Difference between revisions of "2010 NAMIC Project week: Volume Rendering for Virtual Colonoscopy"

From NAMIC Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
 
(11 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
__NOTOC__
 
__NOTOC__
  
[[File:VC-Slicer-small.jpg]]
+
[[File:VC-Slicer-75%.jpg]]
  
 
==Key Investigators==
 
==Key Investigators==
 +
* MGH: Hiro Yoshida
 
* MGH: Yin Wu
 
* MGH: Yin Wu
* MGH: June-Goo Lee
 
* MGH: Hiro Yoshida
 
  
* BWH/Isomic: Steve Pieper
+
* Isomics, Inc: Steve Pieper
 
* BWH: Ron Kikinis
 
* BWH: Ron Kikinis
  
Line 17: Line 16:
 
Pursure volume rendering that is suitable for real-time and interactive virtual colonoscopy display.
 
Pursure volume rendering that is suitable for real-time and interactive virtual colonoscopy display.
  
The objective of this project is to:
+
The objectives of this project is to:
* Examine internal volume rendering (open source) availabel in Slicer
+
* Examine internal volume rendering engines (open source) availabel in Slicer
* Provide external volume rendering (closed source) for virtual colonoscopy
+
* Provide external volume rendering engines (closed source) for virtual colonoscopy
* Compare the performance of these volume rendering routines.
+
* Compare the performance of these volume rendering engines.
* Compare the advantages and disadbantages of these volume rendering routines
+
* Compare the advantages and disadvantages of these volume rendering engines in real-time high-quality virtual colonoscopy navigation
  
 
</div>
 
</div>
Line 28: Line 27:
  
 
<h3>Approach, Plan</h3>
 
<h3>Approach, Plan</h3>
Several virtual colonoscopy datasets will be rendered by use of the below volume rendering routines.
+
Several virtual colonoscopy datasets will be rendered by use of the below volume rendering engines.
* VTK GPU Raycasting in slicer 3.6 (GLSL)  
+
* VTK GPU Raycasting in Slicer 3.6 (GLSL)  
 
* Microsoft research (MSR) volume rendering (CUDA, closed source)  
 
* Microsoft research (MSR) volume rendering (CUDA, closed source)  
  
Their performance will be compared based on various metrics.
+
The performance of these volume rendering engines will be compared based on various metrics, including the response to multitouch functions.
  
 
</div>
 
</div>
Line 39: Line 38:
  
 
<h3>Progress</h3>
 
<h3>Progress</h3>
The two volume rendering routines are installed on a single computer (single CUDA-based GPU) for rendering the virtual colonoscopy datasets as well as for performance comparison purposes.
+
The two volume rendering engines are installed on a single computer equipped with a CUDA-based GPU for rendering the virtual colonoscopy datasets and for performance comparison purposes.
  
 
</div>
 
</div>

Latest revision as of 15:35, 21 June 2010

Home < 2010 NAMIC Project week: Volume Rendering for Virtual Colonoscopy


VC-Slicer-75%.jpg

Key Investigators

  • MGH: Hiro Yoshida
  • MGH: Yin Wu
  • Isomics, Inc: Steve Pieper
  • BWH: Ron Kikinis

Objective

Pursure volume rendering that is suitable for real-time and interactive virtual colonoscopy display.

The objectives of this project is to:

  • Examine internal volume rendering engines (open source) availabel in Slicer
  • Provide external volume rendering engines (closed source) for virtual colonoscopy
  • Compare the performance of these volume rendering engines.
  • Compare the advantages and disadvantages of these volume rendering engines in real-time high-quality virtual colonoscopy navigation

Approach, Plan

Several virtual colonoscopy datasets will be rendered by use of the below volume rendering engines.

  • VTK GPU Raycasting in Slicer 3.6 (GLSL)
  • Microsoft research (MSR) volume rendering (CUDA, closed source)

The performance of these volume rendering engines will be compared based on various metrics, including the response to multitouch functions.

Progress

The two volume rendering engines are installed on a single computer equipped with a CUDA-based GPU for rendering the virtual colonoscopy datasets and for performance comparison purposes.

Delivery Mechanism

A table that shows a comparison of the above two rendering engines in terms of

  • rendering performance and
  • advantages and disadvantages in rendering virtual colonoscopy datasets in clinical settings

will be delivered.

References