This blog moved again!

Come see the latest experiment at: http://geofroth.org.

The blog has moved....for now. Might stay moved.

I became interested in a different blogging platform today and moved the blog to wordpress.

Also changed the name a bit (same overall aroma, however):

Here is the new link:

http://geologicfroth.wordpress.com/

The blog is dead. Sorry.

Gigapan remains the man (for now)

I recently had some success with my new gigapan robot. Got what I deemed the perfect camera to go with it (Canon Powershot SX110IS 9MP with 10x optical zoom) and dragged it out into the field. I can't embed the images in the blog and am working on getting them on my website. For now you can see them at the following links:

Gigapan of Key stratigraphic section documenting the birth of the lower Colorado River

Gigapan of unnamed wash containing key outcrops of the Bouse Formation

The former one could be larger; the latter one is not thrilling, but it was the only windless place that day.

Turns out that the Gigapan Robot is out of beta...it costs a bit more but looks more finished.

Fun (?) with geoGeneralization, Part 1

We (I have some partners in crime now) have recently been exploring the application of generalization routines in Arc to one of my excessively detailed published geologic maps. As part of a larger mapping effort (ND2MP: The Nevada Digital Dirt Mapping Project) I am walking the fine line between the rationality of automated generalization and the impracticality of manually generalizing detailed mapping that I have already completed.

A lot of basic concepts of cartography in general and geologic mapping in particular come to the fore when you start visualizing blotch maps (i.e. those based on polygons) at different scales. Some interesting complexities involving the analog to digital map world also arise...those issues will eventually be aired on the ND2MP blog. For now, I will show some of the results of automated generalization routines in Arc.

The detailed map in question is NBMG Map 156, a map of Ivanpah Valley, Nevada that was compiled at ~1:12k but was released in Dead Tree Edition at 1:50k so it would fit on the plotter/tree killer.

After perusing various options, we decided that the 'aggregate' generalization tool was the closest to what we wanted...but not exactly what we wanted. This tool melds polys/blotches together on the basis of only a couple of criteria: how close together two like polys can be before they meld into one, and how small the resulting polys (or holes) can be. Both of these concepts involve deciding on a minimum mappable unit (MMU) dimension (a post and discussion for another day fellow mappers).

The map below is an ungeneralized version of a part of the Ivanpah Valley map (in this case the Jean 7.5 Quad) shown at (roughly) 1:150k:

A generalized version wherein two groups of the most intricately mapped surficial units are aggregated is shown below at the same scale (the yellow and red ones):

At face value, the lower map is a bit more legible. In this instance we aggregated like-polys that were less than 40m apart and eliminated polys (in the same group) that were smaller than 5 ha (50,000 sq. meters). We are considering an MMU of 9 ha for a final compilation of Clark County surficial geology to print (yes...I said print) at 1:150k. Note that the centroids of the eliminated polys will be retained as a point data set in case it actually matters that they are gone.

The generalization routine shown above essentially eliminated numerous reaches of narrow, active desert washes. We are interested in retaining these for various reasons, but maybe only as lines. If anyone has a suggestion for how to extract the lines from the eliminated wash reaches as part of the generalization process (or has a suggestion for a better generalization routine) please speak up!

Here are the maps side by side for better comparison:

Nevada Geo-gigapix: The Nevada Geologic Gigapixel Photography Experiment

Yes. I love to name stuff. Let's move on.

I finally made it out into the field to try out the gigapan robotic camera mount. Bottom line....sweet, man. This thing is a cinch to use and a kick to watch the first few times. It went so well that I started a new project that will be intimately linked with my too many other projects.

I have been swamped with many things ungeological at the office and could only make it to a local venue for the experiment...a cutbank along the Truckee River bike trail that I map in my mind each time I ride by it. Was hoping for a bigger splash with my first try, but settled on something simple.

After some basic setup procedures (maybe 5 minutes worth), I watched as my old sony digital camera was forced to take a systematic series of 33 pictures. Note that this is a small number and I could have taken 10s more with a higher resolution lens or a more expansive subject. Explore the gigapan site and you will get an idea of the possibilities.

Using the Gigapan stitcher software, I went from the image above to:

The result is a flawlessly stitched image (yes. I added the goofy deckled edge).

