andyr@sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu (Andy Rose) (04/03/91)
(I posted this once, but didn't see it so here it is again.) I wonder if 'visualization' has coalesced (coagulated?) into an area which is academically approachable. Does the study of computer graphics, statistic, or whatever make a reasonable course for a 'visualizer'? I would like your thoughts on what such a program looks like. These could include: Is it timely or neccessary to pursue this question, given the current state of visualization? It would help to define the current state of visualization. What coursework is appropriate for this subject? Is anyone teaching or planning to teach a class in visualization? What text to use? What is the course called? Would such a class approach the variety of visualization possible or concentrate on a specific application and a specific hardware/software combination? Is this art or science? What is the place of perception psychology, virtual worlds, image processing, neural networks, statistics, and other such research in visualization? Etc... (please spin some free wheels) Given the amount of activity at Champagne-Urbana, Cornell, Lowell, San Diego, Ohio, Stardent, Silicon Graphics, in labs everywhere, and on the net, it seems that interpreting data using computer graphics is a widely varied and highly sought after technique. Possibly, the many ways of visualizing data demand study. Please post c.g.vis or e-mail and I can summarize. Andy Rose andyr@ssl.berkeley.edu Scientific visualization in the global research community is virtually real.
eugene@nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) (04/04/91)
In article <1991Apr2.202227.13796@agate.berkeley.edu> andyr@sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu (Andy Rose) writes: >(I posted this once, but didn't see it so here it is again.) Delivery of net-news should not be considered "reliable." Consider this an ACK. >I wonder if 'visualization' has coalesced (coagulated?) into an area >which is academically approachable. Does the study of computer >graphics, statistic, or whatever make a reasonable course for a >'visualizer'? I would like your thoughts on what such a program >looks like. These could include: >Is it timely or neccessary to pursue this question, given the current >state of visualization? It would help to define the current state >of visualization. >What coursework is appropriate for this subject? I suggest obtaining a document I was just handed: %A Ed Ferguson %A others %T Computer Graphics Career Handbook %I ACM SIGGRAPH %D February 1991 Use the usual email SIGGRAPH email request addresses. Oops! You are at SSL, get a copy of any recent ACM/SIGGRAPH publication and check the back jacket for SIGGRAPH email information. I don't think any single course could be said to cover this field. Comments in some of the professional interviews note you need some background in not only in computers and math but also the physical sciences. >Is anyone teaching or planning to teach a class in visualization? What >text to use? What is the course called? SIGGRAPH of late has taught a summer tutorial at the conference. See this years program when it comes out. >Would such a class approach the variety of visualization possible or >concentrate on a specific application and a specific hardware/software >combination? Choice. Either is possible. Variety has a time cost. Specificity implies a lack of generality. >Is this art or science? What is the place of perception psychology, >virtual worlds, image processing, neural networks, statistics, and >other such research in visualization? Neither. Yet. It is not a stand alone discipline by itself. Perceptual psychology: has some use (human factors/engineering/cognition). virtual worlds: only have value in this field when compared to a real world. otherwise it use is limited to simulation. Current fad. IP: billion$ are spent doing IP: medical imaging, remote sensing, NN: is this a trick question? It's place is largely novel. Curosity. Applications: future if many; and open. Speculative. Statistics: Yes, lots of use. Visualization needs to get more quantitative. Bayesian statistics, clustering, other forms of non-parametric analysis are used in IP. You asked for off the top of the head. >Given the amount of activity at Champagne-Urbana, Cornell, Lowell, San >Diego, Ohio, Stardent, Silicon Graphics, in labs everywhere, and on >the net, it seems that interpreting data using computer graphics is a >widely varied and highly sought after technique. Possibly, the many >ways of visualizing data demand study. Varied true. Sought by those with funds to burn. Does one study the visualizing (e.g., non-linear dynamics) or does one study the data? I hope you can see the value of both, but the distinction of the two. >Scientific visualization in the global research community is virtually real. That's a weird quote. --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@orville.nas.nasa.gov Resident Cynic, Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers {uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
