy* and Samuel H. Gray$
ABSTRACT
Prestack depth migration needs a good velocity model
to produce a good image; in fact, finding the velocity
model is one of the goals of prestack depth migration. Mi-
gration velocity analysis uses information produced by
the migration to update the current velocity model for
use in the next migration iteration. Several techniques
are currently used to estimate migration velocities, rang-
ing from trial and error to automatic methods like reflec-
tion tomography. Here, we present a method that com-
bines aspects of some of the more accurate methods into
an interactive procedure for viewing the effects of resid-
ual normal moveout corrections on migrated common
reflection point (CRP) gathers. The residual corrections
are performed by computing traveltimes along raypaths
INTRODUCTION
Geophysicists use prestack depth migration in structural
settings to obtain an accurate subsurface image and to esti-
mate geologic velocities. While migration algorithms and com-
putational advances have allowed us to achieve the first of
these objectives, the second objective remains elusive. Sort-
ing prestack migrated images into gathers indexed by surface
location [called migrated common depth point (CDP) gathers,
common image gathers, or, in this paper, common reflection
point (CRP) gathers] allows us to perform velocity analysis af-
ter migration, just as velocity analysis can be performed before
migration on unmigrated common midpoint (CMP) gathers.
Changing the velocity/depth model before remigrating will re-
sult in changes both in the migrated image and in the moveout
on the CRP gathers. The correct changes yield a geologically
plausible model that causes the residual moveout to disappear
upon remigration, leaving flattened CRP gathers that stack
into a clearly focused final image. Flattened CRP gathers pro-
Manuscript received by the Editor March 3, 1998; revised manuscript received January 15, 1999.
*Formerly BP/Amoco, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74102; currently Consultant, 8912 South College Place, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74137. E-mail: gary_murphy
@bigfoot.com.
$Formerly Amoco Canada Petroleum Co., Calgary AB T2P 2H8, Canada; currently Veritas DGC Inc., 715 Fifth Avenue S.W. Suite 2200, Calgary,
Alberta T2P 5A2, Canada. E-mail: Sam_Gray@veritasdgc.com.
© 1999 Society of Exploration Geophysicists. All rights reserved.
1546
through both the current velocity model and the veloc-
ity model plus suggested model perturbations. The dif-
ferences between those sets of traveltimes are related
to differences in depth, allowing the user to preview the
approximate effects of a velocity change on the CRP
gathers without remigrating the data. As with automatic
tomography, the computed depth differences are essen-
tially backprojected along raypaths through the model,
yielding a velocity update that flattens the gathers. Un-
like automatic tomography, in which an algebraic inverse
problem is solved by the computer for all geologic layers
simultaneously, our method estimates shallow velocities
before proceeding deeper and requires substantial user
intervention, both in flattening individual CRP gathers
and in deciding the appropriateness of the suggested ve-
locity updates in individual geologic units.
vide an indication that the velocity/depth function is correct,
because using the correct velocity/depth function will give mi-
grated images that are kinematically identical from one off-
set to another. In principle, velocity analysis would appear to
be easier after migration than before migration because the
migration has supplied most of the normal moveout (NMO)
correction, leaving only residual NMO corrections to be per-
formed. In practice, however, the residual NMO present in mi-
grated CRP gathers has been notoriously difficult to remove
when structural complexities are present. The major reason
for this difficulty is the effect of the interval velocity on the
migrated images. In stacking velocity analysis for unmigrated
or prestack time-migrated gathers, we choose at each point in
the earth a velocity value that will best flatten the gathers; this
imaging velocity is independent of the imaging velocity chosen
at other—even nearby—locations. The resulting velocity/time
function is not expected to relate to geology—only to imaging.
In prestack depth migration, on the other hand, changing an
interval velocity value at a point will affect the remigrated CRP

