HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: epc1@quads.uchicago.edu (Merlin)
Subject: frame grabbing hardware and printer required
Reply-To: epc1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:13:09 GMT


I have access to some Suns and DECs and would like to be able to grab
images from either a digital or analog input.  Can someone tell me
of any literature/phone numbers of companies/personal experiences
with frame grabbing boards for either the Sun or DEC?

In addition, I have images which I would like to print on to a laser printer.
What software packages would allow me to print images onto a postscript
laser printer?  Does anyone have any experiences/recommendations for 
printers which receive an analog signal and print out a photograph-like
picture?

Recommendations/answers/preferences are definitely welcomed.
Newsgroups: sci.image.processing
From: schultz@halley.est.3m.com (John C. Schultz)
Subject: OSIRIS - is this available
Organization: 3M Company, 3M Center, Minnesota, USA
Distribution: sci
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 21:10:04 GMT

A colleague attended the '92 RSNA show in Chicago and brought back a
brochure describing a medical image processing package called OSIRIS.

The contact given is 
Dr. Osman Ratib
Digital Imaging Unit
University Hospital of Geneva
24 r. Micheli-du-Crest
1211 GENEVE 14, Switzerland
(+41 22) 372 62 62
osman@cih.hcuge.ch

Dr. Osman however has not responded to e-mail.  Does anyone
have more/better information?

Thanks.
--
   John C. Schultz   +1 (612) 733-4047   schultz@halley.serc.3m.com
   How to include the taste of Glendronach in a multi-media system?
From: spl@ivem.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont)
Newsgroups: sci.image.processing
Subject: Re: Good Intro to Quadtrees?
Date: 19 Dec 92 15:41:33 GMT
Organization: University of Calif., San Diego/Microscopy and Imaging Resource
NNTP-Posting-Host: ivem.ucsd.edu

In article <8fAaY8C00WB5QdCqpn@andrew.cmu.edu> John Robert Leavitt <jl3j+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Can anyone tell me where I might find a good intro to quadtrees or (2^n)trees
>in general?  Thanks.

Samet, Hanan, _The Design and Analysis of Spatial Data Structures_.
ISBN 0-201-50255-0.

							spl


-- 
Steve Lamont, SciViGuy -- (619) 534-7968 -- spl@szechuan.ucsd.edu
UCSD Microscopy and Imaging Resource/UCSD Med School/La Jolla, CA 92093-0608
Where is the summer, the unimaginable
Zero summer?                 - T.S. Eliot, "Little Gidding"
Newsgroups: sci.image.processing
From: green@ie.utoronto.ca (Marc Green)
Subject: Re: Similarity metric for images
Keywords: image restoration, image metrics, noise reduction
Organization: University of Toronto, Department of Industrial Engineering
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 22:27:40 GMT

psilsbee@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Peter Silsbee) writes:

>Yes, certainly, IF your images are created solely for humans to view, then 
>that is the best measure. Even so, it must be used with care. Perhaps
>one reason that it is distrusted is that it, unlike more "objective"
>measures, can be manipulated. I can lossily compress and reconstruct
>an image, and design a forced-choice experiment that will show that people
>can't tell the difference. If my application involves magnifying the image
>by a large factor to locate tiny details, then I've been dishonest. 

This is untrue. If the units are properly specified, i. e., visual angle
rather than size, etc., you can't manipulate the results.  The trouble is
not with psychophysics, but with people who don't know how to do it right.

Marc Green
Trent Universoty



Newsgroups: sci.image.processing
From: natd@iplmail.orl.mmc.com (Natalie Day)
Subject: Searching for Notch Filter
Organization: Martin Marietta
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:13:36 GMT

Hi,
  I am having problems with the following and would like to know if there is a 
good cookbook approach to the following:

  Problem:  I am receiving EKG (electrocardiagram) signals as an input to 
            a system.  The problem is that there is a 60Hz noise riding the
            signal and I would like to get rid of it.  
            I am looking for a good 60 Hz notch filter, (digital software 
            filter).  I have tried a 6 pole IIR filter but I get a lot of
            ringing.  Does anyone have any suggestions/solutions to my problem?

   Thanks for you responses!