andyr@sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu (Andy Rose) (04/04/91)
>I wonder if 'visualization' has coalesced (coagulated?) into an area >which is academically approachable. Does the study of computer >graphics, statistic, or whatever make a reasonable course for a >'visualizer'? I would like your thoughts on what such a program >looks like. These could include: >Is it timely or neccessary to pursue this question, given the current >state of visualization? It would help to define the current state >of visualization. >What coursework is appropriate for this subject? !I don't think any single course could !be said to cover this field. Comments in some of the professional !interviews note you need some background in not only in computers and math !but also the physical sciences. I suppose a 'visualizer' needs a solid background in the sciences because he/she needs to speak the language of science, for the 'visualizer' in one role 'serves' the scientist and must understand what the guy is getting at. Hopefully this training is not exclusive of social science, because perhaps the data sets from sociology (ie. census) is far more interesting and useful than CFD. I wonder if the role of 'visualizer' will go the way of 'graphic artist' who has in large part been supplanted by technology. With AVS and apE and such scientists can do graphics on there own,thank you. >Is this art or science? What is the place of perception psychology, >virtual worlds, image processing, neural networks, statistics, and >other such research in visualization? !Neither. Yet. It is not a stand alone discipline by itself. Why not? What does it take for a discipline to stand alone? Perhaps if I call it 'visualization science' (remember physical science for physics?, computer 'science') it can 'stand alone'. !Perceptual psychology: has some use (human factors/engineering/cognition). One basic problem which could be addressed by perception stuff is how to map real values to colors. All kinds of questions arise when you use color to represent values. Should I use intensity or hue, etc... How about transparency, reflectivity, etc... !virtual worlds: only have value in this field when compared to a real world. !otherwise it use is limited to simulation. Current fad. Tactile feedback and stereoglasses can provide access to processing power possessed by the brain which is untapped by conventional UIs. !NN: is this a trick question? It's place is largely novel. Curosity. !Applications: future if many; and open. Speculative. It may be that the only way to find structure and draw conclusions from N-dimensional data is to build a machine to do it for us. A neural network could process info with many more 'eyes' than we simple homonoids. Indeed, this is far out. !Statistics: Yes, lots... Here, here. A 'visualizer' should know the current thinking on reducing large data sets. >Scientific visualization in the global research community is virtually real. !That's a weird quote. !--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@orville.nas.nasa.gov ! Resident Cynic, Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers ! {uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene Andy Rose andyr@ssl.berkeley.edu
eugene@nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) (04/04/91)
In article <1991Apr3.193914.4569@agate.berkeley.edu> andyr@sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu (Andy Rose) writes: >I suppose a 'visualizer' needs a solid background in the sciences because >he/she needs to speak the language of science, for the 'visualizer' >in one role 'serves' the scientist and must understand what the guy >is getting at. Hopefully this >training is not exclusive of social science, because perhaps the data >sets from sociology (ie. census) is far more interesting and useful >than CFD. Actually, I don't personally think most scientists are going to afford "visualizers." The role is too specialized and will be restricted to companies and labs having $$ like Ames, like LBL, LLNL, IBM, etc. I think the average grunt grad student or prof is frequently lucky to have a personal computer (and I don't mean those doing simulation using computers in their day to day work). I mean the scientist who uses computers for word processing (daily) and maybe a weekly analysis run (if they have a shared computer, they might have to look their password up in a notebook). If I want to look at data, why wait? Why should a system be so complex I require an operator? I'm not certain what you mean by social science or by interest. You need the science not just for the language, but for the thinking. Modern science has many mathematical foundations independent of coordinate transform matrices. We held a meeting at Xerox PARC about what scientists do. Unfortunately a few of us got sick. Originally I invited A cosmologist A nuclear weapons designer A botanist A stable isotope bio-geo-chemist A acoustics physicist A computer performance measurer The common