Manual Seismic Reflection Tomography
gathers—not only at the analysis point, but at all other locations
in a cone beneath the point. Often, a shallow velocity change
inserted to flatten a CRP gather at one depth will have the de-
sired effect at that location but will insert unwanted residual
moveout below it. In addition, the interval velocity model is of-
ten expected to incorporate known velocity values or geologic
features, and the information provided by these constraints can
affect the velocity estimation process.
Downloaded 03/07/15 to 137.195.150.201. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
Several methods have been proposed to address the difficul-
ties of prestack depth migration velocity analysis. These range
from ad hoc manual methods, such as guessing interval veloc-
ity updates based on visual inspection of the CRP gathers, to
systematic automatic methods, such as reflection tomography.
Guessing interval velocity updates to input into a remigration
scheme has proven tedious and frustratingly slow to converge.
Often, several tens of migration iterations are needed before
the geophysicist is satisfied that one of the early iterations is as
close to the correct picture (migrated image plus velocity/depth
function) as possible. Although the computer expense of cal-
culating all the iterations is much less a factor today than it
was a few years ago, the value of geophysicists' time is too high
to spend in many fruitless migration iterations. At the other
extreme is reflection tomography (Stork, 1992), an automatic
method whose chief objective is to flatten CRP gathers. Using
picks along reflecting horizons, tomography automatically ad-
justs the velocity model to minimize the discrepancies between
the picks for all the horizons upon remigration. Tomography
accomplishes this by setting up an algebraic inverse problem to
convert the residual moveout resulting from the pick discrep-
ancies to velocity modifications (Stork, 1992). Tomography acts
globally on the velocity model; it produces a velocity update
intended to remove residual moveout from all events, shal-
low and deep, at the same time. Thus, tomography avoids the
problem of the ad hoc methods where velocity updates often
introduce residual moveout problems that were not present on
previous iterations. On the other hand, by backprojecting or av-
eraging pick discrepancies over many grid cells in the velocity
model, tomography can produce unrealistically smoothed ve-
locity updates, and it is often difficult to constrain geologically.
The automatic nature of tomography can also be a disadvan-
tage, in that it can be used to flatten CRP gathers and produce
an image and a velocity model (with very little intervention
from an interpreter) that do not relate well to the actual geol-
ogy. When used this way—minimizing residual moveout with-
out incorporating geologic constraints—tomography finds one
of many possible local solutions to an optimization problem,
with little likelihood of finding the global solution to the geo-
logically constrained optimization problem.
Between the extremes of trial and error and tomography lie
a spectrum of methods. Jeannot et al. (1986) describe depth-
focusing analysis, a systematic method for estimating vertical
velocity updates from partially focused depth images under
fairly restrictive assumptions. MacKay and Abma (1992) in-
vestigate and expand the limitations of depth-focusing analysis.
Al-Yahya (1989) adapts a similar technique to migrated gath-
ers, providing a residual velocity analysis method for common
shot migration. Deregowski (1990) also presents a method for
residual velocity analysis, to be applied to CRP gathers from
common offset migration. Common to all these methods, ex-
cept for Al-Yahya's, are the assumptions that the velocity does
not vary laterally and that reflectors are horizontal. These as-
sumptions allow CRP gathers to be analyzed independently
1547
of one another, attributing all the residual moveout to veloc-
ity errors directly above subsurface analysis points. However,
when lateral velocity variations are significant or the geologic
structures being imaged are dipping, the breakdown of these
assumptions can lead to errors that make the methods even
more problematic than guessing interval velocity updates from
visual inspection of the CRP gathers. By contrast, Lafond and
Levander (1993) and Liu (1997) present methods that allow the
velocity to vary laterally above the body being updated; these
methods use ray tracing through the current velocity model
to relate residual moveout, expressed as depth variations as a
function of offset for a reflection event in a CRP gather, with
a velocity update.
The methods of Lafond and Levander (1993) and Liu (1997),
which trace rays through the current velocity/depth model to
relate depth discrepancies with velocity updates, are much
closer in spirit to tomography than are the other methods.
They also have much greater accuracy in the presence of strong
lateral velocity variations or significant reflector dip than the
methods that assume laterally constant velocity and flat reflec-
tors. Also, they express the velocity model as distinct units to be
analyzed from shallow to deep. (On the other hand, these meth-
ods differ from tomography in that they proceed from shallow
layers to deep layers, while tomography simultaneously cor-
rects residual moveout problems on reflectors at all depths. As a
consequence, they are subject to error accumulation at depth.)
The velocity models resulting from these methods are usually
more geologically plausible in areas where velocity contrasts
tend to align with rock unit boundaries than those resulting
from any other velocity estimation method.
We present a method that generalizes aspects of many of
the procedures described so far, although it most resembles
an interactive, graphical version of the methods of Lafond and
Levander (1993) and Liu (1997). The method treats prestack
depth migration as a model-based NMO correction which
needs revision because of errors in the velocity model. It uses
ray tracing between reflecting horizons and the source and re-
ceiver locations to compute the effects of provisional velocity
updates on the residual NMO. Without remigrating, it finds ve-
locities to correct the residual NMO, or flatten the CRP gathers,
on the shallow events first; then, with the updated velocities set
in the shallow part of the section, it corrects the residual NMO
on the deeper events. This is all performed interactively on a
graphics workstation. Sometimes it is impossible to flatten all
events on the CRP gathers that are associated with some parts
of the model. Automatic tomography solves that problem by
compromise: recognizing that the CRP gathers will not all be
flat after the operation, it attempts to flatten them as well as
possible by using some optimal solution (e.g., least squares) to
an ill-posed inverse problem. Our method similarly optimizes
the solution for the velocity update by allowing the user to de-
cide the velocities to be inserted as an update into each part
of the model. We refer to our method as manual tomography
for that reason: it is an interactive tool to backproject residual
NMO on CRP gathers into velocity updates, where the inver-
sion takes place in the user's eyeibrain system and not in the
computer.
As with all the other methods listed above, our method pro-
vides updates for the velocity model, to be used in the next
iteration of prestack depth migration. The residual NMO cor-
rection obtained by updating the velocity model using our
method serves as a crude approximation to remigration. This

