Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
VISION-LIST Digest Volume 11 Issue 22
VISION-LIST Digest Mon Jun 15 10:09:53 PDT 92 Volume 11 : Issue 22
- Send submissions to Vision-List@ADS.COM
- Vision List Digest available via COMP.AI.VISION newsgroup
- If you don't have access to COMP.AI.VISION, request list
membership to Vision-List-Request@ADS.COM
- Access Vision List Archives via anonymous ftp to FTP.ADS.COM
Today's Topics:
NEEDED: mammogram images ....
Re: Clothes Identification
Early Notification of Postgrad/Postdoc Research Postitions
Urgent request!!!
Tech Rept available
"Shape from Color" Tech Rept available.
Workshop on Two and Three Dimensional Spatial Data
sci.image.processing vote will be close
sci image processing
About sci.image.processing
RE: sci.image.processing
sci.image.processing
sci.image.processing vs. comp.ai.vision
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 92 0:36:57 CDT
From: Chien-An Chen <giant@delta.eecs.nwu.edu>
Subject: NEEDED: mammogram images ....
Does anyone has or know of any site which has mammogram images?
Please reply via e-mail address below. Thanks in advance.
Chien-An Chen
giant@eecs.nwu.edu
EECS of Northwestern University
822 Noyes St., Apt#1-H, Evanston, ILL 60201
(708) 332-2160
Always Think Fuzzily ........
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1992 00:47:21 GMT
From: kahn@tartarus.uchicago.edu (Roger Kahn)
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Subject: Re: Clothes Identification
In digest <9206090400.AA00630@euler.ads.com> Vision-List@ads.com writes:
>Now, we are working on a system to identify a great quantity of
>clothes. We have to identify about one millon of clothes in order to
>fulfill a contol of them.
>In now days, we had thought in two possibilities:
>- Bars code, but we would desire the bars code isn't can be
> seen. And the clothes are so flexible to scan the bars code in a easy way.
>- Invisible Ink. With this procedure we want to simulate the
> bars code. We know the invisible inks can be reflect colour lights if we
> project ultraviolet light over them. So, we could have a colour code.
> Anybody knows other techniques, based on Artificial Vision, to realize
>this task? Comments about the last possibilities are wellcome.
How about color histograms? Mike Swain and I at the University of
Chicago have been using them for image recognition and location with
low and multi resolution images. Swains dissertation (tech report 360
from University of Rochester) can give you specifics.
Roger Kahn
University of Chicago
Dept. of Computer Science
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 92 14:24:18 GMT
From: Stephen Marshall <sm@spd.eee.strathclyde.ac.uk>
Subject: Early Notification of Postgrad/Postdoc Research Postitions
EARLY NOTIFICATION OF POSTGRAD/POSTDOC RESEARCH POSTITIONS
A number postgraduate and postdoctoral positions are likely to become
available in the next few months.
The posts are in the fields of:
* Computer Vision,
* Acoustic Imaging,
* Integration of Acoustic/Visual images,
* Non linear image processing techniques,
The posts are expected to be funded by a number of sources including
Science and Engineering Research Council, European Commission and various
industrial sources. Salaries are in the approximate range 12500-
1500 (pounds) for RA and 15000-18000 (pounds) for RF.
Applicants should send a full CV by email to
sm@uk.ac.strathclyde.eee.spd
or by mail to,
Dr S. Marshall,
Dept. of Electronic and Electrical Engineering,
University of Strathclyde,
Glasgow, Scotland.
Successful candidates will be contacted in the next few months.
Steve Mashall
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 92 15:02:19 MEZ
From: He-Ping Pan <ULM101@ibm.rhrz.uni-bonn.de>
Subject: Urgent distribution !!!
Kindly request for stopping request for my paper in hard copy
Urgent !!!
To whom requesting my paper "Production, Inversion and Learning
of Spatial Structure: A general paradigm to generic model-based
image understanding" published in International Archives of
Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Vol. 29,
Washington, August, 1992.
Dear Friends,
Thank you very much for your interest on this paper. When I distributed
the abstract of this paper in Vision-List, I didn't realise so large a
number of requests for this paper. I have sent about 30 copies to the
first 30 friends according to the sequence of the requests received.
