hansen%grizzly.utah.edu@wasatch.UUCP (Chuck Hansen) (11/21/88)
In article <172@vmsa.technion.ac.il> ners001@vmsa.technion.ac.il writes: >I posted a call for a new news-group that would deal with >image processing and computer vision. Since then I have received *many* >letters of encouragement (personally) and there have appeared a few > encouraging notes from other readers of comp.graphics. Although I hesitate posting this here (especially since it has already been posted), there seems to be a need since netreaders aren't aware of the current newsgroup. There already exists such a group, it's comp.ai.vision and is moderated by Phil Kahn at ADS. Rather than startup another group with a similar charter, those interested should increase the traffic on this existing newsgroup. Chuck Hansen hansen@cs.utah.edu
elg@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Eric Green) (11/22/88)
in article <589@wasatch.UUCP>, hansen%grizzly.utah.edu@wasatch.UUCP (Chuck Hansen) says: > In article <172@vmsa.technion.ac.il> ners001@vmsa.technion.ac.il writes: >>I posted a call for a new news-group that would deal with >>image processing and computer vision. Since then I have received *many* > Although I hesitate posting this here (especially since it has already > been posted), there seems to be a need since netreaders aren't aware of the > current newsgroup. There already exists such a group, it's comp.ai.vision > and is moderated by Phil Kahn at ADS. comp.ai.vision is concerned with the problem of ascribing meaning to parts of pictures, that is, AI vision research. Image processing techniques are often used to pre-process the pictures (e.g. edge detection & threshholding are common early steps), but when I scanned over comp.ai.vision a year or so ago, it focused on more esoteric research issues. Perhaps removing the "ai" from the name of the group and widening its charter would be the preferred action, instead of creating an all-new group. But, then again, we all know how difficult it is to fight net.inertia.... -- Eric Lee Green ..!{ames,decwrl,mit-eddie,osu-cis}!killer!elg Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509
ingemar@isy.liu.se (Ingemar Ragnemalm) (12/19/88)
In article <589@wasatch.UUCP> hansen%grizzly.utah.edu.UUCP@wasatch.UUCP (Chuck Hansen) writes: >In article <172@vmsa.technion.ac.il> ners001@vmsa.technion.ac.il writes: >>(for short: the people want comp.ip > >... There already exists such a group, it's comp.ai.vision... >Chuck Hansen >hansen@cs.utah.edu Here's another one who can't keep his big mouth shut (that's me, that is): Computer Grapghics, Image Processing, Computer Vision and AI are different, related subjects. People like me, who are mainly interested in IP and CV, find very little of interest in comp.graphics or comp.ai(.vision). I'd define the subjects like this (after a text by G.Borgefors): Computer Graphics: Concepts -> Image Image processing: Image -> Image Computer Vision: Image -> Concepts AI vision: Image+Concepts-> Concepts (low to high level) (?) That makes at least 3 different categories. We might not need a comp.vision group, though I think it would be more popular than comp.ai.vision since it wouldn't scare non-AI people away, but the need for comp.ip is more apparent. Image reconstruction is not graphics, and it is not AI. So where should such things be posted? Or are there no such postings? /Ingemar -- Dept. of Electrical Engineering ...!uunet!mcvax!enea!rainier!ingemar .. University of Linkoping, Sweden ingemar@isy.liu.se
eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya) (12/23/88)
In article <1988Dec19.141246.3075@isy.liu.se> ingemar@carola.UUCP () writes: >Here's another one who can't keep his big mouth shut (that's me, that is): > >Computer Graphics, Image Processing, Computer Vision and AI are different, >related subjects. People like me, who are mainly interested in IP and CV, >find very little of interest in comp.graphics or comp.ai(.vision). > >So where should such things be posted? Or are there no such postings? My background is image processing for remote sensing. That's not AI, that's not vision, that's not synthetic image generation. Rather than propose a new group, JUST POST what you have to say. What makes a newsgroup is what gets posted, not what gets read. If comp.graphics is the closest thing, go ahead. You won't get criticized. When the traffic is sufficient, then you might consider. Do you criticize ACM Computer Graphics for a lack of IP and topics? I'd rather read the ASP publications for my area, yet I retain an interest in synthetic image generation [it's only when my choices for systems are confined that I complain]. Let's see you stimulate some discussion. Another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize."