1548 Murphy and Gray

approximate remigration is performed interactively on a single
reflecting horizon, working on a few neighboring CRP gathers
at a time. Using raypaths through the laterally varying veloc-
ity model with its current updates, it varies traveltimes along
the raypaths by scanning over a range of percentage slow-
ness (reciprocal velocity) perturbations within a single body.
The raypaths themselves are held constant during the slowness
scans within an individual residual NMO calculation. As a re-
Downloaded 03/07/15 to 137.195.150.201. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
times along raypaths shot upward from the analysis location
into the receiver spread (Figure 5). We emphasize that we per-
turb the traveltimes only along the raypath segments within
the active body. But if we have previously updated velocities in
regions above the active body, those fixed velocities are used
to compute traveltimes through the overburden. By relating
the time differences along raypaths to depth differences as
explained by Al-Yahya (1989), we perform a residual NMO

sult of this linearization, when accumulated velocity updates correction on the migrated gathers using the trial slowness per-
through one or more regions of the velocity model become turbations. This residual NMO correction approximates the ef-
large, the method loses accuracy, requiring an actual remigra- fects of remigration using the trial slowness perturbation plus
tion before further velocity updates can be estimated during the all the updated velocities in the overburden. This is the heart
next iteration. However, when accumulated velocity updates of the method; the limited number of computations—far fewer
are relatively small (usually <10% of the migration velocity than a remigration—allows a large number of possible per-
throughout the entire model), approximating remigration by turbations to be scanned almost instantaneously on a modern
our residual NMO correction is often surprisingly accurate. workstation.
Because of the heavy user intervention it requires, this We then select the slowness perturbation that best flattens
method is much less automatic and much more interpretive the gathers in the vicinity of the analysis location (Figure 6).
and user driven than tomography. This is an advantage over In our example, decreasing the slowness along the raypaths by
tomography when the process is driven by an interpreter and
a possible disadvantage when it is driven by a processor with
very little interpreting expertise.
Although we believe our implementation is unique, the tech-
nique described here resembles interactive methods presented
elsewhere (e.g., Schmid et al., 1995). However, we have not
seen a general description of the method, which we believe
is an important velocity estimation method and will gain in
importance as it is increasingly applied in three dimensions.