Recently, I have been reminded that making too many free copies of a
published paper, even not for any financial purpose, will violate the
CopyRight of the publisher ( in this case, the American Society of
Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing). Therefore, I kindly request
for stoping further requests for this paper in hard copy. However,
in case you are really interested in this topic, I will make another
informal version (possiblly in free format) and send it to you through
email.
Any friend who has papers on the topic "generic model-based image
understanding" is kindly encouraged to send me his papers. Discussions
through email are welcome naturally.
Sincerely yours,
He-Ping Pan
Institut fuer Photogrammetrie, Universitaet Bonn, 11. June, 1992.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 92 15:46:50 -0400
From: Mark Drew <mark@cs.sfu.ca>
Subject: Tech Rept available
Subject: "Shape from Color" Tech Rept available.
The following Tech Report is available for anonymous ftp
from cs.sfu.ca. The file is in compressed .ps format, so use
> ftp cs.sfu.ca
> anonymous
> cd pub/techreports
> bin
> get CSSLCCR92-07.ps.Z
\begin{Abstract}
We present a method for recovering the shape of a single Lambertian surface,
with unknown but uniform reflectance, from a single RGB image of the object.
The method depends upon the linearity of the relationship between RGB sensor
responses and surface normal directions that stems from the Lambertian model.
The algorithm follows closely upon work on the photometric stereo method.
However, that method requires as input three separate black and white intensity
images, each taken separately, whereas the method set out here needs only one
color image. For the method to succeed, the lighting color must vary with
direction from the surface. We test the method by including three separate
point light sources all contributing to the illumination of the scene. The
method correctly recovers surface normals, up to an overall orthogonal
transformation.
\end{Abstract}
@TechReport( DREW.SHAPECOLOR.TR.92,
Title = {Shape from Color},
Author = {M.S. Drew},
Institution = {Simon Fraser University School of Computing Science},
Number = {CSS/LCCR TR 92-07},
Year = {1992}
)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1992 12:20:24 +0800
From: Paul Rosin <rosin@cs.curtin.edu.au>
Status: Workshop on Two and Three Dimensional Spatial Data
CALL FOR PAPERS
WORKSHOP ON TWO AND THREE DIMENSIONAL SPATIAL DATA:
REPRESENTATION AND STANDARDS
OVERVIEW
It is proposed to hold a two day workshop on issues of
representation and standards of 2D and 3D spatial
representations. This will be held in Perth at Curtin
University on the 7th and 8th of December 1992. The format
of the workshop will be a number of invited talks by both
national and international researchers. There will be time for
discussion and the presentation by Australian researchers and
commercial users.
WORKSHOP CONTENTS
The choice and use of representations for two and three
dimensional data and information is crucial to the disciplines of:
Computer Vision Pattern Recognition
Computer Graphics Remote Sensing
Computer Aided Design Image Processing
Man Machine Interface Virtual Reality
Geographical Information Systems
Medical Databases and Applications
Each of these fields is concerned with the processing and
analysis of information that can be represented using a variety
of techniques. The choice of the particular technique is, to a
large extent, dependent on the application and available
technology. It is a truism that each discipline makes use of its
own particular representation(s) which leads to incompatibility
with other disciplines.
It is becoming obvious that there is an increasing
interdependence in the above disciplines for representing
objects and environments. There is therefore a need to bring
together researchers and users in different disciplines to interact
and address the issues that arise in different forms of spatial
representation. The topics covered in this workshop will
include (but not be limited to):
TECHNIQUES FOR TWO AND THREE DIMENSIONAL SPATIAL REPRESENTATION
There are a large number of different representations e.g.
octrees, quadtrees, BReps, CSG trees used by many
practitioners in different disciplines. Presentations of new
techniques, extensions and use in new areas will be favoured.
COMPATIBILITY AND STANDARDISATION OF VARIOUS REPRESENTATIONS
There is increasing commonality between the various
disciplines e.g. computer graphics, vision and CAGD, and
GIS and remote sensing. Presentation on issues concerned
with standardisation of representations across disciplines and
interchange of data will be welcome.
