3D Reconstruction and Visualization : a comparison between 2D, 3D CT Images

Authors

  • Pranav R. Mathapati  
  • Dr. Anilkumar N. Holambe  
  • Prof. Sushilkumar N. Holambe  

Keywords:

Marching-cubes algorithm, 3D Construction, MATLAB, MRI images

Abstract

In this paper, three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction and visualization of several 2D CT images based on MATLAB were investigated. The 3D visualization of CT images will provide the realistic 3D environment; which increases the efficiency of diagnosis and treatment in medicine. Here, the marching cubes algorithm was used for surface rendering and volume rendering. The splitting-box algorithm presented here which reduces the number of polygonal chains by adapting their size to the shape of the surface. The resulting polygonal chains offer a wide spectrum for representing the contour surface. An exact representation is achieved by a new type of generic patches calculated from the polygonal chains. Approximations of different quality may be obtained by combining the algorithm generating the patches with simple triangulations. Finally, 3D reconstruction of 2D CT images was done by using MATLAB programme.

References

  1. Lars Kjelldahl, Beatriz Sousa Santos, ‘Visual perception in computer graphics courses’, Computer &Graphics, (28), 2004,  451-456.
  2.  R. R. Kothawale, R. M. Mohite, Advanced Materials Research 1110, 2015, 218-221.
  3.  Cline H E, Lorensen W E, ‘Marching Cube: A high resolution 3D surface construction algorithm’, Computer Graphics, , 21 (4), 1987.
  4. R. M. Mohite, R. R. Kothawale, Indian Journal of Chemistry 54A, 2015, 872-876.
  5. Cline H E, Lorensen W E, Ludke S. Two algorithms for three-dimensional reconstruction oftomograms. Med Phys,  15(3), 1988, 320?327.
  6. Montani C, Scateni R, Scopigno R. Discretized marching cubes, Proceedings of visualization’ 94,Washington, 1994, p281–7.
  7. Durst M J. Additional reference to marching cubes. Computer Graphics,  22 (2), 1988, 72-73.
  8. J Wilhelms, AVanGelder. Topological considerations in isosurface Generation. San Diego Workshop on Volume, Visualization, 24 (5), 1990, 79-86.
  9. R.M. Mohite, J.N. Ansari, A.S. Roy, R.R. Kothawale, International Journal of Nanoscience, 15(1), 2016,  1650011. 
  10. Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICMO). National Electrical ManufacturersAssociation, 1999.
  11. Tomas Akenine-Moller, Tomas Moller, and Eric Haines, Real-time rendering, A. K. Peters,Ltd.2002.
  12. D. Bartz, M. Hauth, and K. Mueller, Advanced Virtual Medicine: Techniques andApplications for Virtual Endoscopy, MICCAI Tutorial T8, 2003.
  13. R. M. Mohite, R. R. Kothawale, International Journal of Scientific Research, 3(12), 2014, 355-357.
  14. M.J Bentum, B.B.A. Lichtenbelt, and T. Malzbender, Frequency analysis of gradi-ent estimators in volume rendering, Tech. report, University of Twente and Hewlett Packard Laboratories, November 1995.

International Journal of Scientific Research in Science, Engineering and Technology

Downloads

Published

2017-12-31

Issue

Volume 3, Issue 8, November-December-2017

Section

Research Articles

License

Copyright (c) IJSRSET

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

[1]
Pranav R. Mathapati, Dr. Anilkumar N. Holambe, Prof. Sushilkumar N. Holambe, " 3D Reconstruction and Visualization : a comparison between 2D, 3D CT Images , International Journal of Scientific Research in Science, Engineering and Technology(IJSRSET), Print ISSN : 2395-1990, Online ISSN : 2394-4099, Volume 3, Issue 8, pp.203-209, November-December-2017.