DESCRIPTION OF THE METHOD

We use a synthetic example to describe the method; later,

we illustrate its use on a field example. The synthetic example
(Figure 1; Gray and Marfurt, 1995) is derived from some struc-
tural styles in the Canadian Foothills. It depicts a cross-section
25 000 m long and 10 000 m deep, with velocities ranging from
3600 to 6000 m/s.
We begin by performing a prestack depth migration with an
initial velocity model. Our migration is a common-offset Kirch-
hoff migration. Initially, we used a laterally invariant (v(z))
velocity function with a slope different from the background
gradient in the correct model. Horizons along the migrated,
stacked section are picked (Figure 2); these horizons divide
the velocity model into distinct units, or bodies. These bodies
are investigated one at a time, from top to bottom. The method
typically works best with five to ten bodies from top to bottom,
where all the bodies are thick enough to yield useful residual
NMO information. Our example contains a number of thin
bodies, thereby providing an extreme test for the method. As-
suming the velocities have been updated in all the bodies above
the present, or active, body (Figure 3), we update the velocities
in the active body as follows.
First, we select a few neighboring CRP gathers around an
image location at the base of the active body that shows signif-
icant energy on the migrated section (Figure 4). These gathers,
whose horizontal axis is source-to-receiver offset, decreasing FIG. 1. Synthetic data based on geologic structures in the
from 3600 m on the left to 0 m on the right, show a significant Canadian Foothills. (a) The velocity/depth model used to gen-
amount of residual NMO because of the errors in the original erate finite-difference shot records used in the prestack depth
migrations. The cross-section is 25 km long and 10 km deep.
velocity function. The pink line near the top of the section is the topographic sur-
Next, we test the effects of percentage slowness changes face. (b) Prestack depth migration using the correct velocities
within the active body interactively, by perturbing the travel- (from Gray and Marfurt, 1995).

Manual Seismic Reflection Tomography 1549

7% removes most (though not all) of the residual NMO from

the CRP gathers at the analysis location. We can select several
more analysis points at the base of the active body and repeat
the scan over slowness perturbations, obtaining velocity up-
dates along many ray fans (Figure 7). Often, two or more ray
fans from nearby analysis points overlap within the active body,
leading to a possible conflict between slowness updates chosen
at the analysis points. Where tomography resolves these con-
Downloaded 03/07/15 to 137.195.150.201. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

flicts by applying an optimization criterion such as least squares,

the present method forces the user to resolve the conflicts by ac-
cepting one choice or the other for the updated velocity/depth
function within the active body or by making a compromise

FIG. 4.Migrated CRP gathers from five adjacent locations on

FIG. 2. Middle part of the initial v(z) migration with picked
horizons superimposed. These horizons are combined to form
bodies, and the velocity will be updated inside each body.
the right side of the active body. The ray fan in Figure 5 shows
the center of the five locations. Within each gather, offsets
range from 3600 m for the trace at the left to 0 m for the trace at
the right. These gathers, windowed to show only energy from
the reflector at the base of the active body, show significant
residual NMO after the initial iteration of prestack depth mi-
gration.

FIG. 5. A ray fan from the analysis location of Figure 4 shot

upward toward the recording spread. The segments of these
FIG. 3. Middle part of the velocity model, with the active body raypaths within the active body are used to compute residual
surrounded by bold red lines. Velocities have been updated NMO interactively, with a number of percentage slowness per-
above the active body but not below it. turbations of the original velocity function.

1550 Murphy and Gray
between the conflicting choices that might incorporate geo-
logic knowledge.
Finally, the slowness perturbation values chosen at the analy-
sis locations are combined, yielding a laterally varying velocity
update within the active body that the user is free to accept or
reject (Figure 8). In our implementation, the velocity update
can take on any of several functional forms within the active
body, such as constant, v(0) + kz (possibly different at each
Downloaded 03/07/15 to 137.195.150.201. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
lateral location), or a gradient perpendicular to the top or base
of the body. Finally, when the velocity is updated in a body, the
thickness of the body is changed to preserve the traveltime of
rays through the body. For example, if the velocity is increased
FIG. 6. The results of a ray-based residual NMO correction per-
formed on the CRP gathers in Figure 4. Reducing the velocity
along the raypaths of Figure 5 by 7% has nearly flattened the
gathers, indicating that the velocity in the active body above
the analysis point should be reduced in the next migration it-
eration.
FIG. 7. Choosing several analysis points along the base of the
active body allows residual NMO calculations to be performed
across the entire active body. The ray fans can intersect each
other, possibly giving conflicting information that the user must
interpret.
in a body, the body becomes thicker. Thus, reflecting bound-
aries move as the velocity is updated. Although this stretching
of the body should occur in the direction of the velocity gradi-
ent when the reflector are aligned with the velocity field (Stork,
1992), we approximate the stretch with a simple depth stretch,
incurring the greatest error at the steepest dips.
Having updated the velocity within a body, we proceed
downward through the image to the next body without remi-
grating. Ideally, we continue to the bottom of the image. Often,
however, in cases of large velocity updates or poorly imaged
initial sections, very little reliable information can be obtained
from the deeper bodies before the shallow velocities are com-
pletely corrected. In these cases, it is efficient to update only the
shallow velocities in the earliest iterations and then remigrate
before proceeding deeper in the section. When we do this, we
usually find the deeper reflectors to be imaged well enough
after one or two iterations to obtain reliable velocity updates
from deeper bodies. As with all methods that attempt to correct
residual NMO, our method loses effectiveness when applied to
bodies whose depth is much greater than a spread length.
On our synthetic data set, we performed three iterations,
each consisting of prestack depth migration followed by veloc-
ity analysis using the manual tomography method. Our fourth
migrated, stacked section is shown in Figure 9 along with our
final velocity model. Figure 9 should be compared with Fig-
ure 1. Overall, the final velocity model is structurally similar to
FIG. 8. The velocity update suggested by the residual NMO
calculations have been inserted into the active body to be ac-
cepted or rejected by the user. Velocities above and below the
active body remain unchanged.