ABSTRACT MODELS FOR REPRESENTING ENVIRONMENTS
There is a need and interest in different types of representation
e.g. functional and teleological that can be used to represent
spatial data to capture meaning which is difficult to represent
in the more traditional methods. Presentations of new models
in these and similar directions are welcome.
TOOLS FOR MANIPULATING SPATIALLY ORGANISED DATA
One of the biggest problems with any representation is the
manipulation, display etc. of the data. While each discipline
has its own means of handling data there is little exchange of
ideas across the disciplines. We welcome presentations that
describe new tools or the application of existing tools to other
disciplines.
INVITED SPEAKERS
Prof. H. Freeman, Rutgers University, USA.
Prof. B. Hibbard, Space and Science Engineering Centre, USA
WHO SHOULD ATTEND
The workshop should be suitable for people from the
academic, applied and industrial research and development
communities. It is important for all three areas to be well
represented to allow cross fertilisation between cutting edge
research and end users.
DEADLINES AND FORMAT
Deadlines and Format of Contributions
Abstract due: August 31st 1992
The abstract should not exceed two A4 pages of 10 point type. The abstract
should contain the title, authors names and affiliations.
Final paper due: November 15th 1992
All accepted papers and abstracts will be contained in a draft proceedings
which will be available to all participants. Depending on the success of the
workshop, a book may be produced based on extended papers.
Two copies of the papers and abstracts should be sent to Mrs Mary Simpson at
the address below.
Mrs Mary Simpson,
School of Computing,
Curtin University, PO Box U1987
Perth ,Western Australia 6001
Phone +61 -9 -351 7298
Fax +61 -9 -351 2819
Email: aprs@cutmcvax.cs.curtin.edu.au
The final paper should not exceed five A4 pages in 10 point type Times or
Courier font. The format should be as follows:
Title: 14 point type, bold, centred.
Names: 10 point type, centred.
Affiliations: 10 point type, centred.
Abstract: 12 point type, bold, centred.
Other headings including Introduction and References: 12 point type, bold,
left justified.
Main text: 10 point, justified.
Referencing style: Harvard with name and date in the text.
ORGANISING COMMITTEE
S. Venkatesh, G. West
Department of Computer Science,
Curtin University of Technology,
PO Box U1987, Perth, 6001.
Fax: 09-351-2819
B. White
School of Mathematics and Statistics,
Curtin University of Technology,
PO Box U1987, Perth, 6001
Fax: 09-351-3197
Email: aprs_workshop@cutmcvax.cs.curtin.edu.au
REGISTRATION FEES:
Before NOV 1 1992 | Price | Number of Persons | Total
-------------------|----------------------------------|---------
APRS member | Aus $150 | |
Non-member | Aus $200 | |
Student | Aus $75 | |
Payment: in Australian dollars by cheque or bank draft. Cheques and bank
drafts must be made out to:
WA Branch of the Australian Pattern Recognition Society
Accommodation for your entire stay must be paid in advance
Single accommodation: Aus $56 per night which includes continental breakfast.
Registrants must pay by cheque or BANK DRAFT (in AUSTRALIAN DOLLARS payable on
an Australian bank).
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1992 23:29:08 -0400
From: huff@MCCLB0.MED.NYU.EDU (Edward J. Huff)
Subject: sci.image.processing vote will be close
[ In order to curb flame wars, this is the last Vision List that will
discuss the formation of sci.image.processing. Sufficient information
will be available to support an informed decision on your part.
This posting argues for the formation of sci.image.processing.
The posting which follows this one is a rebuttal by a Vision List subscriber
that fully represents my views. The remaining postings describe other
factors you may wish to consider.
BTW: The Vision List is a published newsgroup as well as a
mailing List. This is done to service a wider international community and
overcome faulty newsgroup feeds. The Vision List ftp archives provide a
way to avoid wasting network bandwidth on repetitive FAQ mailings.
phil... ]
This message will appear in news.groups and bionet.general immediately,
and in the moderated comp.ai.vision next week at the earliest (since I am
posting it separately, not crossposting). All people who follow up to
this,
please separately mail your posting to Vision-List@ADS.COM. If you post
it to comp.ai.vision, it will not appear in any unmoderated groups until
after the moderator receives it.
The following editorial comment appeared in comp.ai.vision, a newsgroup /
mailing list moderated by Phil Kahn <Vision-List-Request@ADS.COM>, in
VISION-LIST Digest Mon Jun 08 14:20:03 PDT 92 Volume 11 : Issue 21.
>Date: Thu, 4 Jun 92 15:46:50 -0400
>From: John Stanley <stanley@oce.orst.edu>
>Subject: CFV: sci.image.processing
>Organization: oce.orst.edu
>Followup-To: poster
>
>[ As I have noted earlier, I do not advocate you vote against this: its
> charter and subject matter is contained within the scope of the
> Vision List (comp.ai.vision). It will serve to divide our readership.
> To vote against this group, mail to mail-server@pit-manager.mit.edu
> with the subject "vote sci.image.processing no".
> phil... ]
>
>NAME: sci.image.processing
(the rest of the CFV followed).
(I guess most people will read this as "I advocate you vote against this",
given the context. I could not find the earlier discussion.)
I do not dispute Phil's right to add this comment. He is not the vote
taker. As moderator of comp.ai.vision, he can say whatever he wants.
I do not even believe that he should not have made the comment. People
who believe he should not have, please follow up to alt.flame. HE IS
NOT THE VOTE TAKER. Discussing this red herring will detract for the
issue at hand.
This appeared in a separate posting in bionet.announce:
>The Vision List Archives provide imagery and shareware for image
>processing in addition to computer vision. It is very difficult to
>separate vision from image processing and calibration topics since they
>are all interrelated. There has not been excessive traffic or noise
>on the Vision List that usually justifies carving out of subtopics into
>new Lists.
>
>The Vision List has been around over 10 years, and its large and
>international readership is indicative of its usefulness to a wide
>community.
>
>The original poster did not seem aware of comp.ai.vision (the Vision List).
>I would like to know why they do not believe that the Vision List is
>serving their prospective readership.
1. It is a moderated group/mailing list.
2. It is a MODERATED group/mailing list.
3. It does not have FAQ postings.
4. It is not about scientific images.
5. It is not about image detectors that don't work like eyes.
6. It is not about image systems that do things that eyes can't do.
7. It is about VISION and ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. Regardless of the
charter, the newsgroup name determines what people will post and
who will read. We want a newsgroup about SCIENTIFIC IMAGE PROCESSING,
that is processing of scientific images, in ways unrelated to vision.
Clearly, there has been no excessive traffic on comp.ai.vision related
to image processing, because the name of the newsgroup discourages
postings about image processing. Also, the moderated nature of the
group discourages questions for which you need answers in one or two
days.
I do not agree that comp.ai.vision would serve the needs of the scientific
image processing community. To demonstrate why this is so, I would suggest
that the people who support sci.image.processing should start posting
whatever they were planning to post to s.i.p into c.a.v.
For example, I plan to prepare some FAQ files, that will be posted at least
once a month to s.i.p. If s.i.p fails, will Phil be willing to mail these
files out on the Vision-list every month? Should he? Of course not.
c.a.v is a LOW NOISE newsgroup. s.i.p is NOT a low noise newsgroup.
We hope it won't have as high noise as comp.graphics, but it will have
FAQ files posted regularly.
Also, there is the subject matter. Compare the charters.
"The list is intended to embrace discussion on a wide range of vision
topics, including physiological theory, computer vision, machine
vision and image processing algorithms, vision techniques to support
robot navigation and spatial representation, artificial intelligence
and neural network techniques applied to vision, industrial
applications, robotic eyes, implemented systems, ideas, profound
thoughts; anything related to vision and its automation is fair game. "
Image processing is a small part of the topic, and I would read it to
include image processing applied to computer vision, not image processing
in general. The last sentence would seem to rule out applications of
image analysis, where the goal is for example to measure the length
of a microscopic object. The eye does not measure lengths, and such
image analysis is not vision.
The sci.image.processing charter explicitly asks for FAQ postings. It
asks for image analysis, i.e. making scientific measurements using
image equipment. The "image" in that case is not something a human
could see with his eye, and the analysis is not similar to what the
brain does.
