[MINC-development] beta mincmorph

[Steve ROBBINS]

Howdy,

On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 12:39:05PM +1000, Andrew Janke wrote:

> If you look at the code of the Group option (Connected component labelling
> -- in kernel_ops.c) you'll note I haven't used the classical approach to
> resolving equivalences. (Building an array of equivalences as you go with
> redundacies).  Instead I've used an approach that I can't find anywhere
> else...  but I'm sure has been described before.  The reason for using it is
> that i can guarantee memory usage will only grow to a finite size this way,
> something I can't ensure with the classical version especially in 256^3
> volumes.

I'm not familiar with this stuff, so please forgive a naive question.
The problem you're solving is the one described here:
    http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/HIPR2/label.htm

?

If so, why wouldn't you use parent pointer trees?  They are trivial to
implement, will use storage linear in the # of voxels.  With union-by-rank and
path compression, the running time is basically linear too.

-S