3D semi-landmark analysis
-- Forwarded message -- From: *Erik Otarola-Castillo* eotar...@iastate.edu mailto:eotar...@iastate.edu Date: Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 12:34 PM Subject: Re: 3D semi-landmark analysis To: morphmet@morphometrics.org mailto:morphmet@morphometrics.org Francois, Yes, if you are interested in quantifying and comparing three-dimensional semi-landmarks, you would need to let the 3D semilandmarks slide along their tangent directions (either along curves or surfaces) during the GPA procedure to obtain correct estimates of shape. The procedure is outlined in Gunz et al. 2005 (Semilandmarks in three dimensions). I believe Green and Bookstein’s Edgewarp software allows one to do this, and it is freely available. Dean Adams and I have recently developed an R routine for a general GPA that allows superimposition of 2D or 3D landmark data. The landmarks can represent locations of anatomical points, semilandmarks on curves, and semilandmarks on surfaces. We are currently testing and packaging our routine, and should have it available by February 1^st 2010. Cheers, Erik On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 3:51 PM, morphmet morphmet_modera...@morphometrics.org mailto:morphmet_modera...@morphometrics.org wrote: Original Message Subject: 3D semi-landmark analysis Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:16:02 GMT From: Francois Gould fgou...@jhmi.edu mailto:fgou...@jhmi.edu To: morphmet morphmet@morphometrics.org mailto:morphmet@morphometrics.org Dear list, I'm trying to figure out how to analyze 3D semilandmarks on a surface (specifically, a semi-landmark digitization of articular surfaces). If I understand things correctly, it is best to include a sliding algorithm in the Procrustes fitting stage (when all the semilandmark configurations are being translated, rotated and scaled). Am I correct in thinking this? And does anyone know of any software that incorporates sliding in a plane for 3D semilandmarks? Thank you. Yours, Francois Gould MSc Graduate Student Center for Functional anatomy and Evolution, Johns Hopkins, Baltimore -- Replies will be sent to the list. For more information visit http://www.morphometrics.org -- _ Erik Otárola-Castillo Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Graduate Program 253 Bessey Hall Iowa State University Ames, IA 50011-1050 Phone 631-796-7331 http://www.public.iastate.edu/~eotarola/homepage.html __ -- _ Erik Otárola-Castillo Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Graduate Program 253 Bessey Hall Iowa State University Ames, IA 50011-1050 Phone 631-796-7331 http://www.public.iastate.edu/~eotarola/homepage.html __ -- Replies will be sent to the list. For more information visit http://www.morphometrics.org
Re: Next Engine 3D scanner hardware requirements
Dear Andy, Having used the NextEngine with both the minimum and recommended specs (for scanning humeri)I would advise to go for the recommended specs as a baseline. As you said RAM isn't a problem,I'd put as much as you can in (although to go above 4gb you'll obviously need a 64bit OS) -the scanning program sucks up memory,especially when aligning scans and fusing them. Hope that's of help. Tom O'Mahoney On 21/01/2010, morphmet morphmet_modera...@morphometrics.org wrote: Original Message Subject: Next Engine 3D scanner hardware requirements Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:24:58 -0600 From: Andy Grass adgr...@gmail.com To: morphmet_modera...@morphometrics.org Hi everyone, we just got a new Next Engine 3D scanner here at the University of Iowa morphometrics lab and I was wondering if anyone had any experience using it on computers with different hardware. The minimum requirements are 2GB or RAM and a 256MB video card, and the recommended requirements are 4GB of RAM and a 512MB video card. Does anyone have experience using it with both the minimum and recommended requirements? None of the computers we have currently are powerful enough to run it, so we'll have to get a new one. Getting more RAM isn't an issue but most of the default computers that can be ordered from the university come with just a 256MB video card. So if the lower power video card works just fine then that's great, but if the difference in performance with a 512MB card is significant then I'll push for that. Thanks! -- Andy Grass andy-gr...@uiowa.edu Grad Student Department of Geoscience University of Iowa -- Replies will be sent to the list. For more information visit http://www.morphometrics.org
Re: Next Engine 3D scanner hardware requirements
I'm having the same issue right now. One thing you need to be careful about is you could have a high enough graphics card (mine is 256), but if it is integrated and not dedicated it may still not work. --Heather -Original Message- From: Thomas O'Mahoney tomomaho...@googlemail.com To: morphmet@morphometrics.org Sent: Thu, Jan 21, 2010 2:59 pm Subject: Re: Next Engine 3D scanner hardware requirements Dear Andy, Having used the NextEngine with both the minimum and recommended specs (for scanning humeri)I would advise to go for the recommended specs as a baseline. As you said RAM isn't a problem,I'd put as much as you can in (although to go above 4gb you'll obviously need a 64bit OS) -the scanning program sucks up memory,especially when aligning scans and fusing them. Hope that's of help. Tom O'Mahoney On 21/01/2010, morphmet morphmet_modera...@morphometrics.org wrote: Original Message Subject: Next Engine 3D scanner hardware requirements Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:24:58 -0600 From: Andy Grass adgr...@gmail.com To: morphmet_modera...@morphometrics.org Hi everyone, we just got a new Next Engine 3D scanner here at the University of Iowa morphometrics lab and I was wondering if anyone had any experience using it on computers with different hardware. The minimum requirements are 2GB or RAM and a 256MB video card, and the recommended requirements are 4GB of RAM and a 512MB video card. Does anyone have experience using it with both the minimum and recommended requirements? None of the computers we have currently are powerful enough to run it, so we'll have to get a new one. Getting more RAM isn't an issue but most of the default computers that can be ordered from the university come with just a 256MB video card. So if the lower power video card works just fine then that's great, but if the difference in performance with a 512MB card is significant then I'll push for that. Thanks! -- Andy Grass andy-gr...@uiowa.edu Grad Student Department of Geoscience University of Iowa -- Replies will be sent to the list. For more information visit http://www.morphometrics.org