How are new users of USENET supposed to find out that comp.ai.vision
is actually the image processing newsgroup? It isn't even listed
in the "List of Active Newsgroups" because it is really a moderated
mailing list. I never saw the charter for the list until it was
posted to bionet.announce during this discussion. In general, charters
for newsgroups and mailing lists are not easy to find. (If someone
knows how to find them easily, I would like to know. Actually,
newsreaders should make them easily available, but my newsreader
does not). The NAME of the newsgroup is what counts in the end,
after the charter becomes inaccessible. comp.ai.vision does not
sound like image processing.
In conclusion, we want an UNMODERATED newsgroup. We want FAQ postings.
We want a newsgroup about scientific images, about measurements that
eyes can never make.
If the traffic that would go to sci.image.processing "really" belongs
in comp.ai.vision, then perhaps we should discuss changing the status
of comp.ai.vision to unmoderated. Or the moderator of comp.ai.vision
could simply include the sci.image.processing traffic in the VISION list
digest.
Edward J. Huff huff@mcclb0.med.nyu.edu (212)998-8465
Keck Laboratory for Biomolecular Imaging
NYU Chemistry Deptartment, 31 Washington Place, New York NY 10003
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 92 21:37:32 PDT
From: bellutta@ohsu.edu (Paolo Bellutta)
Subject: sci image processing
Probably some of the people on the list is following the evolution of
the new proposed sci image processing newsgroup. I asked to be added
to the image-proc mailing list just to follow more closely what is
going on. I already voted for the CFV. I just received a message from
the guy who is proposing the creation of the new newsgroup and I
found amazing his reasons for creating the newsgroup:
> Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1992 23:37:20 -0400
> From: huff@mcclb0.med.nyu.edu (Edward J. Huff)
> Subject: sci.image.processing vote will be close
> To: image-proc@oce.orst.edu
> X-Envelope-To: image-proc@oce.orst.edu
[stuff deleted]
>
>
> This appeared in a separate posting in bionet.announce:
>
> >The Vision List Archives provide imagery and shareware for image
[more stuff deleted]
> >
> >The original poster did not seem aware of comp.ai.vision (the
Vision List).
> >I would like to know why they do not believe that the Vision List
is
> >serving their prospective readership.
>
> 1. It is a moderated group/mailing list.
I think that it is the best thing in a newsgroup. It keeps the S/N
ratio to a tolerable level. Look at any other WILD newsgroup and see
how difficult is to find a decent article.
> 2. It is a MODERATED group/mailing list.
I can't see any difference from the point 1. besides from the
capitalizing. Maybe he is short of arguments?
> 3. It does not have FAQ postings.
Maybe beacuse there are (still) not Frequetly Asked Questions?
> 4. It is not about scientific images.
No. It is NOT ONLY image processing. Moreover I would like to know
what is the difference between image processing and SCIENTIFIC image
processing.
> 5. It is not about image detectors that don't work like eyes.
I beg your pardon? Should I recall the last posting on a color
camera? Does this work like the human eye? Moreover I don't think
that infra red or even ultra sound image processing is not allowed on
c.a.v
> 6. It is not about image systems that do things that eyes can't
do.
Usually many of the things that machine do, cannot be done by humans,
and (unfortunately) vice versa.
> 7. It is about VISION and ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. Regardless of
the
> charter, the newsgroup name determines what people will post
and
> who will read. We want a newsgroup about SCIENTIFIC IMAGE
PROCESSING,
> that is processing of scientific images, in ways unrelated to
vision.
>
I NEVER saw an article that was exclusively AI on the list, but I
might be mistaken, it is just 5 years that I'm following the postings
on c.a.v
> Clearly, there has been no excessive traffic on comp.ai.vision
> related to image processing,
This is true. I always wandered why, but as soon as I had a problem
on image processing I always found it an invaluable source of
information.
> because the name of the newsgroup discourages
> postings about image processing.
I guess that the QI (if this has any meaning at all) of people
reading c.a.v and the proposed newsgroup are able to detect the
correct newsgroup.
> Also, the moderated nature of the
> group discourages questions for which you need answers in one or
two
> days.
Maybe if the traffic on the list increases we could get more than an
issue per week...
[stuff deleted]
>
> that the people who support sci.image.processing should start
posting
> whatever they were planning to post to s.i.p into c.a.v.
Well, why you haven't tried this before?
