Need images of brush

[188Musky]

Here is a bundle of Christmas trees.

This lake is notorious for poorer images, though. Dark, stained water combined with pine pollen in the water, and some prop wash from previous passes. However, you can still make out a defined Christmas tree on the lower left of the bundle. This is 18.3, on a Carbon 9.



The same image from a Live 12, for comparison; using the same SS3D transducer.

[DonnieG]

Thanks for the images..Not much difference in the Carbon & Live units..

[188Musky]

Some images of the same bundle of Christmas trees, for comparison of 19.1 vs 18.3. Again, this body of water is notorious for poor images, and this set of shots was taken in a 18mph crosswind.

The first two, a Live 12. Interesting that the brush does not show up well on the side image, even though the downscan shows it well; the boat was directly over the trees. Clearly, the sidescan elements have trouble showing what is directly down.





A Carbon 9.



My impressions of 19.1 were good. We've asked for more sensitivity control for a long time; it appears this is a step in the that direction.

Images in the lake basin, say 25-40 feet, with a soft bottom would be almost black if the optimum contrast settings for shallower, harder bottom areas were used. At least on the body of water I was on, basin areas took about an A+18 setting in 40 feet and mud bottom. Shallower, and harder bottom, the neighborhood of A+2 was more to my liking. Previously, it seems, depth changes never took that wide of a range of adjustment.

[jjjaymmman]

Some images of the same bundle of Christmas trees, for comparison of 19.1 vs 18.3. Again, this body of water is notorious for poor images, and this set of shots was taken in a 18mph crosswind.

The first two, a Live 12. Interesting that the brush does not show up well on the side image, even though the downscan shows it well; the boat was directly over the trees. Clearly, the sidescan elements have trouble showing what is directly down.





A Carbon 9.



My impressions of 19.1 were good. We've asked for more sensitivity control for a long time; it appears this is a step in the that direction.

Images in the lake basin, say 25-40 feet, with a soft bottom would be almost black if the optimum contrast settings for shallower, harder bottom areas were used. At least on the body of water I was on, basin areas took about an A+18 setting in 40 feet and mud bottom. Shallower, and harder bottom, the neighborhood of A+2 was more to my liking. Previously, it seems, depth changes never took that wide of a range of adjustment.

WOW, that shallow and you can't really see a tree on SI??? Sad

[188Musky]

WOW, that shallow and you can't really see a tree on SI??? Sad

It's there, but not real prominent.

This is a somewhat unique shot, though, sidecan wise; I don't usually see this, but there it is. I would see it plainly if it was off to the side, but here, it is directly under the transducer.

As I stated, it might have something to do with the conditions on the lake at the time. In fact, it's likely.

[jjjaymmman]

It's there, but not real prominent.

This is a somewhat unique shot, though, sidecan wise; I don't usually see this, but there it is. I would see it plainly if it was off to the side, but here, it is directly under the transducer.

As I stated, it might have something to do with the conditions on the lake at the time. In fact, it's likely.

That should not be a lake condition issue! It's more likely a user error or product problem considering it's visible on down imaging.

[188Musky]

That should not be a lake condition issue! It's more likely a user error or product problem considering it's visible on down imaging.

OK, let’s go with user error.

[DonnieG]

Picked this tree up pretty good with 3-IN-1 SI..

[188Musky]

Looks good, Donnie.