                              Nat
From: psilsbee@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Peter Silsbee)
Newsgroups: sci.image.processing
Subject: Re: Similarity metric for images
Keywords: image restoration, image metrics, noise reduction
Date: 19 Dec 92 21:05:41 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <BzBnq5.A05@ie.utoronto.ca> green@ie.utoronto.ca (Marc Green) writes:
>psilsbee@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Peter Silsbee) writes:
>
>>Yes, certainly, IF your images are created solely for humans to view, then 
>>that is the best measure. Even so, it must be used with care. Perhaps
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>one reason that it is distrusted is that it, unlike more "objective"
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>measures, can be manipulated. I can lossily compress and reconstruct
>>an image, and design a forced-choice experiment that will show that people
>>can't tell the difference. If my application involves magnifying the image
>>by a large factor to locate tiny details, then I've been dishonest. 
>
>This is untrue. If the units are properly specified, i. e., visual angle
>rather than size, etc., you can't manipulate the results.  The trouble is
>not with psychophysics, but with people who don't know how to do it right.
>

Sigh. I knew I shouldn't have added that last bit. Note that I didn't say
that there was anything wrong with psychophysics. I said that the 
human-judgment "measure" (or collection of measures) is DISTRUSTED. 
I have heard people demand MSE figures for evaluation of image compression
algorithms. The fact is, there ARE
people who don't know how to do it right, and there IS potential for 
abuse, since some audiences may know as little (or less) about psychophysics 
as some authors do. I believe that there are conferences, and perhaps
journals, where one could get away scot-free with something along the lines
of what I described above. If you see it, challenge it...

--Peter
Newsgroups: sci.image.processing
From: dbriggs@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (Daniel Briggs)
Subject: Re: Similarity metric for images
Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Socorro NM
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 00:27:23 GMT

In article <Bz2n91.J3M@ie.utoronto.ca>
  green@ie.utoronto.ca (Marc Green) writes:
>It is the "objective"
>measures which are arbitrary and ad hoc. Many studies have shown that 
>mean squared error and similar measures are very poor predictors of
>perceived quality. And since images are created for humans to view, the
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>only empirically valid measure of quality is what human observers say it
>is. 

Careful....  This is a pretty limited idea of what images are good for!
Many branches of imaging science, mine among them, do quantitative analysis
of the images coming out of all the fancy algorithms.  Granted, good
quality metrics are hard to come by, and by necessity we aren't all that
sophisticated about them, but a decent error analysis on even a model image
is *extremely* valuable.  What it "looks" like to a human observer can be a
lot less important than maximum error.

-- 
| Daniel Briggs  (dbriggs@nrao.edu)                      |  USPA B-14993
| New Mexico Tech / National Radio Astronomy Observatory |      DoD #387
| P.O. Box O / Socorro, NM 87801   (505) 835-7391        | 
Support the League for Programming Freedom   (info from lpf@uunet.uu.net)
From: cristy@eplrx7.es.duPont.com (Cristy)
Newsgroups: sci.image.processing
Subject: SUMMARY: Ultra-Fast 90 Degree Image Rotation for Very Large Images
Date: 16 Dec 92 16:37:38 GMT
Organization: DuPont Central Research & Development

>  Could you please enquire on the network whether some body has a fast
>  algorithm for rotating by 90 degrees very very large monochrome or
>  multichannel images. The problem is nontrivial and probably can be
>  handled by exchanging in and out of a limited size buffer that can be
>  stored in high speed memory. I have an urgent need for this if we can
>  find one.

I got two useful replies.

1.  From eddins@eecs.uic, bamberg%trane.eecs.wsu.edu, and haim@utdallas.edu:
  
    Well, there might be something around that's newer and faster, but
    consider:
     
    J. O. Eklundh, "A Fast Computer Method for Matrix Transposing,"  IEEE
    Transactions on Computers, C-21 (July 1972), 801-903.
     
    This method is described in:
     
    D. E. Dudgeon and R. M. Mersereau, Multidimensional Digital Signal
    Processing, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1984.
   
