3 ms·
It wouldn't be a 3D volume though. A 2D histogram is a 3D volume. A 3D histogram would require a 4D object, so it would be a case of "first build your hypercube
by ascorbic 9y ago
It wouldn't be a 3D volume though. A 2D histogram is a 3D volume. A 3D histogram would require a 4D object, so it would be a case of "first build your hypercube..."
- akx 9y agoHow about a 3D point cloud with dot size corresponding to intensity?
- Waterluvian 9y agoReally, it's just easier to visualise it differently. I think it's our failing as beings rather than of the visualization method. We just aren't made for it.
- Franciscouzo 9y agoSomething like this [0]? (Disclaimer, I made it) [0] https://franciscouzo.github.io/image_colors/ https://franciscouzo.github.io/image_colors/
- nerdponx 9y agoBut in a 2D histogram you encode the 3rd dimension with color. So if you use color to encode the 4th dimension, you can take slices through the 3rd and get a decent sense of what's going on. That's how MRI scans work. BTW there are tools for visualizing and "touring" these kinds of slices in arbitrarily high dimensions: http://www.ggobi.org/demos/tour.html http://www.ggobi.org/demos/tour.html