thread: with the exception of the designer we all skied together (the designer was once my Division chief here at Ames before returning to that type of work). All very interesting scientists. Right ring to left-wing. Men and women. Fun people to their colleagues. The cosmologist missed this meeting but we gave him a meeting at SGI (Feb 14, sorry, we took flak on that one) a newer version will be given on 25 April at the Dept. of Applied Sciences at LLNL. We (SIGGRAPH) are video taping this meeting {"Exploratory Computer Graphics"}. The stable isotope bio-geo-chemist has to travel aboard a ship in the Antarctica and take some data there. He can't afford another mouth to feed on his pitching ship (hazardous duty to some). The physicist doesn't use a computer everyday, she has a wind tunnel with a 120 ft by 80 ft cross section to study. She requires checking her notebook for a password; she has more important things to remember. The botanist is studying growth hormones and plants. He mixes chemicals and experiments take weeks to find out results. He was offered the lest help BTW (no slouch as a scientist). An awareness of these environments are essential. Some time ago Apple had a series of ads noting the teaching of science solely by computer. It had to do with a girl who refused to dissect a frog. A student isn't going to learn anatomy solely using a computer. "Being aware of language" is like thinking chemistry is just a bunch of symbols like H2S04. But the symbols don't tell you: are you supposed to mix acid into water or water into acid? Computers must fit into these research environments. Hazards and being squeemish are peripheral issues. >I wonder if the role of 'visualizer' will go the way of 'graphic artist' >who has in large part been supplanted by technology. With AVS and >apE and such scientists can do graphics on there own,thank you. I think so. Good analogy. However, I know scientists who don't like AVS. Asked what they want, they don't know. >!Neither. Yet. It is not a stand alone discipline by itself. >Why not? What does it take for a discipline to stand alone? Perhaps >if I call it 'visualization science' (remember physical science for >physics?, computer 'science') it can 'stand alone'. "Any field which has to call itself a science, isn't one." --Not my quote. "He who pays the piper calls the tune." If you want to make pretty pictures, then you are welcome to do computer graphics, entertainment, and maybe some mass education. $$ make a standalone field of research. If you want to do science, then graphics is a tool like a magnifying glass. But I believe we need to sharpen and refine our tools, especially if they are software tools. It's a means, not an end, and that point is made in the careers booklet which I cited. I am not trying to discourage you, I am just trying to find out where you are trying to emphasize. >!Perceptual psychology: has some use (human factors/engineering/cognition). >One basic problem which could be addressed by perception stuff is >how to map real values to colors. All kinds of questions arise when >you use color to represent values. Should I use intensity or hue, etc... >How about transparency, reflectivity, etc... As I just noted in a book review, color can be a distraction. The issue is more one of texture. Consider an Voyager image of a planet like Saturn or Uranus: very brown or very blue, no apparent turbulence from afar: change a color map for more dynamic range (simple remapping), structure stands out, but you must remember that Saturn is still brownish, not this new rainbow of colors. There are other real problems, more significant: information hiding, hidden or obscured objects and structures, optical illusions, etc. >Tactile feedback and stereoglasses can provide access to processing power >possessed by the brain which is untapped by conventional UIs. To a point. Physical models also have a place. >It may be that the only way to find structure and draw conclusions from >N-dimensional data is to build a machine to do it for us. A neural >network could process info with many more 'eyes' than we simple homonoids. >Indeed, this is far out. NN's are kind a fad going back to the 50s. Maybe see something in the future. >!Statistics: Yes, lots... >Here, here. A 'visualizer' should know the current thinking on reducing >large data sets. Every scientist is a little conservative when it comes to reducing data. He/she might never throw data away (intensionally). Also remember Huff. --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@orville.nas.nasa.gov Resident Cynic, Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers {uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
sow@cad.luth.se (Sven-Ove Westberg) (04/04/91)