2.  From pfk@hpux.rz.uni-jena.de:

    I know a solution working in this way (C-Notation):
     
    #define MAXX    16384
    #define MAXY    16384
    #define MAXB      512  /* MAXB*MAXX*(Bytes_per_Pixel) should be smaller
                              than the main memory. I.e. This is an example
                              for 16 MB RAM and 8 bits per pixel. */
     
    static unsigned char buffer[MAXY][MAXB], buffero[MAXY];
    register i, j, k;
     
    for (i=0; i<MAXX; i+=MAXB)
      { for (j=0; j<MAXY; j++)
          lseek(fdin,j*MAXX+i,SEEK_SET),
          read(fdin,buffer[j],MAXB);
        for (j=0; j<MAXB; j++)
          { for (k=0; k<MAXY; k++)
              buffero[k]=buffer[k][j];
            write(fdout,buffero,MAXY);
          }
      }
     
-- 
cristy@dupont.com
Xref: sparky sci.image.processing:1415 alt.binaries.pictures.utilities:2151 alt.graphics.pixutils:2737
From: stanley@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Newsgroups: sci.image.processing,alt.binaries.pictures.utilities,alt.graphics.pixutils
Subject: Re: Problems with LaboImage 4.0
Date: 16 Dec 92 23:50:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: gaia.1gofblINN2m3
Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography
NNTP-Posting-Host: ruby.oce.orst.edu

In article <1992Dec16.195447.3194@samba.oit.unc.edu> cptully@med.unc.edu (Christopher P. Tully) writes:
>e-mail up until now.  Anyway, my problem is that I'm trying to compile
>LaboImage, and get massive errors, indicating the lack of a directory
>of include files called "Xm"  Based on the names of the include files
>that make cannot find, I'm assuming that this directory is unique to
>LaboImage.  But it did not come in the LaboImage_4.0.tar.Z file.

Xm is the Motif toolkit. If you don't have Motif, which is what
LaboImage was written to use, you can't recompile it.
Newsgroups: sci.image.processing
From: ck@iconix.oz.au (Chris Karadaglis)
Subject: Re: Searching for Notch Filter
Organization: Iconix Pty Ltd (World Headquarters)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:13:11 GMT

In <1992Dec15.181336.3424@iplmail.orl.mmc.com> natd@iplmail.orl.mmc.com (Natalie Day) writes:

>Hi,
>  I am having problems with the following and would like to know if there is a 
>good cookbook approach to the following:

>  Problem:  I am receiving EKG (electrocardiagram) signals as an input to 
>            a system.  The problem is that there is a 60Hz noise riding the
>            signal and I would like to get rid of it.  
>            I am looking for a good 60 Hz notch filter, (digital software 
>            filter).  I have tried a 6 pole IIR filter but I get a lot of
>            ringing.  Does anyone have any suggestions/solutions to my problem?

I've found the best way to reduce this noise (with amazing results)
is to work in the frequency domain. Do an FFT, look at it, and if the
noise causes vertical stripes in the image then multiply the FFT with
a notch filter which blanks out the frequencies from the highest frequency
(ie from the border of the FFT spectum) down to the frequency which
corresponds to the 60Hz signal (you'll have to work this point out - it will
appear on the spectrum as a bright dot indicating strong energy at that
frequency. Anyway - blank out all these frequencies along the vertical 
axis of the spectrum, do an IFFT and there you go.

Apoligies for the non-maths approach, but this technique has been tried
and works bloody well. See pg 247, Digital Image Processing, Gonzalez
and Wintz, 2nd edition. The notch filter (figure 5.13b) is created by
multiplying the FFT (not the mag-log version of it, the real thing)
by a filter (all 0.0 or 1.0) which can be generated easily (write
some code!).

If you refer to figure 5.13a, about 1/3 of the way down (vertically) along
the centre of the spectrum you can see 2 horizontal lines (rather faint,
but they stand out). These correspond to the horizontal 60Hz noise.
Note that the notch filter on 5.13b extends just past this point.
This point for your image must be determined by examining the mag-log
version of the FFT (otherwise you won't see much).

Comments, anyone?

Shckwish!

>   Thanks for you responses!


>                              Nat
Organization: Center for Machine Translation, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: sci.image.processing
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:12:56 -0500 
From: John Robert Leavitt <jl3j+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Good Intro to Quadtrees?

Can anyone tell me where I might find a good intro to quadtrees or (2^n)trees
in general?  Thanks.

-John.
Newsgroups: sci.image.processing
From: bobw@gdstech.GRUMMAN.COM (Bob Waffenschmidt)
Subject: Imtools (trouble getting binaries)
Organization: Grumman Corporation
Distribution: sci.image.processing
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:37:30 GMT

I tried to down load the binaries for the sgi4d from ftp.sdsc.edu.
I have gotten the files onto the target machine but am having trouble
expanding them.  They are in .z (little z) format so I assume the are
packed not compressed.  

