Date: 15 Jun 92 10:09:53-PST
From: Vision-List moderator Phil Kahn <Vision-List-Request@ADS.COM>
Errors-to: Vision-List-Errors@ADS.COM
Reply-to: Vision-List@ADS.COM
Subject: VISION-LIST digest 11.22
To: Vision-List@ADS.COM

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
************************
