FN Archimer Export Format
PT J
TI Results from the First Phase of the Seafloor Backscatter Processing Software Inter-Comparison Project
BT 
AF Malik, Mashkoor
   Schimel, Alexandre C. G.
   Masetti, Giuseppe
   Roche, Marc
   Le Deunf, Julian
   Dolan, Margaret F.J.
   Beaudoin, Jonathan
   Augustin, Jean-Marie
   Hamilton, Travis
   Parnum, Iain
AS 1:1,2;2:3;3:2;4:4;5:5;6:6;7:7;8:8;9:9;10:10;
FF 1:;2:;3:;4:;5:;6:;7:;8:PDG-DFO-NSE-ASTI;9:;10:;
C1 NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration and Research, Silver Spring, MD 20910, USA
   Center for Coastal and Ocean Mapping, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824, USA
   National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), Greta Point, Wellington 6021, New Zealand
   Federal Public Service Economy of Belgium (FPSE), 1210 Brussels, Belgium
   Service Hydrographique et Océanographique de la Marine (SHOM), 29200 Brest, France
   Geological Survey of Norway (NGU), 7491 Trondheim, Norway
   QPS B.V. Fredericton, Fredericton, NB E3B 1P9, Canada
   Service Acoustique Sous-marine et Traitement de l’Information, IFREMER, 29280 Plouzane, France
   Teledyne CARIS, Fredericton, NB E3B 2L4, Canada
   Centre for Marine Science and Technology, Curtin University, Perth 2605, Australia
C2 NOAA, USA
   UNIV NEW HAMPSHIRE, USA
   NIWA, NEW ZEALAND
   FED PUBL SERV ECON, BELGIUM
   SHOM, FRANCE
   GEOL SURVEY NORWAY, NORWAY
   QPS BV, CANADA
   IFREMER, FRANCE
   TELEDYNE CARIS, CANADA
   UNIV CURTIN, AUSTRALIA
SI BREST
SE PDG-DFO-NSE-ASTI
IN WOS Ifremer UPR
   DOAJ
   copubli-france
   copubli-europe
   copubli-int-hors-europe
TC 5
UR https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00599/71133/69448.pdf
LA English
DT Article
DE ;Acoustic backscatter processing;Multibeam Echo Sounders;seafloor mapping
AB Seafloor backscatter mosaics are now routinely produced from multibeam echosounder data and used in a wide range of marine applications. However, large differences (>5 dB) can often be observed between the mosaics produced by different software packages processing the same dataset. Without transparency of the processing pipeline and the lack of consistency between software packages raises concerns about the validity of the final results. To recognize the source(s) of inconsistency between software, it is necessary to understand at which stage(s) of the data processing chain the differences become substantial. To this end, willing commercial and academic software developers were invited to generate intermediate processed backscatter results from a common dataset, for cross-comparison. The first phase of the study requested intermediate processed results consisting of two stages of the processing sequence: the one-value-per-beam level obtained after reading the raw data and the level obtained after radiometric corrections but before compensation of the angular dependence. Both of these intermediate results showed large differences between software solutions. This study explores the possible reasons for these differences and highlights the need for collaborative efforts between software developers and their users to improve the consistency and transparency of the backscatter data processing sequence 
PY 2019
PD DEC
SO Geosciences
SN 2076-3263
PU MDPI AG
VL 9
IS 12
UT 000506643100030
DI 10.3390/geosciences9120516
ID 71133
ER

EF