Take a minute to visit the hosted image at Gigapan.org to get a better feel why I think this is a great tool for geology. There you can zoom in and pan around and really check stuff out. The alluvial stratigraphy at this site is pretty straightforward, but you can imagine the insightful fun you could have with a particularly complicated exposure, right? Eventually, I will find out if the white bed is a tephra and get some radiocarbon dates on the organic muck horizons. Once I do that, I will tag the online image with the data.

A database of these types of (geotagged and geoannotated) images would be of great value. I need to ask some questions of others much smarter than I as to how I can add annotations and lines that can be turned on and off, etc.

Want to see some absolutely fabulous examples of what can be shown with gigapixel photography? Sure you do. Then check out the brilliant work of Greg Downing and others at xRez:

http://www.xrez.com/

The images of Yosemite are amazing. Also look for the images of the Eastern Sierra front and the Alabama Hills. Rumor has it that the Grand Canyon is in the offing. I and a group of like-minded digital geoheads are trying to get Greg to show the xRez stuff at the GSA annual meeting in Portland this year. Stay tuned.

Note also that Dr. Ron Schott has many geologically interesting gigapans that are easily found on the gigapan site by searching on 'geology'. For my AZ pals, he has a lot from your turf...why not check them out and provide some insights you may have?

Geo-R[ec]ant on Dead Tree Maps

I have received a lot of input lately...thanks to those who care. I am still enamored with my recent talk title involving the phrase: '...the death knell, yes the death knell, for exclusively paper geologic maps'. But it may have incited some confusion and ire. Please note the intentional insertion of the adjective exclusively. That is a key term here....look it up on Wikipedia (you know, that online resource you dissavow but use all the time).

Maps that are only available in paper form, i.e., Dead Tree Editions (gotta love that one, no?) are of considerably less utility than those that have a viable digital counterpart that can be viewed, analyzed, and widely distributed. Sure, exclusively paper maps are functional, portable, archivable in traditional ways, and fun to hold, but they have a pretty limited application in the 21st century. I stand by that assertion.

That being said, let me enumerate some points:

1. I, yes I, use paper maps in the field. I do not like carrying a computer around at all. Have tried it, don't like it. Hence my enthusiastic endorsement of new digital pen technology that allows for real ink to be applied to real paper only to later be uploaded into a digital form.

The challenge to the modern cartographer is to create aesthetically acceptable analog / dead tree derivatives of digital maps when needed (which, admittedly, is often).

2. I, yes I, love to put paper maps on the wall of my office and garage.

3. I, yes I, have a degree in Geography and Cartography that dates to the days of the freaking Leroy lettering set and very old school ink pen technology.

4. I, yes I, appreciate that some digital maps are inadequately documented in the domain of metadata, but I would like to stress that I have many paper maps that don't come with any metadata or metadata-like data.

I could go on, but you are already tired of me. But wait! I have recently found a post on the OpenGeoData blog (a blog about a digital enterprise that could not be carried out with dead trees) that illustrates some truly novel applications for printed maps. I strongly recommend the links below:

http://www.opengeodata.org/?p=310

Talk about a hard copy format with obvious potential for science: http://panamap.com/

Here is a map format designed for fools like me who map in the Mohave in the hot season:

http://store.randmcnally.com/category/id/100191.do?KickerID=100026&KICKER

Paper maps aren't dead...they just smell funny...especially if you wipe your brow with one while stumbling through the desert.

Your pal,

Dr. Jerque (thats faux French for Jerk...you knew that, right?)

Gigapan is the Man!

Of all the interesting things I learned at AGU a week or so ago, the utility of the Gigapan system for understanding and illustrating geology sunk in the hardest.

Ron Schott of Ft. Hays State University gave an excellent presentation that made this particularly clear. The gigapan system is elegant in its simplicity and it offers an avenue for simply depicting the elegant complexity (good one, no?) of huge geological vistas and outcrops. It even has an application for looking at very small things in a big way. Check out Ron's blog for some details.

What is Gigapan? Well, it is a system for taking a panoramic photograph that is composed of many, many, small and detailed photographs. Presumably you have personally attempted to make your own pan photos, say, with a software package or with a built in camera function. Dare I say that you probably didn't wan't to try to stitch together more that 5, maybe 6 photos, right? You probably stopped at 3 or 4...like the image below:


The Gigapan cranks this technique up a giganotch by stitching together 10s and 10s of high-resolution images into a...wait for it...Gigapan. The image below is a faked example to illustrate the difference between your approach and the Gigapan approach:


So. Why would you want to do this? Well, for one thing, it is totally cool. For another, it offers an exceptionally efficient way for exploring a large outcrop or geoscape. Once you have taken this series of images, stitched them together, and uploaded the result to the Gigapan site, you can view it at all levels of resolution. In the case above, you can bask in the glory of the huge stack of intracanyon basalt flows on the Owyhee River. Then you can zoom in and look at the complicated cooling structures in great detail. Then you can zoom in and check out the contacts between the flows. While you are at it, you can check out the thin beds of gravels sandwiched between the basalts, etc. etc.