>
> For example, I plan to prepare some FAQ files, that will be posted
at least
>
> once a month to s.i.p. If s.i.p fails, will Phil be willing to
mail these
> files out on the Vision-list every month? Should he? Of course
not.
If your articles are of general interest, well written and correct, I
suggest an index sent to the list and the actual article being on the
ads.com host archives.
> c.a.v is a LOW NOISE newsgroup. s.i.p is NOT a low noise
newsgroup.
So this guy loves noise. Suggestions: listen to heavy metal and
subscribe to newsgroup "junk".
> We hope it won't have as high noise as comp.graphics, but it will
have
> FAQ files posted regularly.
So this guy wants his newsgroup for the FAQ postings. Unbelievable!
[stuff deleted]
>
> How are new users of USENET supposed to find out that
comp.ai.vision
> is actually the image processing newsgroup? It isn't even listed
> in the "List of Active Newsgroups" because it is really a moderated
IT IS LISTED!!!
> mailing list. I never saw the charter for the list until it was
> posted to bionet.announce during this discussion. In general,
charters
(*)
> for newsgroups and mailing lists are not easy to find. (If someone
> knows how to find them easily, I would like to know. Actually,
> newsreaders should make them easily available, but my newsreader
> does not). The NAME of the newsgroup is what counts in the end,
> after the charter becomes inaccessible. comp.ai.vision does not
> sound like image processing.
We finally discovered what happened. This guy needed some info on
image processing, briefly looked at the list of newsgroups and
mailing lists (maybe) and didn't find anything he liked (*), so he
made a newsgroup creation proposal. He then discovered that there IS
already a place for the discussion of image processing issues.
[more conclusive stuff deleted]
Paolo Bellutta - BICC - OHSU - 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Rd.
Portland, OR 97201-3098 - internet: bellutta@ohsu.edu
tel: (503) 494 8404 - fax: (503) 494 4551
------------------------------
From: Thomas Buck <buck@goya.gris.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>
Subject: About sci.image.processing
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 92 10:00:18 MESZ
I agree with Phil when he say that the groups will have some things in
common. That's right. But I also think that there are things to be
discussed separately.
In the UseNet, comp.ai.vision is "under" (as long as I did understand it)
under the big group of the artificial intelligence area. So I might
think that the matter discussed here should be in direction of image
analysis and computer vision, don't you think so ?
But there are other things that should be discussed somewhere else,
like image formation, early vision algorithms, etc. For the big area
of computer vision, these are pre-conditions for "our" algorithms, and
not the reason of our research (at least of mine :-)).
Phil, don't get furious with me. I will always be a reader of your
digest, and my vote will also be NO.
[Hey, who loves ya baby? phil... ]
I'm not trying to induce the opinion of anyone. Just discuss it.
Thanks for your time,
Thomas
THOMAS DE ARAUJO BUCK [Internet] buck@goya.gris.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de
Universitaet Tuebingen Wilhelm Schickard Institut fuer Informatik
Auf der Morgenstelle 10, C-9 7400 Tuebingen 1 - DEUTSCHLAND
Phone: +49 (0) 7071 / 29-5464 Fax: +49 (0) 7071 / 29-5466
------------------------------
Date: 10 Jun 92 10:32:29 EDT
From: Timothy.Allen@Dartmouth.EDU
Subject: RE: sci.image.processing
Phil Kahn writes:
> It is very difficult to separate vision from image
> processing and calibration topics since they are
> all interrelated.
> its [sci.image.processing] charter and subject matter
> is contained within the scope of the Vision List
> (comp.ai.vision)
While it may be impossible to separate vision from image processing, it is
quite easy to separate image processing from vision. There are many
applications for image processing and image analysis in Science that probably
go beyond the scope of the Vision List. This often involves extracting
quantitative information out of numerical data sets that may happen to be
best represented as "images." These topics may or may not be appropriate for
comp.ai.vision, but most certainly would be appropriate to
sci.image.processing.
I don't think the creation of this new, un-moderated newsgroup poses any
threat to the readership of the Vision List. Rather, the creation of
sci.image.processing can only serve to enhance communication and advances in
ALL areas related to image processing.
