Forums

medical imaging is the vanguard of signal processing in 21st

Started by George Orwell January 30, 2008
On Feb 2, 5:48 pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
> dbd wrote: > > ... > > > Thank you for the examples. I agree with you that these figures are > > small, but I know of no publishers with editorial standards that allow > > the space that would be required. Do you? >
> The suggestion I remember is that full-size images be made available on > the web. > ... > Jerry > --
&#2013266095; The suggestion was: "However, this would be much better if every image processing journal forced authors to post full sized images on the web because you really can't see much in the tiny pictures printed in journals." I don't see much value in this unless the images are maintained with the papers by the publisher. Anything else would tend to suffer as authors change universities or jobs and web sites come and go. The Acoustical Society of America had a publication: Acoustics Research Letters Online that included hyper-linked multimedia content. They are no longer accepting submissions but the content is still accessible. I don't know of any other examples, which is why I asked. I'd like to see that kind of thing as standard. Dale B. Dalrymple
On Feb 3, 7:21 am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
> On 3 Feb, 02:48, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote: > > > dbd wrote: > > > ... >
> > > Thank you for the examples. I agree with you that these figures are > > > small, but I know of no publishers with editorial standards that allow > > > the space that would be required. Do you? > > > The suggestion I remember is that full-size images be made available on > > the web. >
> Why not print zoomed-in detail images at a size which > suits the publication? If somebody claims to have a method > which preserves a particular type of detail in an image, > a journal editor ought to require the article to contain > comparision images at a 'suitable' level of detail. > > Rune
Part of the problem is that different viewers what different levels of detail. The article displays the full image to show the removal of large objects from the image. That can't be done at a pixel by pixel level. It may have been the authors choice as the more useful scale to present. I took the time to go to the authors web site and found a video, presented at a conference, providing more detail. I provided the reference. This was dismissed without viewing as "this shows slimy advertising expertise". At this point, the references to a specific article seem to be more a matter of commercial jealousy than technical consideration. Dale B. Dalrymple
On Feb 2, 11:52 am, Scott Seidman <namdiestt...@mindspring.com> wrote:


> ... > No clue, unfortunately. A google search for wireless ecg is yielding a > ton of hits, but its a little tough to separate out transimission of the > actual ecg from transmission of emergency-type events. > ... > Scott
Expanding the search to: ecg wireless data monitoring cuts the number of hits to under 400,000. On the first page are products: CardioNet mobile monitoring devices and the CardioNet Monitoring Center of Qualcom GMP LifeSync Wireless ECG Monitor The LifeSync&#2013266094; System and additional articles: http://www.ece.uci.edu/~chou/biocas06-ECG.pdf Dale B. Dalrymple
On Feb 2, 7:35&#2013266080;pm, dbd <d...@ieee.org> wrote:
> On Feb 2, 10:34 am, aruzinsky <aruzin...@general-cathexis.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 1, 8:39 pm, dbd <d...@ieee.org> wrote: > > > > On Feb 1, 10:04 am, aruzinsky <aruzin...@general-cathexis.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 31, 3:49 pm, dbd <d...@ieee.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 31, 9:20 am, aruzinsky <aruzin...@general-cathexis.com> wrote: > > > > > ... > > > > Could you share with us which of the images in the paper you feel are > > > too small and why?http://www.faculty.idc.ac.il/arik/ > > > All of the pictures in the paper are too small to show most kinks > > where a seam intersects a straight edge or ridge. &#2013266080;Some kinks are > > visible in Figs. 2 d. and 11 b. but are likely to be overlooked. > > Thank you for the examples. I agree with you that these figures are > small, but I know of no publishers with editorial standards that allow > the space that would be required. Do you? >
No. So what?
> > > The authors also provide a video about the technique, without > > > requirement by the publisher of their paper. > > > This seems like another > > > case where your example disagrees with your conclusion.http://www.faculty.idc.ac.il/arik/IMRet-All.mov > > > I assume this is the same as the flash animation on You Tube. &#2013266080;These > > are also small images. &#2013266080;Furthermore, this shows slimy advertising > > expertise rather than technical writing skill. > > The authors have provided a larger video version of the Fig 11.b that > you cited. You seem to rant about 'slimy advertising' &#2013266080;without even > looking. >
1. That is a 46 minute download for me. 2. I downloaded it over a month ago. 3. I am missing codecs to view it. 4. Instead of telling me the version is "larger," why don't you just tell me the dimensions of the version of fig. 11. b contained in that video?
> > > All science and engineering papers should be > > written in sufficient detail so that others can duplicate and verify > > their results. > > I'd like to see this too. Do you know any publishers that support > this? >
I already told you no and why.
