Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pucc-k Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H:Pucc-I:Pucc-K:rsk From: rsk@pucc-k (Wombat) Newsgroups: net.ai Subject: An Image Format Standard Message-ID: <1187@pucc-k> Date: Wed, 17-Jul-85 14:24:14 EDT Article-I.D.: pucc-k.1187 Posted: Wed Jul 17 14:24:14 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 18-Jul-85 08:03:40 EDT Reply-To: rsk@pucc-k.UUCP (Wombat) Organization: Purdue University Lines: 37 Keywords: standard, image, vision It has been pointed out that one of the obstacles in the path of sharing research on machine vision and related areas is the lack of a common image format that would allow investigators to freely exchange images. (The recent article by David Sher of the University of Rochester in net.ai comes to mind.) It seems to me that perhaps the time has come for a committee to be formed, either by the IEEE or ACM, or both, to define such a standard. Certainly, different research areas have their own requirements for such work; I would expect that those working on assembly-line automation would be interested in different criteria than those working on ultrasonic medical imaging; however, a standard could allow a few different formats, with clearly defined conversion algorithms from one to another. This certainly falls short of the ideal of one image format, but it is better than the current state of affairs, with hundreds of incompatible formats. The problem is complex; and with so many existing formats, debate is likely to be long and vigorous. Also, once a standard is agreed upon, a great many programs would have to be modified to understand it, with what is likely to be considerable effort. However, I believe that the time and energy spent on discussion and (eventual) software changes will pay off over time as researchers are able to share information more freely. (How many of you have programs with do nothing other than convert someone else's image format to yours, or vice versa?) In summary, the current state of affairs is such that there are probably as many image formats as there are groups doing image research; this represents an obstruction to progress that can be overcome with a standard image format. (It may be that such a standard or a committee working on a standard already exists; if so, I apologize for my ignorance on the matter.) -- Rich Kulawiec rsk@{pur-ee,purdue}.uucp, rsk@purdue-asc.csnet rsk@purdue-asc.arpa or rsk@asc.purdue.edu