Tim Allen tim.allen@dartmouth.edu
Earth Science Department
Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 92 11:04:25 EDT
From: keith@zookeeper.zoo.uga.edu (Charlie Keith)
Subject: sci.image.processing
>From: vision@ads.com (Vision-List-Request)
>Subject: Re: CFV: sci.image.processing
>I feel this proposed group charter is a subset of the Vision List
>charter which encompasses computer vision and image processing:
>"The list is intended to embrace discussion on a wide range of vision
>topics, including physiological theory, computer vision, machine
>vision and image processing algorithms, vision techniques to support
>robot navigation and spatial representation, artificial intelligence
>and neural network techniques applied to vision, industrial
>applications, robotic eyes, implemented systems, ideas, profound
>thoughts; anything related to vision and its automation is fair game. "
>The Vision List Archives provide imagery and shareware for image
>processing in addition to computer vision. It is very difficult to
>separate vision from image processing and calibration topics since they
>are all interrelated. There has not been excessive traffic or noise
>on the Vision List that usually justifies carving out of subtopics into
>new Lists.
It seems to me that, while there is of necessity some overlap between
comp.ai.vision and the proposed sci.image.processing, there are in addition
significant differences that warrant the creation of the new group. In my
research I do a great deal of quantitative fluorescence microscopy, using
fluorescence emission as a measure of local fluorophore concentration and/or
ionic character of the cytoplasm of living cells. A number of the imaging
modes I use, particularly ratio imaging, have no visual equivalent, and in
fact the production of pretty images for publication is only incidental to
the analysis. I would hope that sci.image.processing would include a robust
discussion of the details of ratio imaging, ranging from choice of
illumination to methodology of experiments to alternative means of
background correction, that might clutter comp.ai.vision.
An additional example, that may garner a lot of traffic in a
scientific image processing group, is confocal microscopy. While real-time
confocal does exist, it has far fewer applications than confocal scanning
laser microscopy, and the specific problems of analysis are different.
Again, I suspect that the discussion might prove unacceptable to
comp.ai.vision.
It seems to me that while the concerns of the two groups are similar
in that they both use visible light photons, the aims of analysis are
different in that vision is fundamentally involved with pattern recognition
and feature extraction, but a large part of scientific image processing is
not.
Charles H. Keith
Department of Zoology, University of Georgia
keith@zookeeper.zoo.uga.edu
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1992 00:01:55 -0400
From: huff@MCCLB0.MED.NYU.EDU (Edward J. Huff)
Subject: sci.image.processing vs. comp.ai.vision
A question regarding digital cameras appeared in the 11.18 issue
of the VISION-LIST digest, from Payman Khalili <pka@engin.umich.edu>.
This issue has not yet appeared on the NYU news server, and probably
never will appear. Also missing are 11.19 and 11.20. News transmission
is not fully reliable. If the articles are small, the loss of an article
here and there is less catastrophic. I replied to the question, and
learned that "The post to the vision list was completely unfruitful
and you are the only one who has given me a positive response."
(quoted with permission).
[ This is EXACTLY why the Vision List does not just use newsgroup
dissemination. If your site cannot manage a stable newsgroup feed,
then I can put you on the direct mailing list. phil...]
Now maybe this was because nobody got the 11.18 issue. But I
rather expect that it is because the readers of this list do not
do much with digital cameras. sci.image.processing is intended
for such questions. I plan to prod people to produce a periodic
posting of information about camera sources.
I would repost the original question if this were an unmoderated
list, but it doesn't seem appropriate here.
Today, in news.groups, there was a discussion about INET newsgroups.
It turns out that actually, comp.ai.vision is not even a USENET
newsgroup. It is an INET newsgroup. So even if comp.ai.vision
were the appropriate forum for all image processing discussion,
there is no USENET group. The distribution of INET newsgroups is
not as broad as USENET newsgroups. (More systems off the internet
receive USENET).
I mean no disrespect to the readers or moderator of this list, and
since I may need to ask for help one day, I hope no one takes offense.
But please don't vote sci.image.processing down.
Edward J. Huff huff@mcclb0.med.nyu.edu (212)998-8465
Keck Laboratory for Biomolecular Imaging
NYU Chemistry Deptartment, 31 Washington Place, New York NY 10003
------------------------------
End of VISION-LIST digest 11.22
************************
