[Insight-developers] Raw image IO factory?

[Miller, James V (Research)]

Boy, it going to take me a while to engrain these extensions
into my subconscious.  My internal parse table maps "mhd" to
mean "meta header and data in one file" and "mha" to mean 
something like "meta header alias" (or meta header in one file 
with an external file for data). The latter is a bit of a stretch.

But this is the opposite of what they mean.

I probably would have used the extensions:

"mh" - meta header that indicates the path to a file for the raw data
"mhd" - meta header and data in one file



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen R. Aylward [mailto:aylward@unc.edu]
> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 2:17 PM
> To: Miller, James V (Research)
> Cc: 'Luis Ibanez'; Insight-developers (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: [Insight-developers] Raw image IO factory?
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Sorry that I couldn't make the tcon...busy selling my soul for 
> additional funding...the bid is up to $2....
> 
> Anyway, '.mhd' was originally intended to indicate a metaHeader file 
> that only contained the name of the data file while '.mha' 
> was intended 
> to indicate a file containing header and data ('all').  But, 
> we stopped 
> using that when we thought ITK wasn't going to use the postfix to 
> distinguish files...perhaps now we should return to that....
> 
> Stephen
> 
> Miller, James V (Research) wrote:
> > Luis,
> > 
> > Using the meta image format as an output factory worked 
> > for me.  So I'll use that.
> > 
> > What extension should I use?  It seems to respond to both
> > "mha" and "mhd".
> > 
> > Jim
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Miller, James V (Research) 
> >>Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 2:03 PM
> >>To: 'Luis Ibanez'
> >>Cc: Insight-developers (E-mail)
> >>Subject: RE: [Insight-developers] Raw image IO factory?
> >>
> >>
> >>I guess what I what is to be able to write 
> >>out a raw image using a factory.  I want a command
> >>line program that does
> >>
> >>./MyProgram input.png output.raw
> >>
> >>and have it write out a raw image.  And if I do
> >>
> >>./MyProgram input.png output.png
> >>
> >>it would write a png file.
> >>
> >>I agree that you loose the spacing and size, etc. But I am 
> >>trying to do a quick and dirty integration of an ITK algorithm
> >>to a legacy system and want to just rig up an IPC process.  So
> >>my existing app tells my ITK app to run on a particular input
> >>file and output a particular output file which it will then 
> >>read (since they app already knows the size and spacing, it can 
> >>just do a bulk read).
> >>
> >>Can I use the Meta image as an output factory?  If so, that will
> >>do what I want.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>From: Luis Ibanez [mailto:luis.ibanez@kitware.com]
> >>>Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 1:53 PM
> >>>To: Miller, James V (Research)
> >>>Cc: Insight-developers (E-mail)
> >>>Subject: Re: [Insight-developers] Raw image IO factory?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Hi Jim,
> >>>
> >>>The problem with Raw is that even if we set a factory
> >>>that figures out the correct ImageIO from the file
> >>>extension, there is no easy way to arrange for the
> >>>additional image information to be passed to the
> >>>ImageIO.
> >>>
> >>>In the current mode for raw, the user has to instantiate
> >>>the RawImageIO object, pass the spacing, size and origin
> >>>of the image, and then trigger the execution of the reader.
> >>>
> >>>I personaly think that being so easy to create a MetaImage
> >>>header or a VTK header for a raw file, we should rather
> >>>encourage users to use those mechanism as a way of 'wrapping'
> >>>a raw file.
> >>>
> >>>At the end of the day, a 'raw' image is an incomplete
> >>>file and there is no way to figure out the content
> >>>without the additional information.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>   Luis
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>-----------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>>Miller, James V (Research) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Should there be a raw image IO factory for raw images?
> >>>>
> >>>> 
> >>>>
> >>>>There is no RawImageIOFactory in the system.  Currently the 
> >>>
> >>>RawImageIO 
> >>>
> >>>>object says it can write a file as long as there is a 
> >>>
> >>>filename.  So I 
> >>>
> >>>>imagine this is why there is not a corresponding 
> >>>
> >>RawImageIOFactory 
> >>
> >>>>(since it would respond yes to everything). 
> >>>>
> >>>> 
> >>>>
> >>>>But when running in factory mode, could a RawImageIOFactory 
> >>>
> >>>respond to 
> >>>
> >>>>being able to read/write files if the extension is ".raw"?
> >>>>
> >>>> 
> >>>>
> >>>> 
> >>>>
> >>>>*Jim Miller*
> >>>>*/_____________________________________/*
> >>>>/Visualization & Computer Vision//
> >>>>/GE Research/
> >>>>/Bldg. KW, Room C218B/
> >>>>/P.O. Box 8, Schenectady NY 12301/
> >>>>
> >>>>//_millerjv@research.ge.com <mailto:millerjv@research.ge.com>_/
> >>>>
> >>>>/_james.miller@research.ge.com_/
> >>>>/(518) 387-4005, Dial Comm: 8*833-4005, /
> >>>>/Cell: (518) 505-7065, Fax: (518) 387-6981/
> >>>>
> >>>> 
> >>>>
> >>>> 
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Insight-developers mailing list
> >>Insight-developers@public.kitware.com
> >>http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/insight-developers
> >>
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Insight-developers mailing list
> > Insight-developers@public.kitware.com
> > http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/insight-developers
> 
> 
> -- 
> ===============================================
> Dr. Stephen R. Aylward
> Assistant Professor of Radiology
> Adjunct Assistant Professor of Computer Science
> http://caddlab.rad.unc.edu
> aylward@unc.edu
> (919) 966-9695
>