I'd very much appreciate some help here: I'm in the process of clarifying
whether I can use `computeContour3d' to derive estimates of the surface
area of a single closed isosurface (and prospectively the enclosed
volume). getting the surface area from the list of triangles returned by
`computeContour3d' is straightforward but I've stumbled over the precise
meaning of `level' here. looking into the package, ultimately the level is
used in the namespace function `faceType' which reads:
function (v, nx, ny, level, maxvol)
{
if (level == maxvol)
p <- v >= level
else p <- v > level
v[p] <- 1
v[!p] <- 0
v[-nx, -ny] + 2 * v[-1, -ny] + 4 * v[-1, -1] + 8 * v[-nx,
-1]
}
my question: is the discrimination of the special case `level == maxvol'
(or rather of everything else) really desirable? I would argue
that always testing for `v >= level' would be better. if I feed data with
discrete values (e.g. integer-valued) defined
on a coarse grid into `computeContour3d' it presently makes a big
difference whether there is a single data point (e.g.) with a value larger
than `level' or not. consider the 1D example:
data1 <- c(0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0)
data2 <- c(0, 0, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0)
and level = 1
this defines the isocontour `level = 1' to lie at pos 3 and 7 in for data1
but as lying at pos 4 in data2. actually I would like (and expect) to get
the same isosurface for `data2' with this `level' setting. in short: the
meaning/definition of `level' changes depending on whether or not it is
equal to `maxvol'. this is neither stated in the manpage nor is this
desirable in my view. but maybe I miss something here. any clarification
would be appreciated.
j.
--
______________________________________________
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
