Services & Resources / Wolfram Forums
-----
 /
MathGroup Archive
2005
*January
*February
*March
*April
*May
*June
*July
*August
*September
*October
*November
*December
*Archive Index
*Ask about this page
*Print this page
*Give us feedback
*Sign up for the Wolfram Insider

MathGroup Archive 2005

[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Search the Archive

Re: Re: Visualization site updates

  • To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
  • Subject: [mg61007] Re: [mg60979] Re: Visualization site updates
  • From: Martin Kraus <martin_kraus_germany at yahoo.com>
  • Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 03:37:53 -0400 (EDT)
  • Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

Chris,

you get it as soon as you've implemented it. ;-)

Actually, I realized that the Java implementation of
many web browsers (and therefore LiveGraphics3D) 
can display a lot of special (unicode) characters.
On the other hand, it is not straightforward to 
create something like subscripts or superscripts 
with LiveGraphics3D because of the restrictions of
the first argument of the Text primitive within 
LiveGraphics3D to either an identifier, a string, 
a number or a StyleForm with one of these.)

But how sophisticated should the type setting for
interactive 3D rendering be? Do you really need
full MathML? Here are some thought:

1) you don't want these renderings for static
publications
(because you don't want a bitmap when you can
have the PostScript output of Mathematica).
Since you only get a bitmap of the picture anyways, 
the quality of the fonts is not extremely important.
I would even argue that the fonts don't have to
be exactly the same as long as attributes such as
boldface, italics, sanserif etc. are preserved.
Thus, IMHO there really is hardly any need for
interactive 3d rendering with embedded fonts.

2) usually you don't need equations in a
visualization,
because they are likely to either clutter your image
or to be unreadable small. Rather you need symbols,
which are usually constructed out of sequences, 
subscripts, superscripts, underscripts and overscripts
of unicode characters, i.e., a rather limited subset
of
mathematical type setting. Thus, IMHO there is
hardly any need for full MathML rendering in 
interactive 3d rendering.

3) a small subset in terms of Mathematica commands and options
for the kind of mathematical expressions which would
be
most useful could look like this:

expr ::= string | identifier | StyleForm[expr, opts,
...] |  
   SequenceForm[expr, ...] | HoldForm[expr] |
   Subscript[expr, expr] | Superscript[expr, expr] | 
   Subsuperscript[expr, expr, expr] |
   Underscript[expr, expr] | Overscript[expr, expr] | 
   Underoverscript[expr, expr, expr]

opts ::= FontFamily->... | FontSubstitutions->... |
  FontSize->... | FontWeight->... |  FontSlant->... | 
  FontColor->... | Background->... | 
  ScriptSizeMultipliers->... | ScriptMinSize->... | 
  ScriptBaselineShifts->...

Obviously, I have already thought about this. And
actually
I've started implementing this for LiveGraphics3D.
Thus, I would appreciate any input what else would be
of
general interest for mathematical annotations in 3d
graphics.

Cheers

Martin

--- Chris Chiasson <chris.chiasson at gmail.com> wrote:

> What I want to know is:
> (When) Are we going to get OpenGL rendering and/or
> SVG with embedded
> fonts and embedded MathML export?
> :]
> 
> On 10/6/05, Martin Kraus
> <martin_kraus_germany at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Jeff,
> >
> > I definitely agree that the resolution of most of
> the excellent
> > visualizations on your site is too fine for
> LiveGraphics3D,
> > i.e., there are too many primitives for
> interactive rendering
> > with LiveGraphics3D. Rendering at a lower
> resolution is
> > therefore often unavoidable, and I'm usually much
> more
> > aggressive in this respect when adapting
> > Mathematica graphics for LiveGraphics3D in order
> to ensure
> > interactive rendering also on less powerful
> machines.
> > Without the possibility to render graphics
> interactively, it is usually
> > preferable to offer a static picture for a well
> chosen view point
> > and/or a precomputed animation for a rotating
> object (as you
> > did for the earthquake example).
> >
> > The 3d surface offers an example for which the
> interactive version
> > doesn't offer a lot of benefits: there are too
> many polygons for
> > interactive rendering with LiveGraphics3D and the
> geometry of the
> > surface (a height field) appears to be simple
> enough to be understood
> > with a 2d image (apart from some hidden parts).
> >
> > I think the ability to interactively rotate and
> zoom objects is
> > particularly useful to examine the earthquake and
> molecule
> > examples because the 3d point positions cannot be
> understood
> > from a 2d image.  In these cases the stereo
> viewing (press "s" to
> > toggle the applet between single view, stereo view
> for
> > divergent fusing and stereo view for cross fusing)
> is also useful.
> >
> > In order to separate points of the same color (in
> particular for
> > molecules) you could try the applet parameter
> > <PARAM NAME="POINT_EDGE_COLOR" VALUE=#000000>
> > to render each point with a thin black edge.
> >
> > Without further coarsening, any of the animations
> would not render
> > interactively with LiveGraphics3D. However, using
> LiveGraphics3D
> > to view animations offers the benefit of more
> control over choosing
> > the time step (ALT/META/COMMAND + left button  or
> right button
> > and dragging horizontally).
> >
> > BTW a great site for visualization with
> Mathematica!
> >
> >
> > Martin Kraus
> >
> >
> > Jeff Bryant ha escrito:
> >
> > > I've begun adding some new functionality to my
> visualization site.  A
> > > few people have requested the ability to be able
> to interact with the 3D
> > > graphics in real-time.  I decided to try using
> LiveGraphics3D by Martin
> > > Krauss on several of my examples.  Some of the
> examples are not
> > > appropriate for real-time interaction as the
> render time was too long.
> > > I picked a few of my 3D visualizations that were
> more reasonable.  For
> > > those examples that are interactive, they are
> often rendered at lower
> > > resolutions to keep loading time down.  I'd
> would be interested in
> > > hearing your thoughts on whether this is useful
> where appropriate.  Here
> > > are the examples I currently have:
> > >
> > >
>
http://members.wri.com/jeffb/visualization/3dsurf-interact.shtml
> > >
>
http://members.wri.com/jeffb/visualization/potentials-interact.shtml
> > >
>
http://members.wri.com/jeffb/visualization/galaxies-interact.shtml
> > >
>
http://members.wri.com/jeffb/visualization/quake3d-interact.shtml
> > >
>
http://members.wri.com/jeffb/visualization/algebraic-interact.shtml
> > >
>
http://members.wri.com/jeffb/visualization/prehistoric-interact.shtml
> > >
> > > I have also added a new visualization
> (non-interactive) that uses
> > > Mathematica to visualize molecular structures in
> the protein data bank
> > > format.  This particular animation shows an
> insulin molecule with 14,940
> > > atoms in it.  To keep the render time down, I
> used 3D points instead of
> > > spheres which unfortunately means no lighting
> effects:
> > >
>
http://members.wri.com/jeffb/visualization/molecule.shtml
> > >
> > > -Jeff
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --
> Chris Chiasson
> http://chrischiasson.com/contact/chris_chiasson
> 



		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com


  • Prev by Date: Re: Re: Visualization site updates
  • Next by Date: Re: Re: Visualization site updates
  • Previous by thread: Re: Re: Visualization site updates
  • Next by thread: Re: Re: Visualization site updates