tim
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Goldman writes:
> Are voxels an appropriate addition to VRML? They are indubitably an
> i> ential type of 3-dimensional data for scientific and medical research,
> but my feeling is that voxel data is a closer cousin to im types like
> GIF and JPG than to geometry types such as VRML [snip...]
Yes, they ARE an e> ential type of 3D data, however, comparing with GIF and
JPG is invalid I believe. First, GIF and JPG are COMPRESSION standards for
ims. True, the RECTILINEAR, and OCTREE types are a form of compression,
but a) they wouldn't have to be included if it were too difficult for a
browser to deal with, and b) I don't think they compare in difficulty with
GIF or JPG encoding whatsoever. Second, VRML is already able to deal with
ims, so saying that voxels should not be a part of the standard because
they are more related to ims doesn't make ense.
> a) Voxels can benefit highly from fourier (or wavelet) encodings such as
> jpg. b) Voxels can (and should) be viewed with a variety of associated
> transparency and colormaps, ideally manipulable on the fly. c)
> Manipulable planar and spherical slices through voxel space are another
> useful analysis tool. None of these concepts or techniques fit
> comfortably in VRML, but should be derigeur for a robust voxel viewer.
If I am getting the point of most people's comments on putting in a voxel
YES! Although I believe that fields are already implemented in VRML, they
Regards,
---------------------------------------------
---- End of forwarded li> ----
node is not concern for what people would want
dealing with them for browsers that did not want
pentium might come acro> a world with a voxel node in it, and have to
stare at an hourglass for two hours before it fell over. As for (a) I
believe that most browsers have the ability the deal with GIF ims as
textures, and my gui> is that they will be gaining JPG functionality if
they don't already have them. (b and c) Yes, the idea is that there will
be one or two browsers which would fully implement a voxel toolkit. To say
that they would not fit comfortably in VRML is not true either. Voxels can
be dealt with just like any other 3D object, and VRML is a 3D spec. To not
include them push>s a not insignificant segment of the 3D rendering users
to another standard instead of VRML.
> On the other hand, the most convincing argument for their inclusion is
> the potential for combining geometry (VRML) with fields (voxels) in a
> single scene.
just happen to be missing that 3rd dimension. I think that the
possibilities of this combination are what make
tim
Timothy Ritchey [email protected]
Jesus College tel: (01)223 576-822
Cambridge fax: (01)223 576-822
CB5 8BL
England
---------------------------------------------
Timothy Ritchey [email protected]
Jesus College tel: (01)223 576-822
Cambridge fax: (01)223 576-822
CB5 8BL
England