In article <1991Apr2.202227.13796@agate.berkeley.edu> andyr@sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu (Andy Rose) writes: |(I posted this once, but didn't see it so here it is again.) | | |What coursework is appropriate for this subject? | |Is anyone teaching or planning to teach a class in visualization? What |text to use? What is the course called? You should give ALL students a basic course i computer graphics so they understand some of the bacic graphics. But I dont think it is good to give a course in visualization. The visualization stuff must be integrated in the other courses where they belong as a tool. Visualization is a tool like the calculator on your desk. I dont think it is possible to give a course in visualization without some "real" applications where the students understand the application. This discussion of visualization specialists is the same as we has in the mechanical engineering. Should the designers do some finite element analysis or should they ship it to the FEA specialist. Now we got a new group the visualization specialist he gots the results from the FEA guy. Guess how productive this is? No we have to see a lot of this stuff as just tools. That should be easy to use. It is not impressing that a lot of labs is doing research in the visualization area. Isn't it a special NSF program in visualization? How was is BEFORE this program? Research organisations have to do work where they can get some foundings. Dont misunderstand this a lot of labs is doing a good impressing work. Sven-Ove Westberg, CAD, University of Lulea, S-951 87 Lulea, Sweden. Internet: sow@cad.luth.se
eugene@nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) (04/05/91)
We have to shoot the stupid References: line in the header.... grrrr! Dave wrote: >Speaking from, an albeit limited, number experiences in this area, do not >underestimate the power of a pretty picture. Sometimes you may even want to >target color choices in a visualization based on the target audience. If >it's to a colleague who will question your choices, you may want to choose >colors that are meaningful. If it is a sales pitch to your management, >investors, grant committees, et cetera, bold colors and richly saturated hues >seem to work quite well. I'll tell you a little story. I was working for NASA HQ outside Washington DC. We had a visitor from the information systems office of the White House. He let us know of a presentation of some early computer graphics which included bar graphs of $$ spent. Bold colors and all. It didn't go over very well. The $$ bar graphs were done in red. You can argue: yes you have to know your audience (the language thing Andy noted), but what can train you for these connotated effects? Practically, nothing. Pretty pictures helped start and stop the Cuban missile crisis, and we recently went thru the "video game" game. No I do not underestimate the power of an image. P.S. the local SIGGRAPH meeting on color some years back (at H-P Corp HQ) was one of the most over-attended meetings we ever held, we did not foresee the audience size. >Lately I feel that everything is just marketing and that if you have an >ineffective sales pitch, you can have the best idea in the world and it >won't be received if it's not packaged properly. Gregor Mendel had this problem at a time when a fellow named Darwin got lots of publicity. I really think you mean to have better communication tools. No it is not all market, do be so cynical. But, it APPEARS true. --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@orville.nas.nasa.gov Resident Cynic, Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers {uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
eugene@nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) (04/05/91)
Ken wrote: >I'm actually a disgruntled expert systems customer, but I've been >seeing behavior in the visualization types similar to that exhibited >by the expert systems types in their heyday. I was pretty dismayed, >for example, by the Visualization '90 Proceedings and the number of >content-free papers. It's hard to quantify, but I think you're >definitely going need to shake out some of the under-sized apples (if >not actually rotten) before the field can be appraised properly. I >understand this is all pretty new, but I'm tired of the hype. And I'd >certainly be cautious about doing my graduate studies in an >ill-defined discipline like "visualization." Or "knowledge >engineering," for that matter. I know what you mean. I come from a remote sensing/image processing background. Similar claims were made about satellite imagery in the 60s which still have not been applied. We still can't tell the difference between a wheat field and a corn field from space, much less sick versus healthly corn. But I do think that some of the work done in these older areas will find their way into scientific/analytic imaging. I really don't like that word "visualization" and I read that von Neumann didn't like it either. I think I know a way of quantifying an appraisal, but it would see too vicious to pull on the innocent researchers. I used to spend hours looking at single images or stereo pairs. We cannot always expect to get instant single view discoveries or learning. --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@orville.nas.nasa.gov Resident Cynic, Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers {uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp (will) (04/05/91)
