Thread: Interpreting sideimaging

I like 100 ft both ways for general coverage just because I can pick out things and yeah, in shallows you can get blockage depending on how near the tops of the weeds are. Its still way better than no side scan. If you have a little downward angle to the sonar wave it will travel along and show the tops and show dark areas for breaks in the weeds. Get the weeds to high and ain't nothing going to help you.

WarrenMN

Originally Posted by WarrenMN

I like 100 ft both ways for general coverage just because I can pick out things and yeah, in shallows you can get blockage depending on how near the tops of the weeds are. Its still way better than no side scan. If you have a little downward angle to the sonar wave it will travel along and show the tops and show dark areas for breaks in the weeds. Get the weeds to high and ain't nothing going to help you.

WarrenMN

I like the 100 ft cause of the troll grid. Fits perfect. I think the manual gives some recommended settings vs depth. like 50 ft width for 5 ft or less, etc. Can't remember exactly.

Originally Posted by WarrenMN

You'd love the stuff I'm working on right now for Oahe. Its on the order of 2ft resolution, horizontally that is, not vertically. Vertically your looking at a 6 inch resolution. Some thing like four or five hundred +/- 20 mb files. Its so detailed you can see where the old roads that are out of the water right now were, down to the ditches on each side. You can pick out small erosion washes along the current shore. It picked up the gravel parking pads in Indian Creek campground out side Mobridge. This covers down to 25 to 30 feet below normal pool. Now if the lake would just get enough run off to fill back up it'll be great.

WarrenMN

PS. I think Navionics released a new hi def map for Kentucky Lake.
http://www.navionics.com/PlatinumLak...sp?RegionID=10

Sounds neat. Are you gonna post any of this on your web?