RFD for New IMAGE PROCESSING newsgroup

John Stanley stanley at skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU
Wed Apr 22 21:42:25 EST 1992


In article <1992Apr22.211118.4338 at murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
jrb2p at argonaut.med.Virginia.EDU (Jim Barrett) writes:
>In article <1992Apr22.170155.8549 at doc.ic.ac.uk>, ajt at doc.ic.ac.uk (Tony
>Travis) writes
>|> 
>|> In contrast to this, image analysis means that an image is analysed
>in
>Yes this is a good point. Analysis seems a better name for this group.

I don't agree. Analysis consists of mainly processing, followed by some
quantification. As a common term, processing covers most of it.

>Some of the things I am particularly interested in are 3D reconstruction
>and display. 

Neither of these is 'image processing' or 'image analysis'. 

>I recall in earlier discussions of this groups' charter
>that animation and shading were specifically excluded. I feel that 
>there are many aspects of, e.g., shading that are more relevant
>to my imaging application (medical imaging) than to, say 
>comp.graphics. 

And there are many aspects of medical imaging that are more relevant to
misc.legal and misc.medicine, and even rec.radio.amateur.misc (RF).
Full systems that go from electrons to diagnoses of illness will
involve many topics and issues. The only way to create a group that
will cover every topic involved in medical imaging is to create a group
for medical imaging.  That group will be very different than one
created for image processing discussions.

>That is, shouldn't shading and animation should be 
>_included_ in the charter? 

No. They are not processing nor analysis.



More information about the Bioforum mailing list