ners001@vmsa.technion.ac.il (12/27/88)
isy.liu.se> <2195@eos.UUCP> Organization: Technion Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa Israel Lines: 67 Apparently-To: post-usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu > In article <1988Dec19.141246.3075@isy.liu.se> ingemar@carola.UUCP () writes: >>Computer Graphics, Image Processing, Computer Vision and AI are different, >>related subjects. People like me, who are mainly interested in IP and CV, >>find very little of interest in comp.graphics or comp.ai(.vision). >>So where should such things be posted? Or are there no such postings? > > In article <2195@eos.UUCP>, eugene@eos.BITNET writes: > My background is image processing for remote sensing. That's not AI, > that's not vision, that's not synthetic image generation. Rather than > propose a new group, JUST POST what you have to say. What makes a > newsgroup is what gets posted, not what gets read. > ..... Let's see you stimulate some discussion. SET STIMULATE=ON Since my original posting about a month ago (where the subject of a new group comp.image.processing was started), I have received about 20 very positive letters and I also heard from 2 people who thought that this was an idea before its' time. One negative person suggested we use comp.ai.vision (obviously because it is never used for anything else - I have been looking at comp.ai.vision for a *long* time and I never see *anything* posted there). Using the same logic we could decide to use any of a number of *low* frequency groups. All the positive views came from people who work in IP but not in CG, AI or even CV, but still have to wade through all the articles in THIS group to find the 1 in a 100 gem that has anything to do with what they are doing. I personally am interested in Spatially Variant Maximum Entropy Restoration of Coplaner Laminagraphic Images: This is 100% Image Processing. It has nothing to do with Computer Graphics, Artificial Intelligence or Computer Vision. Should I post my ideas/questions to comp.graphics? comp.ai.vision.? sci.math? sci.physics? comp.information.theory? or just misc.misc? Why shouldn't a subject as broad as Image Processing have its' own news group? Now, we really should deal with the basic question -- What comes first, the newsgroup or the need for a news group. The logic here is very simple: 1) A new newsgroup should be formed when the activity in an existing group becomes so heavy that a separate group can be set up to deal with one of the major sub-topics in that group. 2) Most people who work in IP (but not in CG) probably don't even look at comp.graphics. Since they don't read it, they don't post to it. Since they don't post, there will never be a "need" (see 1 above) to start a new group to deal with Image processing. All of this discussion leads to 2 possibilities: 1) We forget the whole thing. (Reading News is a waste of time anyways) 2) I try to adapt somebody's ray tracer to do Limited Angle Multi-Energy Maximum Entropy Tomographic Reconstruction and try to convince myself that I *am* actually doing Computer Graphics and not Image Processing. Now that I've stroked a lot of fur the wrong way, I hope that some more positive discussions will be continued on this topic :--) Benjamin Cohen NDT/QA Image Processing Lab ners001@vmsa.technion.ac.il
flynn@pixel.cps.msu.edu (Patrick J. Flynn) (01/03/89)
In article <263@vmsa.technion.ac.il> ners001@vmsa.technion.ac.il writes: >Since my original posting about a month ago (where the subject of a new >group comp.image.processing was started), I have received about 20 very >positive letters and I also heard from 2 people who thought that this >was an idea before its' time. > >One negative person suggested we use comp.ai.vision (obviously because >it is never used for anything else - I have been looking at comp.ai.vision >for a *long* time and I never see *anything* posted there). Well, there *is* some traffic on the mailing-list side (VISION-LIST) of comp.ai.vision. As I mentioned in an earlier posting, connectivity for the USENET side does not seem to be very good. There are two remedies: - Talk to your news feeds. Establish connectivity for comp.ai.vision if possible. - Subscribe to the mailing list. The address is vision-list-request@ads.com . I can mail some back issues of VISION-LIST to anyone who is interested. The moderator (Phil Kahn) is also archiving issues, and has them available via email or anonymous FTP. >All the positive views came from people who work in IP but not in CG, >AI or even CV, but still have to wade through all the articles in THIS >group to find the 1 in a 100 gem that has anything to do with what they >are doing. >Now, we really should deal with the basic question -- What comes first, >the newsgroup or the need for a news group. The logic here is very simple: > > 1) A new newsgroup should be formed when the activity in an existing > group becomes so heavy that a separate group can be set up to > deal with one of the major sub-topics in that group. > > 2) Most people who work in IP (but not in CG) probably don't even > look at comp.graphics. Since they don't read it, they don't > post to it. Since they don't post, there will never be a > "need" (see 1 above) to start a new group to deal with > Image processing. So here's an idea. Set up a mailing list specifically for image processing. Run it as a mail reflector, so no digesting of articles is done (this minimizes the administrative hassle). Publicize it in appropriate groups (comp.ai.*, comp.graphics, sci.math, sci.math.stat, and some of the comp.sys groups, maybe). This should address point 2 above. Then start measuring the traffic on the list. I'd bet that if you can get 100 subscribers to the list, you should have no trouble getting a newsgroup for IP created (after the formal vote, of course). Any volunteers? -- Patrick Flynn, Dept. of Computer Science, Michigan State University flynn@cpsvax.cps.msu.edu flynn@eecae.UUCP FLYNN@MSUEGR.BITNET