Can someone tell me what format they are actually in. I no longer have
the posting announcing Imtools if some one could send it to me I would
appreciate that also.

Thanks in advance
Bob
From: raveling@Unify.com (Paul Raveling)
Newsgroups: sci.image.processing
Subject: Re: Stupid assembler tricks (was: assembly vs C)
Date: 15 Dec 92 20:59:17 GMT
Organization: Unify Corporation (Sacramento)

In article <1992Dec6.021202.20893@colorado.edu>, bear@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles) writes:
> In article <MAYER.92Dec4141701@porky.sono.uucp> mayer@sono.uucp (Ron Mayer) writes:
> >He also wrote a fht with a self-modifying
> >block of code (changed instructions in it's inner loop as needed) for
> >the 8086, which was significantly faster than the similar C code.
> 
> Eek!
> 
> You could probably justify an order-of-magnitude difference in performance
> in many situations, once you consider _programmer_ maintanence costs.

	The 8086 is a chip that DOES offer the potential for an
	order-of-magnitude speedup in critical code.  This also applies
	to the 8088, 80186, and 80286; I haven't kept current to know
	whether it applies to the 80386 and 80486.

	The reason is that queue flushes are quite expensive -- if my
	memory is intact from several years ago, the difference between
	a conditional jump that jumps (which means flushing the queue)
	and one that doesn't jump (no queue flush) is a factor of 11
	in relative timing.

	This plus elimination of somewhat time-costly stack accesses
	in function calls are the two most productive candidates for squeezing
	extra speed out of the 8086 chips, at least up through the 286.
	I spent a fair bit of effort doing exactly that on avionics
	firmware that had trouble meeting its real time requirements.
	However, I'd still be reluctant to use self-modifying code --
	especially in cases such as the avionics firmware, whose code
	executed from ROM!

> If you're using an architectural trick it isn't an algorithm, it's an
> implementation detail.

	I'm inclined to agree in the usual case of running on a
	general purpose processor.  It's less clear if you're using
	a special purpose processor, typically a signal processor,
	whose hardware architecture is tailored to suit a specific
	key algorithm, such as autocorelation.


------------------
Paul Raveling
Raveling@Unify.com
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive
From: michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar)
Subject: Re: Searle
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 22:58:05 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.073435.677@cs.su.oz.au> danny@cs.su.oz.au (Danny) writes:
>In article <Bz26Fy.ICq@gabriel.keele.ac.uk> csa33@keele.ac.uk (H.S. Nwana) writes:
>
>>Searle started with his Chinese room argument, then to the Chinese gym, because
>>others attempted to prove a weakness in that, then to whatever his arguments now are? 
>>Doubtless, he will dream up "better" arguments to support his belief.
>
>Doubtless :).  My argument is that he is driven to do this because he 
>accepts certain beliefs (that machines can't think) as axioms and
>therefore has to try and justify them.

"Machines can't think" is explicitly *not* one of the axioms in
Searles' argument.  He believes that machines can think, since he
believes that brains are machines (he states this explicitly).  What
he *does* believe is that machines can't think (or, more accurately,
possess semantics) purely on the basis of their formal structure, and
this belief is itself derived from the axioms I provided in another posting.

- michael
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive
From: bill@nsma.arizona.edu (Bill Skaggs)
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive
Subject: Re: qualia
Date: 18 Dec 92 19:16:53 GMT
	<1992Dec17.015705.630@cs.su.oz.au>
	<1992Dec18.003427.2149@psych.toronto.edu>
Organization: ARL Division of Neural Systems, Memory and Aging, University of
	Arizona

michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar) writes:

   > The point is that there is no *necessity* that our sensations be 
   > equivalent, and indeed, that there is no way of telling if they
   > *are*.  There is simply *no* objective, scientific way for you
   > to address my claim that what you see as a sensation of red I
   > see as a sensation of blue.  This is the problem... 

Well, there is *one* way: we look at what's going on in the brain in
the two cases.  If you're a materialist, you must believe that the
answer is in there, somehow.  The only problem is that we can't quite
*do* it yet, but it's a problem of technology, not principle.