While you are looking at the details, you can pull out images that illustrate some of the aforementioned features. These high-res thumbnails can then be tagged and described for your colleagues to check out. They can then do the same thing and point out obvious stuff that you missed.

I already have my Gigapan gear en route. It works with my existing digital camera collection and is shockingly cheap. Stay tuned for some obvious examples of the application of this to geological studies. Also, stay tuned for the NeGIGAvada project...it is coming. Or should it be GIGAvada?

Abstract and Slides from Dr Jerque's recent talk

Digital Geologic Mapping and Integration with the Geoweb: The Death Knell for Exclusively Paper Geologic Maps
The combination of traditional methods of geologic mapping with rapidly developing web-based geospatial applications ('the geoweb') and the various collaborative opportunities of web 2.0 have the potential to change the nature, value, and relevance of geologic maps and related field studies. Parallel advances in basic GPS technology, digital photography, and related integrative applications provide practicing geologic mappers with greatly enhanced methods for collecting, visualizing, interpreting, and disseminating geologic information. Even a cursory application of available tools can make field and office work more enriching and efficient; whereas more advanced and systematic applications provide new avenues for collaboration, outreach, and public education. Moreover, they ensure a much broader audience among an immense number of internet savvy end-users with very specific expectations for geospatial data availability. Perplexingly, the geologic community as a whole is not fully exploring this opportunity despite the inevitable revolution in portends. The slow acceptance follows a broad generational trend wherein seasoned professionals are lagging behind geology students and recent graduates in their grasp of and interest in the capabilities of the geoweb and web 2.0 types of applications. Possible explanations for this include: fear of the unknown, fear of learning curve, lack of interest, lack of academic/professional incentive, and (hopefully not) reluctance toward open collaboration. Although some aspects of the expanding geoweb are cloaked in arcane computer code, others are extremely simple to understand and use. A particularly obvious and simple application to enhance any field study is photo geotagging, the digital documentation of the locations of key outcrops, illustrative vistas, and particularly complicated geologic field relations. Viewing geotagged photos in their appropriate context on a virtual globe with high-resolution imagery can be an extremely useful accompaniment to compilation of field mapping efforts. It can also complement published geologic maps by vastly improving their comprehensibility when field photos, and specific notes can be viewed interactively with them. Other useful applications include GPS tracking/documentation of field traverses; invoking multiple geologic layers; 3-D visualizations of terrain and structure; and online collaboration with colleagues via blogs or wikis. Additional steps towards collaborative geologic mapping on the web may also enhance efficient and open sharing of data and ideas. Geologists are well aware that paper geologic maps can convey tremendous amounts of information. Digital geologic maps linked via a virtual globe with field data, diverse imagery, historical photographs, explanatory diagrams, and 3-D models convey a much greater amount of information and can provide a much richer context for comprehension and interpretation. They can also serve as an efficient, entertaining, and potentially compelling mechanism for fostering inspiration in the minds of budding (and aging) geologists.

Check out this SlideShare Presentation:

Geofroth at AGU 2008

View SlideShare presentation or Upload your own. (tags: geology geotagging)

Captain Obvious Reviews his Transect

As a follow-up to recent and elementary post about how useful Google Earth is for field mapping, check out the traverse that I actually made:


Also, check out the online photo album that I created from the geotagged images shown on the snippet above:

Lower Walker River

If you don't think these technologies are useful, you may need to seek counseling.

Attribution ADD for you and me

Howdy Dummies. Are you like me? Do you get so wrapped up in mapping lines on high-res imagery that you fail to judiciously attribute them? You know, that 'oh man, I can just keep mapping this obvious contact until it disappears' feeling. Do you do the same with label points (you do use label points, right?)? Well, you can control your attention deficit by selecting a key option in Editor>Options interface:

Once you select the correct attribution option, you will be interrogated by the program as to what the attribute of the feature you just created is. Yes, you will have to make the call then. You really don't have time for that second, or third, or fourth sweep through the map do you? Do it right the first time. Be particularly judicious about your label points since those are much harder to formulate well after the fact.

I had no idea this option was available until fairly recently. If you knew of it, way to go. You are less of a dummy than I.

Captain Obvious Says: Google Earth is useful

File this one under the hilariously obvious. I am preparing for a 2-day outing for some reconnaissance along the range front of the Wassuk Range near Walker Lake. The piedmont there is an amazing plexus of massive, bouldery debris flow fans, multiple shorelines, and multiple Quaternary fault strands. It is an exceptional place to check out in real life and in Google Earth. In preparing my crap for the field, it dawned on me that instead of stupidly taking my computer in the field with a bunch of cached data, I could just print out some key perspectives on the areas I planned to visit. Duh. Despite being obsessed with hi-tech devices, I really do not like carrying a computer in the field. Also, I have never been one to enjoy using a stereoscope in the field, so this is an obvious solution.

If you have Google Earth Pro, you can save some nice high-res images (there are others ways to get them...) and doctor them up a bit for clarity and contrast. Check out the image below:



Thus, I will use this as one of my base images while mapping in the field. Isn't this obvious? Doesn't it look like a cool area to get paid to hike around in?

I am sure you know that you can overlay high-res geotifs in Google Earth if the existing base imagery does not meet your needs.

The Ultimate Digital Tool for Dummies and Luddites?

Imagine an ink pen that ~instantly converts your field notes into digital data. That's right. An ink pen that simply, and nearly instantly, converts all you have written into your field book into a digital notebook. There is one, I have tested it, I really like it, I have no reservations about recommending it. There are few reasons not to use it.

The pen and field book combo is made by Adapx. Through a complex combination of sensors in the pen and embedded patterns (Anoto pattern) in the paper (in this case, an actual Rite in the Rain field book), the pen's brain keeps a precise record of all the strokes it has made during the day. Once the day has ended, plug the thing into your computer and it uploads all the pages of notes. The latter, and most important step, requires that you use Microsoft OneNote software. This is not a dreadfully negative factor, however. The software is surprisingly useful.

The screen clipping below shows an example of the digital data pulled off of the pen. This (for what it is worth) does look precisely like my handwriting. The sample below is from a recent field stint on the Owyhee River. The embedded image and clean text were added later using simple tools in OneNote. (Read about OneNote here)

Also, OneNote can attempt to convert your handwriting to text. It does a fair job depending on your penmanship. At the very least, it gives you a decent start on converting your chicken-scratches.
The example above shows: 1. Field notes, 2. OneNote conversion, 3. Corrected note (with mistake, whoops)

Geologic mapperz stay tuned. This device is also designed to allow you to draft on to paper maps, yes paper maps, and automatically convert your analog mapping to digital mapping. It works with ArcGIS (must have the .NET framework installed) and has lots of promise. I will be testing this application in the field soon.

Notes: the pen and OneNote add-on cost me $300. Battery power is good for more than 1 day. The ink used by the pen is Rite in the Rain's proprietary ink. It gets a little thick in the cold. I would kill for a pencil, my preferred note taking device. Alas.

Masking the lake for a good stretch

If you make your geologic maps using ArcGIS and work with nicely detailed color imagery, then you already know how useful a stretch is. If not, check this previous posts for dummies:

http://geofroth.blogspot.com/2007/10/mandatory-image-enhancements.html

Now that you are back up to speed, I will share a simple trick I figured out by brute force that eliminates areas that may skew your stretch in an inconvenient way. Namely, large bodies of water. Right now, I am supposed to be finalizing mapping in the Spirit Mtn NW quad which includes parts of Nevada, Arizona, and Lake Mohave. Mapping along the lakeshore in the field is a joy; whereas compiling along the lakeshore is a pain in the neck...particularly when you use the standard deviation stretch restricted to the 'current display extent' which is usually the best option for contrast enhancement. The problem is caused by the black hole of lake pixels that dominate the statistics. The solution? Mask out the lake in a new raster using the 'extract' tool:

Here are the results from my current map area:

Before:

After:

Epilogue. Someone with considerably more knowledge in GIS than I once explained to me how I could do this with raster math. I screwed around with that and failed. After numerous scans through Arc Toolbox (haven't you scanned that stuff over and over looking for something?), I finally found some commands that sounded useful. Remember, this is digital geoscience for dummies.

