[Insight-developers] Raw image IO factory?

[Miller, James V (Research)]

I guess what I what is to be able to write 
out a raw image using a factory.  I want a command
line program that does

./MyProgram input.png output.raw

and have it write out a raw image.  And if I do

./MyProgram input.png output.png

it would write a png file.

I agree that you loose the spacing and size, etc. But I am 
trying to do a quick and dirty integration of an ITK algorithm
to a legacy system and want to just rig up an IPC process.  So
my existing app tells my ITK app to run on a particular input
file and output a particular output file which it will then 
read (since they app already knows the size and spacing, it can 
just do a bulk read).

Can I use the Meta image as an output factory?  If so, that will
do what I want.




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Luis Ibanez [mailto:luis.ibanez@kitware.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 1:53 PM
> To: Miller, James V (Research)
> Cc: Insight-developers (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: [Insight-developers] Raw image IO factory?
> 
> 
> Hi Jim,
> 
> The problem with Raw is that even if we set a factory
> that figures out the correct ImageIO from the file
> extension, there is no easy way to arrange for the
> additional image information to be passed to the
> ImageIO.
> 
> In the current mode for raw, the user has to instantiate
> the RawImageIO object, pass the spacing, size and origin
> of the image, and then trigger the execution of the reader.
> 
> I personaly think that being so easy to create a MetaImage
> header or a VTK header for a raw file, we should rather
> encourage users to use those mechanism as a way of 'wrapping'
> a raw file.
> 
> At the end of the day, a 'raw' image is an incomplete
> file and there is no way to figure out the content
> without the additional information.
> 
> 
> 
>    Luis
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------
> 
> Miller, James V (Research) wrote:
> 
> > Should there be a raw image IO factory for raw images?
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > There is no RawImageIOFactory in the system.  Currently the 
> RawImageIO 
> > object says it can write a file as long as there is a 
> filename.  So I 
> > imagine this is why there is not a corresponding RawImageIOFactory 
> > (since it would respond yes to everything). 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > But when running in factory mode, could a RawImageIOFactory 
> respond to 
> > being able to read/write files if the extension is ".raw"?
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > *Jim Miller*
> > */_____________________________________/*
> > /Visualization & Computer Vision//
> > /GE Research/
> > /Bldg. KW, Room C218B/
> > /P.O. Box 8, Schenectady NY 12301/
> > 
> > //_millerjv@research.ge.com <mailto:millerjv@research.ge.com>_/
> > 
> > /_james.miller@research.ge.com_/
> > /(518) 387-4005, Dial Comm: 8*833-4005, /
> > /Cell: (518) 505-7065, Fax: (518) 387-6981/
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> 
> 
>