markv@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Mark T Vandewettering) (11/26/89)
I have lately become involved with ongoing research at Princeton University in the field of scientific visualization, and would like to know first of all, if any mailing lists exist, and if not (as I presume there aren't) to propose the formation of one. Such a mailing list would serve many purposes: o To serve as a forum for many researchers to "get to know" each other. o Announcement of papers of interest, as well as maintenance of a bibliography on subjects relevant to the field. o Announcement of available software which has been found useful for tasks of scientific visualization. o Researcher's descriptions of "case studies". This would allow us to hear of the pitfalls of certain approaches or methologies. o Discussion of topics which are relevant and of general interest to visualization efforts. This can be programming tricks, critiques of papers, or whatever. o Hardware which has proven to be useful. If nobody else wants the job, then I will accept the job of moderation and compilation of the mailing list. I should be able to provide an archive ftp site as well for back issues of the mailing list, and am willing to cross post to newsgroups like comp.graphics and sci.math.num-analysis if that is deemed appropriate by net readership. In any case, discussion of the mailing list formation and topics for discussion is welcome. If there is sufficient interest, expect an announcement about its formation. Mark VandeWettering
thomson@cs.utah.edu (Rich Thomson) (11/26/89)
In article <11726@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> markv@phoenix.Princeton.EDU () writes: >I have lately become involved with ongoing research at Princeton >University in the field of scientific visualization, and would like to >know first of all, if any mailing lists exist, and if not (as I presume >there aren't) to propose the formation of one. (From news.lists, dated 7 Nov 89) comp-visualization Contact: comp-vis-request@cs.utah.edu (Rich Thomson) Purpose: This mailing list is intended to be a forum for discussion of computer visualization. "Computer visualization" refers to the related topics of graphical program interfaces, simulation, image processing and computer graphics with a dash of hypermedia and artificial intelligence thrown in. The group discusses any and or all topics related to computer visualization and its application to problems in the sciences. As you can see, such a list already exists (I am the "editor"); it is characterized by a group of subscribers that are all ears for the latest information about computer visualization. Unfortunately, there isn't anyone SAYING anything. I posted some admittedly opinionated material to the list in the beginning, hoping to at least get a response from them. Nil. So, whatever you want to say can be said here. I don't do anything other than re-format the message. Don't be surprised if it feels like you're shouting down an empty well, though. >Such a mailing list would serve many purposes: > >o To serve as a forum for many researchers to "get to know" > each other. >o Announcement of papers of interest, as well as maintenance of > a bibliography on subjects relevant to the field. >o Announcement of available software which has been found useful > for tasks of scientific visualization. >o Researcher's descriptions of "case studies". This would allow > us to hear of the pitfalls of certain approaches or > methologies. >o Discussion of topics which are relevant and of general interest > to visualization efforts. This can be programming tricks, > critiques of papers, or whatever. >o Hardware which has proven to be useful. >I should be able to provide an >archive ftp site as well for back issues ftp to cs.utah.edu (128.110.4.21) and look in pub/comp-vis. >of the mailing list, and am willing to cross post to newsgroups like >comp.graphics and sci.math.num-analysis if that is deemed appropriate by >net readership. I don't bother to cross-post because there isn't any traffic yet. -- Rich Rich Thomson thomson@cs.utah.edu {bellcore,hplabs,uunet}!utah-cs!thomson "Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly." Thomas Paine, _The Crisis_, Dec. 23rd, 1776
thomson@cs.utah.edu (Rich Thomson) (11/26/89)
In article <3399@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> bio_zwbb@jhunix.UUCP (Dr. William B. Busa) writes: >[Raises the question of] *why* comp-visualization is so demonstrably >unsuccessful. [...] a few possibilities: I agree that the mailing list has, so far, proven to be somewhat of a failure (in the sense that it should be communicating some information and isn't). > * Its a mailing list, rather than a newsgroup. While being a mailing list means that it isn't sponsored world-wide by usenet (except that it is listed in the list of mailing lists posted regularly to news.lists), it does mean that contributions arrive in one's personal mailbox as opposed to a common feeding trough. This can decrease response time to a particular query, depending on how the particulars of the mailing list mechanism. Some mailing lists are setup to automatically forward contributions to all subscribers. The mailing lists I've managed have always been of the form of re-formatted (I hesitate to say 'edited', because I never remove any contributed information) bundles. > * Its subject matter is *too broad*. By striving to interest many, >it ends up interesting none. This could be a valid criticism given the current description for comp-vis. comp-vis was intended to bring together people from different areas to have them share information as opposed to a bunch of specialists in computer graphics talking about Phong shading. I had hoped that we would see things like: bibliographies, pointers to algorithms for volume (really, n-dimensional) rendering, etc. >The proposal [...] to create a group interested specifically in "scientific >visualization" -- which I, at least, take to mean digital image analysis >and enhancement of images created via techniques such as microscopy, 3D >NMR, X-ray crystallography, etc.