> > > > >... > > > > Only a small fraction of the people who practice medical imaging know > > > > what they are looking at. &#2013266080;Since nobody previously mentioned that > > > > typical medical images are cartoon quality, I will. > > > > Could you cite some actual references to specific images and what you > > > find comic about them? > > > Now, eveyone should know that you are not earnest. > > On the contrary, This was an earnest attempt to let you demonstrate > whether or not you hold yourself &#2013266080;the same level of documentation and > reference to which you claim others should be held. You are still > preaching without practicing. That's the type of advertiser you > demonstrate yourself to be. > > Dale B. Dalrymple- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
1. You are a liar because I never implied that medical images were "comic" and you know it. 2. Your suggestion that I put as much care and effort in writing for this forum as in writing a technical paper is ridiculous and you know it. I have authored plenty of papers in signal processing which you can properly criticize for usefulness and technical writing skill; just google "S.A.Ruzinsky" . 3. You often use debating tactics typical of lawyers and politicians that are unsuitable for any technical arena, including this forum. That also indicates that you are morally corrupt.
On Feb 3, 9:21&#2013266080;am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
> ... > Why not print zoomed-in detail images at a size which > suits the publication? If somebody claims to have a method > which preserves a particular type of detail in an image, > a journal editor ought to require the article to contain > comparision images at a 'suitable' level of detail. >
Because the "before" images should be made available for other researchers to verify results. Do you remember the cold fusion debacle? Wouldn't it have been nice if anyone with kitchen utensils could have un-verified those results? Why would anyone want image processing to be less verifiable? The answer is for selfish, immoral interest.
On Feb 3, 10:51&#2013266080;am, dbd <d...@ieee.org> wrote:
> On Feb 2, 5:48 pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote: > > > dbd wrote: > > > &#2013266080; &#2013266080;... > > > > Thank you for the examples. I agree with you that these figures are > > > small, but I know of no publishers with editorial standards that allow > > > the space that would be required. Do you? > > > The suggestion I remember is that full-size images be made available on > > the web. > > &#2013266080; &#2013266080;... > > Jerry > > -- > > &#2013266095; > > The suggestion was: > "However, this > would be much better if every image processing journal forced authors > to post full sized images on the web because you really can't see much > in the tiny pictures printed in journals." > > I don't see much value in this unless the images are maintained with > the papers by the publisher. Anything else would tend to suffer as > authors change universities or jobs and web sites come and go. > > The Acoustical Society of America had a publication: Acoustics > Research Letters Online that included hyper-linked multimedia content. > They are no longer accepting submissions but the content is still > accessible. I don't know of any other examples, which is why I asked. > I'd like to see that kind of thing as standard. > > Dale B. Dalrymple
The publishers could provide and maintain the web space at small cost. The publishers could package image DVDs with hard prints. Even without this, the improvement over current practice is still large in terms of benefit to society.
On Feb 3, 10:22 am, aruzinsky <aruzin...@general-cathexis.com> wrote:
> On Feb 3, 10:51 am, dbd <d...@ieee.org> wrote: > ...
> > The suggestion was: > > "However, this > > would be much better if every image processing journal forced authors > > to post full sized images on the web because you really can't see much > > in the tiny pictures printed in journals." > > > I don't see much value in this unless the images are maintained with > > the papers by the publisher. Anything else would tend to suffer as > > authors change universities or jobs and web sites come and go. > > > The Acoustical Society of America had a publication: Acoustics > > Research Letters Online that included hyper-linked multimedia content. > > They are no longer accepting submissions but the content is still > > accessible. I don't know of any other examples, which is why I asked. > > I'd like to see that kind of thing as standard. > > > Dale B. Dalrymple > > The publishers could provide and maintain the web space at small > cost. The publishers could package image DVDs with hard prints. Even > without this, the improvement over current practice is still large in > terms of benefit to society.
We certainly agree that this would be an improvement. Dale B. Dalrymple
On Feb 3, 10:07 am, aruzinsky <aruzin...@general-cathexis.com> wrote:
> On Feb 2, 7:35 pm, dbd <d...@ieee.org> wrote:
> ... > > > > I assume this is the same as the flash animation on You Tube. These > > > are also small images. Furthermore, this shows slimy advertising > > > expertise rather than technical writing skill. > > > The authors have provided a larger video version of the Fig 11.b that > > you cited. You seem to rant about 'slimy advertising' without even > > looking. > > 1. That is a 46 minute download for me. > 2. I downloaded it over a month ago. > 3. I am missing codecs to view it. > 4. Instead of telling me the version is "larger," why don't you just > tell me the dimensions of the version of fig. 11. b contained in that > video?
You made the claims and threw out the labels. Do your homework. How did the authors respond when you asked them for the images?
> > > All science and engineering papers should be > > > written in sufficient detail so that others can duplicate and verify > > > their results. > > > I'd like to see this too. Do you know any publishers that support > > this? > > I already told you no and why. >
If you remember that publishers don't allow this, why are authors evil for not achieving it?
> ... > You often use debating tactics typical of lawyers and politicians > that are unsuitable for any technical arena, including this forum. > That also indicates that you are morally corrupt.