Manual Seismic Reflection Tomography
Downloaded 03/07/15 to 137.195.150.201. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
FIG. 9. Results after three iterations of migration velocity anal-
ysis. (a) The velocity model. The velocity analysis has captured
most of the large-scale features of the actual velocity model.
(b) The prestack depth-migrated image.
FIG. 10. Prestack depth migration of the Husky/Talisman Canadian Foothills line obtained after several iterations
of migration and manual tomography. Geologic constraints (e.g., constraining the depth and dip of the basement
reflector) were applied.
1551
the correct model, although there are many errors in the fine
details of the model. These errors are because of the inabil-
ity of tomography, or any method based on residual moveout
calculations, to resolve thin layers, through which even large
velocity changes provide very little change in NMO. The final
stack has positioned most of the events correctly, although the
image is not as well focused as the image obtained using the
correct velocity model. This image is about as good as one can
hope to obtain using manual tomography, which uses the long-
and medium-wavelength information contained in the CRP
gathers.
FIELD DATA EXAMPLE
In 1995, Husky and Talisman released a data set from the
southern Alberta (Canada) Foothills for the purpose of indus-
try and university investigations. This data set was the subject
of a workshop on structural imaging at the 1995 SEG An-
nual Meeting (Stork et al., 1995). The data quality is good,
with many reflectors clearly visible on the unmigrated records
and on preliminary migrations. As with our synthetic example,
we performed several iterations, each consisting of prestack
depth migration followed by manual tomography. Here, how-
ever, we used geologic knowledge to constrain the procedure.
Specifically, we restricted the basement reflector to lie between
certain depths, and we restricted the amount of variation al-
lowed in the dip of the basement reflector. This strategy is
more difficult to apply than using manual tomography only to
flatten the CRP gathers because it forces us to resolve con-
flicts interpretively between the CRP gathers and the geologic
constraints. Stated differently, we discovered that for this data
set, as for many others, the best imaging velocity does not al-
ways agree with the correct geologic velocity. (In automatic
tomography, geologic constraints can be incorporated into the
inversion with a certain amount of effort, resulting in conflicts
between the CRP gathers and the geology being resolved with-
out involving the user. This leads to quicker convergence to a

1552 Murphy and Gray
solution that satisfies the criteria of the mathematical inverse
problem at the heart of automatic tomography, although the
solution does not necessarily satisfy the criteria of the geologic
problem addressed by the seismic data set.)
Because of the added interpretational difficulties inherent
in resolving these conflicts, we needed to perform about ten
iterations. Figure 10 shows the final image obtained with this
procedure. This image compares well with other results ob-
Downloaded 03/07/15 to 137.195.150.201. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
tained from this data set (e.g., Zhu and Lines, 1997), and the
velocities obtained were geologically plausible. Significantly,
however, the seismic image in Figure 10 is not an obvious im-
provement over an image (not shown) obtained using only
three iterations of manual tomography without applying the
geologic constraints. In our experience, incorporating geologic
constraints to obtain the most correct image often fails to pro-
vide the most pleasing image, in the sense of reflector continuity
or focusing.
DISCUSSION
We have presented a method for prestack depth migra-
tion velocity analysis, which we call manual tomography. This
method, based on removing residual NMO from migrated
CRP gathers, is an interactive variant of methods presented
by Lafond and Levander (1993) and Liu (1997). It resembles
methods currently in use that have not been described ade-
quately in the geophysical literature (e.g., Schmid et al., 1995),
and we believe that it represents a significant improvement
in accurate velocity model determination over currently used
methods that assume flat reflectors and lateral invariance of
the model above each analysis point.
Manual tomography, like automatic tomography, attempts
to convert residual NMO on migrated CRP gathers into an up-
dated velocity model for the next migration iteration. While
automatic tomography sets up an algebraic inverse problem
to perform this conversion, providing the updated velocities
with minimal user intervention, manual tomography forces the
user to perform the inversion by explicitly deciding to accept
or reject velocity updates in individual bodies proposed by the
program. These decisions might be easy, i.e., merely accepting
velocity updates suggested by the residual NMO calculations.
Or they might be more difficult, i.e., deciding between geologic
information and proposed velocity updates. This makes our
method much more interpretive than automatic tomography,
with advantages and disadvantages. The major disadvantage,
as we saw with our field data example, is the prospect of slower
convergence than with automatic tomography because of the
interpretational difficulty of resolving conflicting information,
either between geologic knowledge and seismic velocities or
between information contained in individual CRP gathers. The
major advantage is actually another aspect of the major disad-
vantage: by working very closely with the seismic data, the
user becomes much more intimately involved in the interpre-
tive process than is possible with automatic tomography.
Velocity estimation remains a major problem in depth imag-
ing, and model studies have shown us that uniquely determin-
ing the correct velocity/depth model for prestack depth migra-
tion is impossible in many—if not most—cases of structural
complexity. Adding to the uncertainty, and frequently causing
imaging velocities to differ significantly from geologic veloci-
ties, are 3-D effects and effects of anisotropy. However, both
automatic and manual tomographic methods have taken us a
long way past earlier methods of velocity estimation in speed
and in accuracy. These methods, combined with the increased
speed of prestack depth migration brought about by increases
in computing power, allow us to test more geologic hypotheses
than before, reducing the uncertainties in the final interpre-
tation. We will never eliminate these uncertainties completely
using the seismic method, but we can at least envision reducing
them to an acceptable level for typical amounts of structural
complexity that we may encounter in exploring for hydrocar-
bons.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Gary Maclean for providing the synthetic data
set and Christof Stork for providing the field data set. We
also thank our many colleagues within Amoco who have sug-
gested improvements to our velocity analysis method, and
three reviewers who suggested numerous improvements to our
exposition.
REFERENCES
Al-Yahya, K., 1989, Velocity analysis by iterative profile migration:
Geophysics, 54, 718-729.
Deregowski, S. M., 1990, Common-offset migrations and velocity anal-
ysis: First Break, 8, 225-234.
Gray, S. H., and Marfurt, K. J., 1995, Migration from topography: Im-
proving the near-surface image: Can. J. Expl. Geophys., 31,18-24.
Jeannot, J. P., Faye, J. E, and Denelle, E., 1986, Prestack migration
velocities from depth-focusing analysis: 56th Ann. Internat. Mtg.,
Soc. Expl. Geophys., Expanded Abstracts, 438-440.
Lafond, C. F., and Levander, A. R., 1993, Migration moveout analysis
and depth focusing: Geophysics, 58, 91-100.
Liu, Z., 1997, An analytical approach to migration velocity analysis:
Geophysics, 62, 1238-1249.
MacKay, S., and Abma, R., 1992, Imaging and velocity estimation with
depth-focusing analysis: Geophysics, 57, 1608-1622.
Schmid, R., Link, B., and Butler, P., 1995, Model manipulation plus
interactive depth image analysis using model based NMO: 22nd Ann.
Cony., Can. Soc. Expl. Geophys., Expanded Abstracts, 51-52.
Stork, C., 1992, Reflection tomography in the postmigrated domain:
Geophysics, 57, 680-692.
Stork, C., Welsh, C., and Skuce, A., 1995, Demonstration of processing
and model building methods on a real complex structure data set:
65th Ann. Internat. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys., Expanded Abstracts,
Workshop 6.
Zhu, J., and Lines, L. R., 1997, Implicit interpolation in reverse-time
migration: Geophysics, 62, 906-917.