-- would interest me directly, and I'm >sure I'd participate in such a group (especially if it was an unmoderated >newsgroup). One of the problems is that the term "scientific visualization" has so many (too many?) meanings. My interpretation is that sci-vis refers to the problem of displaying data (gathered from an experiment or simulation of some phenomenon of interest) in a more "meaningful" form than tables of numbers. The trick is coming up with the "meaningful" form. For some, this may simply be a 2D/3D graph. For others, contour plots would be more meaningful. While there are some general approaches, there is the problem of mapping the data into a visual form that _inherintly_ highlights some particular relationship in the data. The problem is further made difficult by the fact that the researcher sometimes doesn't know a priori what the relationship -*should*- look like. Furthermore, for just about every technique of coming up with an image, there seems to be a specific technique for improving that particular image. These are techniques related to the process of imaging, i.e. what happens between the crystal and what you see on the screen for X-ray crystallography. These techniques tend to be unique to scientific visualization and the particular phenomenon under investigation. These methods tend to be of extreme interest to a select few, mildly interesting to a larger group, and not of any interest to the unwashed masses. There are general-purpose "data" visualization techniques: density plots, false color contour plots, isocontours. Then, there are general-purpose image processing techniques that can be used to filter images (low-pass -- "smoothing", high-pass, edge-sharpening, edge detection, contrast enhancement, histogram equalization, etc). These techniques are not unique to scientific visualization and have many common roots with signal processing theory and robotics. They are of general interest to those working in computer graphics and IP related work. While they may not have been specifically developed for scientific visualization, they have a role to play in sci-vis. Another aspect that must be considerd is the intended audience. This was discussed in a recent issue of _Computer Graphics World_, where they were interviewing scientists at several research labs. The scientists in the article declared a need for visualization tools at both ends of what I would call a "quality spectrum". They wanted fast, interactive, relatively low quality (pixel aliasing (NOT data aliasing) was acceptable, wire-frames instead of smooth-shaded objects, etc) images while they were probing their data for hidden relationships and verifying postulations about the phenomenon under investigation. Then, they wanted to be able to process the same data to produce high-quality images (smooth shading, little or no pixel aliasing, 3D perspective views, titles, etc) for reports and conferences. Another problem is what I call the "knowledge gap" between researchers and the computer scientists helping the researcher visualize results. How much knowledge of computer graphics does the researcher need to understand the limits and accuracies of the visual form? How much knowledge of the phenomenon under investigation does a programmer need to ensure that the visual form doesn't introduce "phantom effects"? For me, there seems to be no general answer to these questions. Personally, when I've talked with scientists about specific applications I have experienced both the former and the latter. I would like to see comp-vis be a place where people exchange algorithms and techniques both accessible and usable by a large community of users (of which programmers and scientists are a part). I think that discussions of particular techniques for XYZ application is not going to be of interest to most of the readers. On the other hand, some may expect that 'discussion of technique' means a place where they can get particular solutions for their particular problems. >Dr. William Busa, Dept. of Biology, The Johns Hopkins University, Charles >& 34th Sts., Baltimore, MD 21218 (301) 338-8207 >bio_zwbb@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu uunet!mimsy!jhunix!bio_zwbb [ BTW, Dr. Busa are you familiar with Bill Thomson of Thomson Instrument Co.? My dad does alot of business at Johns Hopkins. ] -- Rich Rich Thomson thomson@cs.utah.edu {bellcore,hplabs,uunet}!utah-cs!thomson "Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly." Thomas Paine, _The Crisis_, Dec. 23rd, 1776
bio_zwbb@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Dr. William B. Busa) (11/27/89)
As one of the guilty (i.e., non-contributing) members of the comp-visualization mailing list mentioned by Rich Thomson, I would like to raise the question of just *why* comp-visualization is so demonstrably unsuccessful. I think its obvious that its *not* because its subject matter lacks currency or interest. This leaves only a few other possibilities: * Its a mailing list, rather than a newsgroup. I haven't ;much experience with mailing lists, but my guess is that they lack some of the immediacy of newsgroups, and they *certainly* lack the self-promoting feature of newsgroups with worldwide distribution. * Its subject matter is *too broad*. By striving to interest many, it ends up interesting none. I, personally, am interested in video microscopy and digital image analysis in biological research. I don't care about computer graphics, artificial intelligence, or nine-tenths of the fields mentioned in the comp-visualization descriptor, except as they directly pertain to my field. Maybe that's why I don't routinely think of posting questions and comments to comp-visualization. The proposal at hand -- i.e., to create a group interested specifically in "scientific visualization" -- which I, at least, take to mean digital image analysis and enhancement of images created via techniques such as microscopy, 3D NMR, X-ray crystallography, etc.-- would interest me directly, and I'm sure I'd participate in such a group (especially if it was an unmoderated newsgroup). So, I pose the question: are these the reasons why comp-visualization doesn't work? I further ask -- is my interpretation of "scientific visualization" correct (lousy choice of words there...how about "appropriate?"). -- Dr. William Busa, Dept. of Biology, The Johns Hopkins University, Charles & 34th Sts., Baltimore, MD 21218 (301) 338-8207 bio_zwbb@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu uunet!mimsy!jhunix!bio_zwbb