I consider consistency and reasonable backup for bold claims to be expectations "suitable for any technical arena, including this forum" whether they have been used by lawyers and politicians or not. They are methods that are used to separate discussions from flames and trolls. This is a Usenet group. You get to participate however you choose, but if do, don't be surprised if people notice and talk. That's what Usenet is about. Dale B. Dalrymple
On Feb 3, 1:37&#2013266080;pm, dbd <d...@ieee.org> wrote:
> On Feb 3, 10:07 am, aruzinsky <aruzin...@general-cathexis.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 2, 7:35 pm, dbd <d...@ieee.org> wrote: > > ... > > > > > I assume this is the same as the flash animation on You Tube. &#2013266080;These > > > > are also small images. &#2013266080;Furthermore, this shows slimy advertising > > > > expertise rather than technical writing skill. > > > > The authors have provided a larger video version of the Fig 11.b that > > > you cited. You seem to rant about 'slimy advertising' &#2013266080;without even > > > looking. > > > 1. That is a 46 minute download for me. > > 2. I downloaded it over a month ago. > > 3. I am missing codecs to view it. > > 4. Instead of telling me the version is "larger," why don't you just > > tell me the dimensions of the version of fig. 11. b contained in that > > video? > > You made the claims and threw out the labels. Do your homework. > How did the authors respond when you asked them for the images? >
On 1/9/08, I emailed arik@idc.ac.il with one simple technical question. He did not respond therefore I deemed him uncooperative. After that, I am not going to nag an uncooperative author for test images.
> > > > All science and engineering papers should be > > > > written in sufficient detail so that others can duplicate and verify > > > > their results. > > > > I'd like to see this too. Do you know any publishers that support > > > this? > > > I already told you no and why. > > If you remember that publishers don't allow this, why are authors evil > for not achieving it? >
Authors are not precluded from voluntarily providing full sized images on the web and providing URLs to these images in their papers. Some do. The authors who don't either haven't considered the potential benefit to society of providing full sized images, or they have. Of the latter, only those who want to misrepresent their work by suppressing experimental evidence for selfish reasons are evil.
> > ... > > You often use debating tactics typical of lawyers and politicians > > that are unsuitable for any technical arena, including this forum. > > That also indicates that you are morally corrupt. > > I consider consistency and reasonable backup for bold claims to be > expectations "suitable for any technical arena, including this forum" > whether they have been used by lawyers and politicians or not. They > are methods that are used to separate discussions from flames and > trolls. This is a Usenet group. You get to participate however you > choose, but if do, don't be surprised if people notice and talk. > That's what Usenet is about.
Your bold claim, that I lack "consistency and reasonable backup," lacks consistency and reasonable backup, therefore you are a hypocrite. Thus, I, with consistency and reasonable backup, have shown that you are both a liar and a hypocrite.
On Feb 3, 1:37&#2013266080;pm, dbd <d...@ieee.org> wrote:
> On Feb 3, 10:07 am, aruzinsky <aruzin...@general-cathexis.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 2, 7:35 pm, dbd <d...@ieee.org> wrote: > > ... > > > > > I assume this is the same as the flash animation on You Tube. &#2013266080;These > > > > are also small images. &#2013266080;Furthermore, this shows slimy advertising > > > > expertise rather than technical writing skill. > > > > The authors have provided a larger video version of the Fig 11.b that > > > you cited. You seem to rant about 'slimy advertising' &#2013266080;without even > > > looking. > > > 1. That is a 46 minute download for me. > > 2. I downloaded it over a month ago. > > 3. I am missing codecs to view it. > > 4. Instead of telling me the version is "larger," why don't you just > > tell me the dimensions of the version of fig. 11. b contained in that > > video? > > You made the claims and threw out the labels. Do your homework. > How did the authors respond when you asked them for the images? >
On 1/9/08 I emailed arik@idc.ac.il with one simple technical question. He did not respond therefore I deemed him uncooperative. I am not going to nag uncooperative authors for anything including images.
> > > > All science and engineering papers should be > > > > written in sufficient detail so that others can duplicate and verify > > > > their results. > > > > I'd like to see this too. Do you know any publishers that support > > > this? > > > I already told you no and why. > > If you remember that publishers don't allow this, why are authors evil > for not achieving it? >
You have already used up your fair quota of stupid questions.
> > > ... > > You often use debating tactics typical of lawyers and politicians > > that are unsuitable for any technical arena, including this forum. > > That also indicates that you are morally corrupt. > > I consider consistency and reasonable backup for bold claims to be > expectations "suitable for any technical arena, including this forum" > whether they have been used by lawyers and politicians or not. They > are methods that are used to separate discussions from flames and > trolls. This is a Usenet group. You get to participate however you > choose, but if do, don't be surprised if people notice and talk. > That's what Usenet is about. > > Dale B. Dalrymple- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
Your bold claim, that my bold claims lack "consistency and reasonable backup," lacks consistency and reasonable backup, therefore you are a hypocrite. Now, I, with consistency and reasonable backup, have boldly claimed you to be a liar and a hypocrite.