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