| Re: CDF vs. netCDF [message #8466 is a reply to message #8459] |
Fri, 14 March 1997 00:00  |
David Foster
Messages: 341 Registered: January 1996
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Michael Ochs wrote:
>
> We are converting a moderately large set of programs to
> IDL for distribution. I am reviewing options for the
> data format to use and downloaded the CDF and netCDF
> user's guides. What is not clear from what I have seen
> are the advantages and disadvantages to the two formats.
>
> Any comments on this would be useful. Our software handles
> large MRI images and spectra (thus IDL) and is going to
> be designed to run on many platforms (thus IDL again). One
> thing I would like to know is whether netCDF adds significantly
> to file size and how both compare to using IDL's unformatted
> routines like ASSOC.
>
I have been writing software for analysis of MRI images at UCSD for
quite some time, and have never encountered the need for CDF or
netCDF. Of course, we are using UNIX systems exclusively, but I
would still recommend keeping your MR images in their native
format. There are other tools (and some IDL "shareware") that
will expect your data to be in native form (GE Cigna?).
For I/O, we're just using plain vanilla unformatted binary
READU/WRITEU. When we need access to the entire series,
we read the images into a 3D volume. You could concatenate the
images into a single volume file of some sort, but then you
lose the header information that comes with the images (and
we haven't really found a good reason to use ASSOC; the speed
improvement isn't that much compared to binary reads of individual
images).
Good luck!
Dave
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~
David S. Foster Univ. of California, San Diego
Programmer/Analyst Brain Image Analysis Laboratory
foster@bial1.ucsd.edu Department of Psychiatry
(619) 622-5892 8950 Via La Jolla Drive, Suite 2200
La Jolla, CA 92037
[ UCSD Mail Code 0949 ]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~
|
|
|
|