[MINC-development] Welcome

[Andrew Janke]

On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, John G. Sled wrote:

> so as to put together a design proposal (MINC 2.0?).  I had suggest we
> meet in Montreal in December to go over the details; however, that
> doesn't seem feasible at this point.  Can we set a meeting for mid
> January instead?

How about 1 week after ISMRM or even (perish the though) _at_ ISMRM?  Then you
might find a lot of other interested parties there as well.  Unless of course
you wish to keep a bit more 'exclusive'. ;)

> #8  MINC should support a multiresolution representation of the data
> that would allow one to efficiently work with data at reduced resolutions.
> This has obvious implications for visualization tools, but may also
> be an asset in implementing segmentation and registration schemes
> that are multiscale.  One proposal for handling this is to use a
> Harr wavelet decomposition.

And on this note there has been an attempt made at this quite some time ago.
The (nonworking?) code I have is a sparse field interpolator for MINC.

> #10 An interesting suggestion that came up at the meeting is that
> the MINC API should also address our interest in remote visualization
> by providing network access to data.  In a sense the problems of
> working with out of core data and working with remote data are the
> same.  In principle the API could be set up to make little distinction
> between file:/myfile.mnc and minc://myserver.ca/myfile.mnc

netCDF has extensions to do this already.  In addittion to extensions for a XML
web interface.

> A minor comment, on point #4: when MINC is compiled on a 32bit
> architecture with the large file operating system flags then it does
> work with files larger than 2GB.  I haven't tested this extensively,
> but the minc* tools appear to work.

<tick> from OZ on this one as well.


--
Andrew Janke   ( rotor@cmr.uq.edu.au || www.cmr.uq.edu.au/~rotor )
Australia->University of Queensland->Centre for Magnetic Resonance
Work: +61 7 3365 4100 || Home: +61 7 3800 4042