picture of crappie

**Humminbird_Greg** · 10-04-2012, 10:09 AM

Originally Posted by rnvinc

I would interpret that shadow's placement as making the fish off to the side in the DI beam slice just a little...

Rickie

The picture Kosmo posted appears to be from a 998c Si unit Rickie, so that means the catfish was marked in at least one of the Si beams. That would put the catfish off to one side or the other. If Kosmo would have also posted a screen snapshot of the Si sonar we would know which side it was off to.

Knowing it's a 998c Si unit, I don’t find the shadow strangely placed.

**Humminbird_Greg** · 10-04-2012, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by mduncan62

Based on the figures I've seen from Doug V on BBC, that Crappie would be 12" tall based on 7ft of water. Seems a bit big for a Crappie. Nice pic though.

I’m not following you here mduncan62, those screen snapshots are showing from 7 to 30 feet of water, so where are you getting 7 feet of water from?
Maybe I need to see what DougV posted in the BBC as I figure it’s about a 9 inch tall fish (hard to more exact without the original screen snapshot).
You got a link to DougV’s post on BBC?

**rnvinc** · 10-04-2012, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by Humminbird_Greg

The picture Kosmo posted appears to be from a 998c Si unit Rickie, so that means the catfish was marked in at least one of the Si beams. That would put the catfish off to one side or the other. If Kosmo would have also posted a screen snapshot of the Si sonar we would know which side it was off to.

Knowing it's a 998c Si unit, I don’t find the shadow strangely placed.

I'm curious to know the clues of the image posting that indicate it was his 998c SI instead of his 597ci HD DI...(orientation of the split screen? Size of the depth digits? Lake bottom presentation in the image?..)

I enjoy learning...

Rickie

**Humminbird_Greg** · 10-04-2012, 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by rnvinc

I'm curious to know the clues of the image posting that indicate it was his 998c SI instead of his 597ci HD DI...(orientation of the split screen? Size of the depth digits? Lake bottom presentation in the image?..)

I enjoy learning...

Rickie

The size and shape of the image he posted plus another post where he mentions his 998c Si unit…

I knew it was an 800 or 900 series unit by the shape of the screen snapshot and also from the location of the digital depth (this ruled out an 1100 series unit). The appearance of the Di sonar helped as well. I always fond the Si/Di to be more 3D looking in that I perceive depth to the Di sonar image versus the flat looking images from the dedicated single beam DI sonar units.

**Stymie** · 10-04-2012, 05:49 PM

I'm pretty sure he is referring to using a ruler to measure the water column image and correlating to the actual depth. Then inferring an object's actual height from the object's measured height on the image.

I have no idea where his seven feet of water came from.

Originally Posted by Humminbird_Greg

I’m not following you here mduncan62, those screen snapshots are showing from 7 to 30 feet of water, so where are you getting 7 feet of water from?
Maybe I need to see what DougV posted in the BBC as I figure it’s about a 9 inch tall fish (hard to more exact without the original screen snapshot).
You got a link to DougV’s post on BBC?

**Redge** · 10-04-2012, 06:02 PM

Very cool pics!

**kosmo** · 10-04-2012, 06:16 PM

im at work right now and using my phone and just noticed something.i zoomed in on the structure in that picture with the crappie.theres a really good detailed picture of a fish on the right side and i think theres a fish on the left side but hes not as visable

**kosmo** · 10-04-2012, 08:50 PM

i used paint to resize the area were the fish is

**mduncan62** · 10-04-2012, 09:36 PM

Originally Posted by Humminbird_Greg

I’m not following you here mduncan62, those screen snapshots are showing from 7 to 30 feet of water, so where are you getting 7 feet of water from?
Maybe I need to see what DougV posted in the BBC as I figure it’s about a 9 inch tall fish (hard to more exact without the original screen snapshot).
You got a link to DougV’s post on BBC?

So 13ft of water is showing in Kosmo's pic, and you believe that fish is 9" tall? Love to see how you came up with that.

**CrappiePappy** · 10-05-2012, 01:13 AM

... but, I think you all are missing some things, here. In Kosmo's first picture, it appears that the unit is measuring over 20ft of water depth ... and that's reading from the far right side of the image (possibly reading the "hump" as 20.7ft deep). Now, not being familiar with HB's, I would have to assume that the 7 in the top right hand corner means that the unit is in some kind of "zoom" mode ?? ... otherwise, his transducer is 7ft below the surface !!??

If you measure the height of the "fish", and compare that to the height of the water column ... it would still take 16 "fish", stacked one on top of the other, to equal the 2" height of the portion of the picture representing the water column. Even if the water depth is actually 20.7ft ... it still would take 16 "fish" stacked, to cover the 2" representation of that depth. That would make the fish have to be ~12" tall ... BUT, being as the unit is apparently in zoom mode ... and the fish at an unknown distance away from the transducer ... would it not be a possibility that the size representation of that "fish" could be skewed (by being closer to the transducer than the other objects pictured)???

And, unless Kosmo is 100% certain that he caught that particular fish ... how do we even know if it really is a Crappie ??

But, let's say that the unit IS in zoom mode ... reading a zoomed parameter range of 7-30 feet . The depth is still clearly 20.7 feet ... making the missing top 7ft approx. 1/3 of the equation. Now, remove 1/3 of the supposed 12" height of the "fish" ... and the fish is now 8" tall. That's still quite large for a Crappie !! Our state record Crappie was 18" "around" ... and weighed close to 5lbs !! SO ... let's say the zoom factor is +2x ... making the "fish" closer to 4" tall. See where this is all going ?? This is a flat picture, representing a 3D image ... so it's not going to be easily measured against the other dimensions, without knowing distances from the signal initiation point (transducer).

An easy to understand representation of my flawed math explanation, is this .... look at a car in your driveway, from your front door, then extend your hand & point your thumb upwards ... how big does your thumb look, in comparison to the car ?? See what I mean ?? Can you really measure your thumb, by using just the height of the car, without factoring in the distance between eye & thumb, and eye & car ??

Come on, people .... you KNOW that fish isn't 12 inches tall, because if it was ... it would be ~3ft LONG, using those methods of screen measuring. Give props to the unit for showing a reasonably good image of a fish, and to Kosmo for a good screen shot ... and not turn this thread into another "chevy vs ford" debate.

... cp

Thread: picture of crappie

Thread Tools

Display

Playing Devil's Advocate here ...

Posting Permissions