Chris Huff wrote:
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean...even though it isn't used, you still have
> to store it. The "air" is simply any voxel with a density of 0, you have
> to store these voxels along with all the others.

That's what i meant.

> An alternative would be to store the coordinates, size, and density of
> each voxel. For some files, this would be smaller...but for others, it
> would be a lot larger.

I thought of storing the data in form of "columns" of variable height, but
that's probably very slow and not that easy to handle.  Could save a lot of
memory when working with high vertical resolution. 

> A compromise might be to partition the file into cubical chunks, each
> one with it's own resolution. That way, large areas of a single value
> could be represented as a single voxel, while areas with a lot of
> small-scale changes could still be accurately represented. There are
> probably better ways to compress the data, though...
> 

Sounds much like wavelet-compression, that should also work with 3 dimensions,
but it's probably quite calculation intensive.  

Christoph

--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
Homepage: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message