----- Forwarded message from Eric Delson <eric.del...@lehman.cuny.edu> -----
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 08:51:06 -0500
From: Eric Delson <eric.del...@lehman.cuny.edu>
Reply-To: Eric Delson <eric.del...@lehman.cuny.edu>
Subject: RE: ? Programs
To: morphmet@morphometrics.org
You might check out Checkpoint from Stratovan.com, only $250/yr for
an academic license, and I think you can test it first. It can turn a
DICOM or tiff stack into a surface, lay down landmarks (interface
with Landmark Editor), and other features.
Eric Delson, CUNY & AMNH, eric.del...@lehman.cuny.edu
At 12:47 AM 1/30/2013 Wednesday, you wrote:
> From: Alannah Pearson <alannahpear...@internode.on.net>
> Reply-To: Alannah Pearson <alannahpear...@internode.on.net>
> Subject: RE: ? Programs
> To: morphmet@morphometrics.org
>
>Hi Bill,
>
>Thanks for the suggestions. I am using CT scans which I ultimately
>was wanting to use and gather landmarks from. I am very new to this
>whole thing (literally only a few months) and at this point I'm just
>checking out what my options are. I've just started my PhD program.
>Ultimately, I want to use the scans in place of the actual specimen,
>so I need it to be fairly good quality. I will try the few trial
>options you have listed. I have Meshlab installed but I need an
>intermediary program that will convert my image stack into a smooth
>mesh. I understand there are a lot of options out there, at this
>point I'm trying to get a "visual" idea of what I am planning on
>doing, so loosely going through a practice process at the moment.
>
>It's nice to get a good idea of what I need and what the best options are.
>
>Thank you again,
>
>Alannah
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: morphmet_modera...@morphometrics.org
>[mailto:morphmet_modera...@morphometrics.org]
>Sent: Monday, 28 January 2013 5:26 PM
>To: morphmet@morphometrics.org
>Subject: Re: ? Programs
>
>----- Forwarded message from William Sellers <w...@mac.com> -----
>
>Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 06:22:47 -0500
>From: William Sellers <w...@mac.com>
>Reply-To: William Sellers <w...@mac.com>
>Subject: Re: ? Programs
>To: morphmet@morphometrics.org
>
>There are lots of possibilities nowadays - some free, some paid.
>What you need depends a bit on where your image sequence comes from.
>If it's from CT then there is usually enough contrast for the
>automated systems to isosurface your mesh automatically. I use
>Osirix for this but there are plenty of others and they all work
>perfectly well. I used to think there wasn't much difference between
>them but I'm not so sure any more - mesh quality looks like it might
>be a little better in Avizo which surprises me a little since they
>all use the same algorithms under the hood (marching cubes is more
>or less ubiquitous). However it may incorporate some cleanup. If you
>need to clean up your images first then that's a whole different
>ballgame and you need to look at the various tools available. This
>is where the free versions do lose out to the paid for software
>although I do quite like Seg3D.
>
>Once you've got your mesh, what are your plans? The meshes that come
>out of isosurfacing are often not very good. By that I mean that
>they either have an enormous number of tiny triangles, or if you
>apply smoothing and decimation within the isosurfacing software,
>they are often over smoothed and missing features. Meshlab does
>quite a good job of fixing them up but it describes what it does in
>rather technical language and it tends to crash with very big meshes
>(although it is getting better). If you want to lovingly fix up your
>meshes interactively then again the paid for tools do a much better
>job - Geomagic for example is excellent.
>
>The paid for options are all *very* expensive - several thousand
>pounds upwards - and they can have expensive yearly costs too. So
>I'd invest some time in the free options if you can.
>
>Cheers
>Bill
----- End forwarded message -----
