https://pages.graphics.cs.wisc.edu/765-10/archives/490-multi-variate-time-varying-and-comparative-volumetric-visualizations Course web for CS838 Spring 2010, Visualization Wed, 22 Feb 2012 22:15:49 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.7.4 https://pages.graphics.cs.wisc.edu/765-10/archives/490-multi-variate-time-varying-and-comparative-volumetric-visualizations#comment-121 Sat, 13 Feb 2010 01:05:16 +0000 http://graphics.cs.wisc.edu/Courses/Visualization10/?p=490#comment-121 With my own experience in Volume Visualization ( specially Scientific one ) these techniques are just “Colorful” and ( CFD sometimes is jokingly termed as Colorful Fluid Dynamics ( they show only colors) or Congressional Fluid Dynamics ( they give research funds) ) but very rarely they explain the natural phenomenon. The national labs with Petascale initiatives have too many challenges in data visualization and this is one example where visualization doesn’t provide deep insights.

]]> https://pages.graphics.cs.wisc.edu/765-10/archives/490-multi-variate-time-varying-and-comparative-volumetric-visualizations#comment-120 Fri, 12 Feb 2010 22:09:42 +0000 http://graphics.cs.wisc.edu/Courses/Visualization10/?p=490#comment-120 I am in complete agreement with Danielle in that the above visualization is a classic example of “cool, but what for?” There is something to be said about a visualization that can be complete in and of itself, and doesn’t require additional explanation, worse, a complete conference paper for explication. The posted image has the following caption in the paper, “Tera-scale Supernova Initiative data set visualizing Catop(A in B).” It is entirely likely that if I were to read the paper I would know what the above visualization is about, but I shouldn’t have to. The purpose of visualization is to replace words with imagery, so if words are still required to make sense of the imagery, heck, why visualize in the first place?

]]>