Printable View
I did some on the water testing with both Lowrance & HB yesterday. In both cases the unit images were a lot better than when the snapshots were downloaded.
Take a look at this snapshot. It doesn't appear to me that the DI depth & SI depth are the same.
I am still searching for a palette that I can see well. I really liked the HB Amber 1 & 2 better than the ones I have tried with the Lowrance.
I need input .
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y29...ps5bb3915b.png
Don...if you are referencing the numbers at the bottom of the SI image....in relation to the bottom in the image "behind" the overlay numbers in the SI image...
We have to remember that the horizontal "thin strip" of data (about 1 pixel high) at the very top of the SI image is the only "current" data...
That horizontal "thin strip" of data (about 1 pixel high) behind those overlay numbers are way back in the "History" of the scanned track shown in the entire SI image...
When that particular "thin strip" (at the bottom of the SI image) was "pinged" ...the depth at that exact "ping"...was, indeed 20 ft deep...
The exact same "ping" of data at the very bottom of the SI image is the exact same "slice" of water being displayed at the very left-most edge of the DI image...20ft deep...(way back behind the present location of the boat when the shot was captured)..
Make sense...??
Rickie
And BTW...great shot...!!
:ThumbsUp
Rickie
Aww dang greenwing...
I was gonna explain the difference in "Depth" and "Range" in sonar...but your reference is gone now...
Oh well... I'll tackle that one later...
Rickie
I believe Don is referring to the most recent data on the DI is more than 30 feet deep whereas the SI water column seems to be less than 30.
Rickie, where does the 36.5'(depth readout) come into play? I don't see 36.5 fow unless it is measuring from the lowest part of the brighter section. The thickness of the brighter part looks to be 31'-37'.
On a bird, that depth readout comes from the 2d, I'm guessing the same for Low.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don G
Don what are you looking for in a pallet color? The blue to me has more contrast but I like the brown best. Was the unit in auto? 800khz will give you better down images IMO. Nice shot.
It does on a Lowrance too unless you go into the overlay menu and select "structure depth". I've never done it but I'd say you could remove the depth reading from 2d in the overlay menu also, just highlight it then select edit and remove.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stymie
Justin, something close to Amber2 on a HB.:) The brown is the closest I can find. Do you have any snapshots using your 12 Touch? I have used Auto & manual settings trying to get the best snapshots that I can.Quote:
Originally Posted by justinp61
Don sent me the picture, and I brought it to his attention. On the DI side, the digital depth reading is 36.5 feet. Looking at the bottom on the sonar image, the bottom drops off from about 25 feet to 30 feet. About a 6 foot discrepancy. here's another screen shot Don sent me. On this one, the bottom depth looks to accurate at the point the picture goes off the screen, which is as it should be.Attachment 135383
Don I like the Amber best too. I thought it strange that the Blue on this 1198 is not the same Blue that I had on my 1197. I like the Blue a lot on my 1197, but not on this 1198. Kind of strange I think that they changed it and to a Blue that is to me not as good.
Ok so my initial impression is moot because I did not even look at the digital depth readout of 36.5...
I agree with others here that the digital depth is derived from the 2d cone shaped beam which would probably be processing the bottom return differently than if the digital depth was derived from the SI crystals...
I have read interesting discussion about the "dead zone" in a 2d sonar cone....but I don't see how that "dead zone" discussion could apply here unless somehow the Lowrance is getting digital depth from the "frontal reaches" of the cone (which would be in front of the SI beams somewhat)...but, like I said...I don't think Lowrance derives digital depth from the front part of the cone.....I think all sonar companies process the "strongest" reoccurring return in the 2d cone as the bottom..
So I'm gonna say in your image scenario...I don't know why the digital depth is showing 6.5ft deeper than the scales overlayed in the DI and SI I ahead...
Rickie
I say the 36.5' is the depth AT the moment you took the snapshot, not the depth of the tree, it looks like the depth at the base of the tree is about 30' to me, but I'm no expert with these things. The digital depth in the upper left updates with every ping, while the picture scrolls across the screen would a bit of "history" since you have already gone over or past it by the tree is in the center of the screen. I have a G1 LOL.
The picture being "history", and the actual depth at the time of the snapshot makes sense. So looking at the first picture, off the screen to the right, the sonar is reading a 36 foot depth? But if you consider the second picture with the 18 foot depth reading at the edge of the picture being "history" you would think with the way the bottom is dropping off, the digital depth would be much greater than 18.6 at the time of the snapshot. SOG was very close for the 2 images.Quote:
Originally Posted by jimp
Don, I think a gremlin jumped out of Gene's unit and took up residence in your new Touch 7. :Rofl
Not yet Don, I've only had it out one time. Some of us have to work :Doh:.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don G
Justin, you can't miss work; we need your SS contribution.:yikesQuote:
Originally Posted by justinp61
If you only get out occasionally, then you just need a smaller unit. Send me your 12 and I will send you my 7......:highfive
I think this gremlin would be a good one for Jason Gilstrap...
Rickie