Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!agate!eos!eugene
From: eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: Scientific Visualization again
Message-ID: <5646@eos.UUCP>
Date: 27 Nov 89 01:53:52 GMT
References: <11726@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <1989Nov25.142552.1702@hellgate.utah.edu> <3399@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU>
Reply-To: eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya)
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Calif.
Lines: 59

In article <3399@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> bio_zwbb@jhunix.UUCP (Dr. William B. Busa) writes:
>	So, I pose the question: are these the reasons why
>comp-visualization doesn't work? I further ask -- is my interpretation of
>"scientific visualization" correct (lousy choice of words there...how
>about "appropriate?"). 

Well, "visualization" can and does work, but you tend not to see it in
this group.  This group is largely concern with synthetic image synthesis.
This is not the orientation of scientific graphics.  Scientific graphics
(analytic graphics to quote Carol Hunter at LLNL) has a somewhat
different orientation than synthetic image generation.  It is EXTREMELY
important to make a distinction between the researchy, prototypical,
quick view versus the flashy presentation graphics which come out from
certain supercomputer centers.

"Scientific visualization" has come off looking like a solution
looking for problems.  This is partially the "fault" of artists, partially
the fault of some eager researchers, partially the fault of a conservative
scientific community.  The interest in Mandlebrot sets and "Chaos" by a
some what naive and over enthusiastic public (but can you blame them when you
consider warm superconductors and cold fusion?)

The Report on SV (I was give a case of these) tried to emphasis the
non-quantitative aspects of SV.  Alvy Ray Smith when he talks about this
subject has to emphasize the non-geometric aspects.  BUT the general
orientation in science IS numbers.  It's not just numbers but mathematics
which are the primary predictive tool in the sciences.  It's hard to make a
prediction from a picture.

Well it turns there are people who do use imagery quantitatively:
photogrammetrists, cartographers, etc.  Billions are spent in areas like
these.  There are other aspects.  Existing synthetic imagery systems
introduce problems such as perspective, lighting models, anti-aliasing, etc.
Problems? You say?  Yes, the quantatitive imagery people spend those
billions for machines to remove perspective.  Lighting models clash with
the display of data values with coloration.  Also needed are frames of
reference: scales, norms, etc.  See, these are things independent of specific
disciplines like x-ray crystallography or fluid dynamics.  The scientist
wants to know abouyt things like lengths, areas, volumes, temperatures,
pressures, etc. etc.  It has been said that the artist likes
a blank canvas, well scientists tend to like graph paper or tabular
papers.  And so on and so on.  Anyways, I can go on, but this is what I told
IBM when they came by to ask whether they should get into SV.

You must also remember, that graphics to these end users is a tool.  Just a
tool.  They don't ponder their crescent wrenches (another less powerful tool).
A lot of scientists have been somewhat offended by the entertainment like
nature of some presentations.  That should be toned down, but we do have
to get more young people interested in the sciences.  But remember to make
the distinct between education and research.

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene
  		Support the Free Software Foundation (FSF)