[MINC-users] [Fwd: OHBM Announcement 3/9/04]

[Andrew Janke]

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Jon Erik Ween wrote:

> I would be in favor of the Minc format as a rich, compact and elegant
> standard. I wonder, though, how significant the issue is as long as all
> formats are transparent, non-proprietary and translatable?

You're right it shouldn't be a problem so long as no format is a sub-set of the
other.  For example MINC supports arbitrary length header data, analyze doesn't,
however I assume NIfTI-2 will. Then there is dimensionality and ordering, SPM
defines radio vs neuro as a flipping of the image data.  Thus a conversion has
to know the "type" of the input data. MINC on the other hand (and a few others)
allow any arbitrary ordering of data the user would like.

I (and others) could ramble on forever regarding the technical issues with data
conversion. But you have hit the nail on the head, the "translatable" part is
the most important (and the most problematic!).


--
Andrew Janke   ( rotor@cmr.uq.edu.au || www.cmr.uq.edu.au/~rotor )
Australia->University of Queensland->Centre for Magnetic Resonance
W: +61 7 3365 4100  ||  H: +61 7 3800 4042  ||  M: +61 4 2138 8581