	-- Bill
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive
From: christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green)
Subject: Re: John Searle
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 17:27:01 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.072642.551@cs.su.oz.au> danny@cs.su.oz.au (Danny) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.055845.1886@psych.toronto.edu> christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec11.022041.23380@cs.su.oz.au> danny@cs.su.oz.au (Danny) writes:
>>>But imagine a 6 year old who
>>>has never seen anyone bleed, has never been taught any biology - is his
>>>assumption that his parents have intentionality any less "reasonable" than
>>>anyone elses?
>>
>>Assuming knowledge is something akin to "justified true belief", the
>>6-years-old's knowledge is, I would think, less justified than yours
>>or mine.  That doesn't mean, however, that s/he doesn't believe it.
>>S/he's probably had little in the ay of evidence disconfirming the
>>hypothesis that his/her parents are intentional. Actually, children
>
>I would dispute this...  I don't see that a neurobiologist's belief in
>human intentionality is any more justified than anyone elses.  

Neither do I. But then again, I don't think that any relevant generalizations
about human intentionality will soon be forthcoming from the neurobioogists
lab. And neither, I think, does Searle (if you refrain from attempting
to cast him as an old-style identity theorist). The "experts" in human
intentionality are, indeed, intentional humans. By evidence, that means
me. By inference it means pretty well everyone else too.

-- 
Christopher D. Green                christo@psych.toronto.edu
Psychology Department               cgreen@lake.scar.utoronto.ca
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive
From: engelson-sean@cs.yale.edu (Sean Philip Engelson)
Subject: Re: John Searle
Reply-To: engelson-sean@cs.yale.edu
Organization: Yale AI Mobile Robotics Project
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 15:02:27 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.003427.2149@psych.toronto.edu>, michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec17.015705.630@cs.su.oz.au> danny@cs.su.oz.au (Danny) writes:
|> 
|> >OK.  If there are no differing causal consequences at all between your 
|> >sensation of colour and mine then I would argue that your sensation of 
|> >colour is the same as mine.  What's the point in postulating some additional 
|> >property to make them different? (I still need a shave, despite my fondness 
|> >for the Razor :)
|> 
|> The point is that there is no *necessity* that our sensations be
|> equivalent, and indeed, that there is no way of telling if they
|> *are*.  There is simply *no* objective, scientific way for you
|> to address my claim that what you see as a sensation of red I
|> see as a sensation of blue.  This is the problem... 

What exactly do all you "qualiaists" mean by "sensations be[ing]
equivalent"?  Under what sort of equivalence?  One possibility is
causal effects (either behavioral or mental), in which case Danny's
point is mere tautology.  Clearly you have something else in mind---
what is it?

-- 
Sean Philip (Shlomo) Engelson		
Yale Department of Computer Science	
Box 2158 Yale Station			
New Haven, CT 06520
From: ard@cs.bham.ac.uk (Antoni Diller)
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive
Subject: Re: John Searle
Date: 17 Dec 92 16:06:24 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, University of Birmingham, UK

In article <Dec10.224156.78264@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> peterson@CS.ColoState.EDU (james peterson) writes:
>In article <Bz26Fy.ICq@gabriel.keele.ac.uk> csa33@keele.ac.uk (H.S. Nwana) writes:
>>
>>Isn't it the case that it just comes down to what we "believe"? We can always
>>come up with arguments to support our belief and others will rubbish it. 
>>Some believe in God, others do not.
>

Just because we can come up with arguments to support our beliefs
after we have decided what we want to believe does not entail that
we should do this or that it is a good thing to do.  If you want
to be rational, then you should actually try to avoid doing this
and start taking arguments seriously and accept the results of
your reasoning even if you find them uncongenial.

Antoni Diller
From: chalmers@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (David Chalmers)
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive
Subject: Re: John Searle
Date: 12 Dec 92 19:16:20 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

In article <772@capmkt.COM> charles@capmkt.COM (Charles Neveu) writes:

>That's why I changed my terminology: I consider it axiomatic that
>consciousness can't be detected objectively (not that what I consider
>axiomatic is of any interest; I'm just trying to make clear what I'm
>asking).  I'm not interested in trying answer the question "Is it
>conscious?"  If the controversy surrounding the CR is about
>consciousness, then I have been totally confused. But I don't think it
>is. I think it is about thinking or understanding.

It's about consciousness.  Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Searle phrases it in terms of intentionality, but that's because he
thinks that consciousness is required for intentionality (see his
1990 BBS paper).  This has caused no end of confusion.

-- 
Dave Chalmers                            (dave@cogsci.indiana.edu)      
Center for Research on Concepts and Cognition, Indiana University.
"It is not the least charm of a theory that it is refutable."
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive