[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: Re: Visualization site updates
*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
*Subject*: [mg61012] Re: [mg60979] Re: Visualization site updates
*From*: Chris Chiasson <chris.chiasson at gmail.com>
*Date*: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 03:37:59 -0400 (EDT)
*References*: <acbec1a40510060535o62e1b2e7jcf8ace36a2e089d1@mail.gmail.com> <20051006150815.15147.qmail@web33609.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
*Reply-to*: Chris Chiasson <chris.chiasson at gmail.com>
*Sender*: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
:-]
PS: I think OpenGL has 2D components as well.
On 10/6/05, Martin Kraus <martin_kraus_germany at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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
>
--
Chris Chiasson
http://chrischiasson.com/contact/chris_chiasson
Prev by Date:
**Re: Re: Visualization site updates**
Next by Date:
**Plot with 10E10 instead of 1*10E10**
Previous by thread:
**Re: Re: Visualization site updates**
Next by thread:
**Re: Visualization site updates**
| |