Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Profile Leveling and Cross Sections01:26

Profile Leveling and Cross Sections

1.9K
Profile leveling and cross-sections are surveying methods used to determine and document terrain elevations for infrastructure projects such as highways, railroads, canals, and pipelines. These methods provide data for earthwork planning and alignment of proposed routes.  Profile leveling involves measuring elevations along a fixed line to create a vertical terrain profile. A surveyor sets up a leveling instrument at the benchmark (BM) and records a backsight (BS) to determine the...
1.9K
Topographic Surveying and Contours01:29

Topographic Surveying and Contours

1.2K
Topographic surveying is critical for documenting the Earth's surface, focusing on capturing elevations, slopes, and natural and man-made features. It is essential in construction planning, water resource management, and land-use analysis. The primary outcome of such surveys is a topographic map, which uses contour lines to visually represent the shape and slope of the terrain, providing valuable insights into the landscape's characteristics.Contour lines are fundamental to understanding the...
1.2K
Methods of Obtaining Topography01:25

Methods of Obtaining Topography

412
Topography involves measuring and mapping land elevations, natural features, and artificial structures to create accurate representations of the terrain. Topographic surveying relies on traditional and modern methods, each with distinct advantages and limitations.Traditional Surveying Methods:Transit stadia surveys and plane table surveys were widely used traditional surveying methods. These techniques relied on instruments like theodolites and stadia rods for measuring distances and angles,...
412

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Evaluating Visual Decision Support: How Does Preference Elicitation Shape Metric Sensitivity?

IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics·2026
Same author

Structural evolution of a fungal cell wall protein family for β-glucan-binding and cell separation.

mBio·2026
Same author

Implementing endoscopy video recording in routine clinical practice: Strategies from three tertiary care centers.

Endoscopy international open·2025
Same author

ProHap Explorer: Visualizing Haplotypes in Proteogenomic Datasets.

IEEE computer graphics and applications·2025
Same author

ProHap enables human proteomic database generation accounting for population diversity.

Nature methods·2024
Same author

The Language of Infographics: Toward Understanding Conceptual Metaphor Use in Scientific Storytelling.

IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics·2024

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Mar 11, 2026

Photorealistic Learned Landscapes for Augmented Reality
06:54

Photorealistic Learned Landscapes for Augmented Reality

Published on: June 27, 2025

843

Comparing Cross-Sections and 3D Renderings for Surface Matching Tasks Using Physical Ground Truths.

Andreas J Lind, Stefan Bruckner

    IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics
    |November 23, 2016
    PubMed
    Summary
    This summary is machine-generated.

    3D renderings are better than Multi-Planar Reformation (MPR) for identifying surfaces. Interactive visualizations also showed improved performance, while prior experience did not significantly impact results in this 3D visualization study.

    More Related Videos

    Four-Dimensional CT Analysis Using Sequential 3D-3D Registration
    05:05

    Four-Dimensional CT Analysis Using Sequential 3D-3D Registration

    Published on: November 23, 2019

    8.5K
    Extracting Metrics for Three-dimensional Root Systems: Volume and Surface Analysis from In-soil X-ray Computed Tomography Data
    09:37

    Extracting Metrics for Three-dimensional Root Systems: Volume and Surface Analysis from In-soil X-ray Computed Tomography Data

    Published on: April 26, 2016

    9.0K

    Related Experiment Videos

    Last Updated: Mar 11, 2026

    Photorealistic Learned Landscapes for Augmented Reality
    06:54

    Photorealistic Learned Landscapes for Augmented Reality

    Published on: June 27, 2025

    843
    Four-Dimensional CT Analysis Using Sequential 3D-3D Registration
    05:05

    Four-Dimensional CT Analysis Using Sequential 3D-3D Registration

    Published on: November 23, 2019

    8.5K
    Extracting Metrics for Three-dimensional Root Systems: Volume and Surface Analysis from In-soil X-ray Computed Tomography Data
    09:37

    Extracting Metrics for Three-dimensional Root Systems: Volume and Surface Analysis from In-soil X-ray Computed Tomography Data

    Published on: April 26, 2016

    9.0K

    Area of Science:

    • Medical Visualization
    • Human-Computer Interaction
    • Perception Science

    Background:

    • Assumptions exist regarding 3D spatial data visualization techniques, but empirical evidence is lacking.
    • Commonly held belief: 3D renderings for overview, cross-sectional visualizations like Multi-Planar Reformation (MPR) for detailed analysis.
    • Lack of comparative studies on the performance of different visualization methods for specific tasks.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To empirically compare the performance of 3D renderings versus Multi-Planar Reformation (MPR) for surface identification.
    • To investigate the influence of user experience on visualization task performance.
    • To assess the impact of interactivity (static vs. dynamic) on visualization effectiveness.

    Main Methods:

    • An experiment was conducted with 45 participants to compare 3D renderings and MPR.
    • Participants identified a known surface using both visualization techniques.
    • Factors such as interactivity and prior experience with image data were controlled and analyzed.

    Main Results:

    • 3D renderings significantly outperformed cross-sectional visualizations (MPR) in surface identification tasks.
    • Interactive visualizations demonstrated partially superior performance compared to static versions.
    • No significant performance difference was observed between participants with high and low prior experience.

    Conclusions:

    • 3D renderings are more effective than MPR for identifying surfaces in 3D spatial data.
    • Interactive visualization elements can enhance task performance.
    • User experience level may not be a primary determinant of performance in these specific visualization tasks.