How to eat GeoSpaghetti

Geologic mapping can span many scales of time and space. Some of the most complex linework can result from evaluating a fluvial system in great detail in a small area and over a geologically instantaneous period of time. In my case, this scenario corresponds to the Bill Williams River in Arizona. For several years, I have been compiling detailed geologic maps of channel change on that river since 1953. The result? A heaping plate of GeoSpaghetti.

The image above is an excerpt from a 35 mile stretch of river. Yes. The river has undergone some profound changes in the last 50 years or so. Exactly how and why is beyond the point of this blog. One day I will publish it if it matters to you.

The point of this entry is to describe the various tools and methods that I have employed in ArcGIS to compile the lines in a meaningful way and to turn the resulting spaghetti into a meaningful map or series of maps.

The Project:

Map the bottomland geomorphology of the Bill Williams River at specific points in time using a chronology of orthorectified aerial photographs. At this point, I have mapped six generations of the valley bottom. The resulting plexus of lines is a logistical nightmare to a certain extent, but I believe I came up with a reasonable way to deal with them. If you map similar things and have better ideas or suggestions, please let me know.

1. Set up a geodatabase...yes you need to know the basics of this fundamental operation. Add your lines as classes in a geology feature dataset.
2. Determine a boundary to which you will be mapping and stick with it. Note that as you map different generations of lines, you will want to alter the boundary...you just will. However, unless it is a major issue and you will diligently propagate that alteration through all of your line layers, resist the temptation
3. Develop a line and polygon attribution scheme that is flexible and systematic. Important: this scheme needs to be logical and transferable to each generation of linework. Certain generations may require specific types of lines and polygons, but try to adhere to a common conceptual base so that it makes sense all the way through. Record the nomenclature in a spreadsheet and update it when you inevitably revise or add to your units. The spreadsheet can be a life-saver if you tend to work on too many projects and put this one down for a few months.
   
4. Begin mapping the earliest generation of photograph if possible. It is best to map the images in chronological order for reasons that will soon become clear. Map lines NOT polygons. Starting with polygons is whacked. You can build them from lines in a matter of seconds.
   
5. Once the earliest generation is mapped (and you have attributed the ‘proto’ polygons with a point feature class...post coming if this is news to you) and the topology is all correct (you did build and check the topology, right?) copy it and rename it. Use this dataset as a starting point for the next generation of photos. Note: the tediousness is about to set in or get worse.
   
6. Yikes. Your map is already a mess. Now you need to mesh the data in a logical way. You have added lines that preclude the existence of some of the previous generation’s lines, right? All of the precluded lines need to be removed (don't worry the originals still exist...remember, you copied them).
   
7. Luckily, you have already built and analyzed the topology of your first layer, right? Well now build and analyze the topology of the second layer for laughs. The only rule you really need is the ‘no dangles’ rule. If you have the topology built and analyzed, you can use the ‘Planarize’ tool to break selected lines (even all of them) at each intersection. Then you can sweep through and select and delete all of the (now) superfluous lines.

That sounds easy right? It is easy, but really really tedious. Also, unless you have taken some preliminary precautions, you may lose all of your careful attribution. For better or worse, when you set up the geodatabase, you have many, many, options to ignore or address. Some of these are very useful to know about. One is ‘Default value’. What you choose here is the default attribution given to any piece of data that you enter. In the case of the Bill Williams map, setting the apyear (aerial photograph year) to the appropriate year was essential and useful. In other cases, I bet you can come up with some examples of your own where this would be useful.

You may also find yourself splitting and merging many lines. Unless you establish 'split' and 'merge' policies, you may get some disconcerting results...like total loss of attribution that you didn't find out about until you split 10s to 100s of lines:

It is best practice to attribute your geolines immediately upon drawing them unless it is really ambiguous and you have a firm follow-up plan. Thus, choosing a default value for a line that requires some scientific judgment may not be the best idea. In the (recent) past, I have had a tendency to map many lines without attribution, assuming that I will do it in a ‘second pass’ through the data. Yikes. That is really stupid. For one thing, once you have drafted the line, you have covered it; for another, the ‘second (or third) pass’ idea isn’t very efficient and just effing snowballs up on you.

So what to do?

Option 1: Diligently attribute each line after you draft it.

Option 2: Have the program force you to attribute the line, or point, or poly, once you draft it.

Option 2 is the most efficient way to go. I just discovered this one.

Stay tuned for updates as to the progress of the Bill Williams River map...polygons coming next.

My new digital love, the cheap and rugged Laser Range Finder.

A few years ago, a geopal of mine turned me on to the 'magic box'...a laser rangefinder from LaserTech Inc. It was a little bulky and came in a box so padded that you were reluctant to keep it out of it for long...also, it cost several $1000. Nonetheless, I coveted that device from afar and borrowed it for several months.

On a more recent excursion, a different geopal pulled out a nifty little yellow number from LaserTech that made all of the same measurements (slope distance, vertical distance, horizontal distance, inclination, height) but came in a much smaller, more rugged package.

Turns out they got the thing on my advice several months prior when I scoffed at their use of a Jacob staff to measure several 100 meters of section (flat-lying rocks). More importantly, it turns out that the smaller, more rugged version is also less than $1000!

Damn right I got one. Maybe you should have one too. This little number could change your life if you sketch a lot of strat sections and guesstimate unit thicknesses or otherwise conjure up various spatial dimensions on the fly. With a little extra thinking, you can also construct an accurate cross section in the field if you are so inclined.

I used mine in the field over the weekend and was thoroughly satisfied with the results.

Geo-Rant: My Quads are killing me (and wasting tons of time)!!

No, not because I spend so much time hiking in the desert or because I lugged way too much crap down the South Kaibab Trail last month...not those quads. What is killing me is being a victim of mapping 7.5 minute quads. Mapping 7.5 minute quads is a waste of time. It is efficient only in a clerical sense, not in a scientific sense. Mapping on the basis of 7.5 minute quads amounts to mapping in a rectangular frame with boundaries that are (aside from some amazing coincidence) completely arbitrary with respect to geology.

Obviously, the implied goal of mapping 7.5 minute quads is to allow for a systematic framework for eventually mapping a bunch of officially circumscribed rectangles that cover an entire state or region. The key words here are 'officially', eventually', and 'rectangular'. Morevover, the concept of mapping quads is so deeply mired in the deeply pre-digital history of the USGS and the history of printing that it has become an ultra-anachronism.

I have been foolish enough to map a patchwork series of quadrangles along the lower Colorado River in an attempt to better understand the river's geologic history. Each time I move into a new quad, I learn more about that history (or more variations on it) that inform previous maps. Why in the hell I didn't just try to get funding to map the deposits of interest along the corresponding length of river is beyond me. Eight years later, I am still trying to finish some of those maps (sure, I am a perfectionist, but there are other reasons).

My most ambitious mapping project, the Ivanpah Mega-Map (Ivanpaviathan), is a classic example of how mapping quads can (temporarily) wreck your life. In that case, I stupidly proposed to map the entirety of all of the quads that fell even partly into the boundary of the watershed of interest. WTF? What an idiot. That is how mired I was in the Quad Mapping Model (QMM). I paid and paid dearly for that bit of stupidity.

My job involves mapping a lot of quads in Nevada. My agency has a goal of eventually mapping the entire state. Ha! That is not going to happen at 1:24,000 in my or my kids' (or their kids') lifetimes. In fact, this is simply not going to happen ever! Deal with it. Pick the areas that really matter (for whatever reason you like) and map them. Don't worry, you can still circumscribe the area with a quadrilateral that has easily defineable corner coordinates....

Huge thunderstorm in western Grand Canyon

A highlight in anyone's life, particularly a geomorphologist's. More proof that digital video can really complement geologic field work. Love that waterproof camera.

Resurrection / Superposition Rapid, Colorado River

In an ironic geomorphic situation, the Colorado River has formed a new rapid downstream from the mouth of the Grand Canyon near Pierce Ferry. Here, recession of Lake Mead has (obviously) induced incision by the river. The river adopted a new course that traverses some resistant beds in the Muddy Creek Formation. This video chronicles the vagaries of this rapid.

Love my Pentax Optio W60!

I splurged on a waterproof camera before a long trip down the Grand Canyon. Aside from assuaging my fear of taking pictures in the rapids, it also provided a great opportunity to film a ride through a classic river rapid wave train with large standing waves. Critical flow anyone?

Who needs a waterproof camera? You do.

I have just returned from my grand hiatus and have lots of proof that waterproof cameras kick proverbial a*s. For example, check out this little video (with audio, no less) of bedload transport in Travertine Grotto: