1991
DOI: 10.1109/38.79453
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Visualizing and modeling scattered multivariate data

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
19
0

Year Published

1992
1992
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 60 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
1
19
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, when 3D methods are used, data are accurately mapped to points in space, but users have hard times seeing them and navigate in 3D spaces. Several previous works [3,9,18] have explored different methods for rendering multivariate data sets. Our tool, Tradeoff Map, is novel in terms of its unique metaphor to a balance during a tradeoff process.…”
Section: Visualization In Multivariate Spacesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, when 3D methods are used, data are accurately mapped to points in space, but users have hard times seeing them and navigate in 3D spaces. Several previous works [3,9,18] have explored different methods for rendering multivariate data sets. Our tool, Tradeoff Map, is novel in terms of its unique metaphor to a balance during a tradeoff process.…”
Section: Visualization In Multivariate Spacesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The domain surfaces are usually assumed to be spherical, convex or genus zero. The surface-on-surface are not always polynomial [15], [70] or rather higher order polynomial [85] or a large number of pieces [1] HolTmann and Hopcroft [48,50,49] use similar affine and projective potential methods to blend two or three algebraic surfaces with quadrics. The blending surfaces can be derived by substitution from a parametric base curve.…”
Section: Implicit Scattered Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[7]). Some recent work under the title surfaces on surfaces addresses the case when M is a general curved surface such as the skin of an airplane [16].…”
Section: Surface Reconstruction Vs Function Reconstructionmentioning
confidence: 99%