u (Andy Rose) writes: |(I posted this once, but didn't see it so here it is again.) | | |What coursework is appropriate for this subject? | |Is anyone teaching or planning to teach a class in visualization? What |text to use? What is the course called? I am working on these types of projects here. I have already finished the undergraduate course here (well, let us say 80%, I am now debuging it, and will continue to refine it through the next 2 courses). The basis of the course include several different books, and my own writings which filled in the blanks were no other books or references could. We are only experimenting with such things now. I wrote all of the window related and interactive code under the X window system. The current course is just to teach Introductory Computer Graphics, and in some cases represents Hyper Card on the Mac, although I have never used that system (but I have seen pictures of it). I am now writing a paper on the system for publication (I call it RiGS-e). If you are interested, send me email, and after my paper is approved for publication, I will inform you were it is published and send an text copy of it to you. My next project (which starts today) is to developed the RiGS-e system into the RiGS-v system. (v as in visulization). I am not sure how I should go about it. But as always, I am sure there must be a way. In article <1779@eru.mt.luth.se> sow@cad.luth.se (Sven-Ove Westberg) writes: >I dont think it is possible to give a course in visualization without >some "real" applications where the students understand the application. > A point well made, I suppose I can find real data. I acually imploy the same idea to the RiGS-e system, (using real case studys in the more advanced areas). The RiGS-e system teaches more than just theory, one of it's main goals was to educated how to apply the theory in real cases. I am interested in hearing from others that work in this fantastic area of CG. William Dee Rieken Researcher, Computer Visualization Faculty of Science and Technology Ryukoku University Seta, Otsu 520-21, Japan Tel: 0775-43-7418(direct) Fax: 0775-43-7749 will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp
sow@cad.luth.se (Sven-Ove Westberg) (04/08/91)
|In article <1779@eru.mt.luth.se> I wrote |>I dont think it is possible to give a course in visualization without |>some "real" applications where the students understand the application. |> In article <216@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp> will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp (will) writes: |u (Andy Rose) writes: | A point well made, I suppose I can find real data. I acually imploy | the same idea to the RiGS-e system, (using real case studys in the more | advanced areas). The RiGS-e system teaches more than just theory, one | of it's main goals was to educated how to apply the theory in real | cases. Not only real data, the system must be used as a part of a "real" course. It is very important that the scientists sees computer visualization as a tool. That they can use, by them self, in their applications. Or if it is a separate course coperate with the other teachers so you know something about the students different application areas. And why not let them do the exercises on their particular problems. Sven-Ove Westberg, CAD, University of Lulea, S-951 87 Lulea, Sweden.
will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp (will) (04/09/91)
In article <1782@eru.mt.luth.se>, sow@cad.luth.se (Sven-Ove Westberg) writes: >Not only real data, the system must be used as a part of a "real" course. >It is very important that the scientists sees computer visualization >as a tool. That they can use, by them self, in their applications. > I think most scientist see cv as a tool to extend thier research. At least most of them I have talked too. >Or if it is a separate course coperate with the other teachers so >you know something about the students different application areas. >And why not let them do the exercises on their particular problems. > This course is part of the curriculum here. The RiGS libraries are used by the other professors here for thier work and are avialiable for thier students. I did this because I needed to test the libraries before I let the students get ahold of them. But, it has proven to be usefull, since now the math departments and others that are using them, are or will be planning to use them as part of their courses. It has been particuarly usefull, since most of the professors now understand the language of RiGS, it will be easy for them to teach it as part of their courses, outside of the regular CG course. But, I will admit this is ""Unintended Fallout"". But nice. William Dee Rieken Researcher, Computer Visualization Faculty of Science and Technology Ryukoku University Seta, Otsu 520-21, Japan Tel: 0775-43-7418(direct) Fax: 0775-43-7749 will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp