[Insight-developers] Raw image IO factory?

[Luis Ibanez]

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/
> 
>  
> 
>  
>