The pic is from this book called "Microcosmos". (note: this is a link to Amazon)

It's pretty great, there are a lot of cool pictures in it. I like to keep it around my desk to flip through while I wait for things to load on my computer.

Here's a bunch of resources for ya.

Start by checking out OpenTopography. They have data for free download as well as a great tools page:

https://opentopography.org/

​

For free software I recommend checking out:

Cloud Compare https://www.danielgm.net/cc/

QTReader http://appliedimagery.com/download/qtreader-64-bit/

and Fusion http://forsys.cfr.washington.edu/FUSION/fusion_overview.html

​

Also free for small datasets is Lastools. The creator, Martin Isenburg has an excellent blog as well.

https://rapidlasso.com/lastools/

https://rapidlasso.com/blog/

​

If you know python or R there are some great packages:

laspy https://laspy.readthedocs.io/en/latest/

lidR https://github.com/Jean-Romain/lidR

​

For educational resources:

I've taken some good courses online with Penn State World Campus. I haven't taken their lidar one, but it looks pretty good.

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog481/syllabus

There are lots of resources out there you don't have to pay for, and colleges are always a bit behind the industry. I see more programs popping up these days that teach not just GIS but focus more on remote sensing and geodesy. I would look for something with that kind of focus rather than your standard GIS program. Honestly, you can learn a lot about the work if you try out some mapping using a drone with a camera and then create a point cloud using structure from motion (aka phodar). Software like Pix4D, Agisoft Photoscan have free trials I think.

For lidar textbooks I recommend the one by Shan and Toth:

https://www.amazon.com/Topographic-Laser-Ranging-Scanning-Principles-ebook/dp/B009NZVX2W

Also, it's always a good idea to read up on and understand accuracy standards and file formats at some point:

https://www.asprs.org/a/society/committees/standards/Positional_Accuracy_Standards.pdf

https://www.asprs.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/LAS_1_4_r13.pdf

​

For drone based lidar, the company to pay attention to these days is Phoenix LiDAR.

https://www.phoenixlidar.com/

​

Hopefully gives you some of what you're looking for. Best of luck!

Well, it depends on how hard you are willing to work,

Lazy and just want to kinda get used to terminology:
Learning Radiology by Herring

Willing to put in 2-3 hours every day during the rotation which by the way is entirely feasible since med students definitely aren't doing more than 40 hours a week, most do like 30 during a rads rotation. Use Core Radiology

Difficultish: Brant and helms, the harrisons of radiology. But unlike harrisons where legit everything is covered, if you really want to learn radiology you have to get subspecialty specific textbooks like the requisities series. That said, this is what I used back in the day during med school and I definitely don't regret it. I've read through core radiology as well, they are kinda similar in content, but B&H is a bit more formal and teaches radiologist principles better. If you are going into radiology, this is the textbook to buy since you'll probably use it in residency during PGY-2.

And in general, you are never going to read the entire textbooks during med school, but for IM or EM docs, Core could be super useful even though it will be beyond them for certain topics.

For physics, this is my favorite book by far. It can be a bit dense, and some in my opinion more ignorant radiologists who dislike extensive physics don't like it as much, but I learned during training physics makes the radiologist. Even among radiologists, too many doctors make basic physics mistakes that lead to misdiagnosis, especially with things like nuclear imaging. I frequently overread cardiologist and GI nuc imaging and am kind of appaled by the complete lack of basic radiation understanding. That said...

Here are the amazon links, you can probably find pdfs to some of the books and those that aren't you can probably find in your hospital library.

https://www.amazon.com/Learning-Radiology-Recognizing-Basics-3e/dp/0323328075/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1500633396&sr=8-1&keywords=radiology

https://www.amazon.com/Core-Radiology-Approach-Diagnostic-Imaging/dp/1107679680/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1500633396&sr=8-2&keywords=radiology

https://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Diagnostic-Radiology-Set-Brant/dp/1608319121/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1500633979&sr=1-1&keywords=brant+and+helms

Specifically for MRI:
https://www.amazon.com/Duke-Review-MRI-Principles-Case/dp/1455700843/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1500633869&sr=1-1&keywords=duke+MRI

^Great book for the basics of MRI artifacts and connects visual artifacts to the physics, although learning how to differentiate between artifact and pathology is going to take a residency ;). Also, make sure to get the online version because the paper edition is shit quality.

Yea, so all in all, everyone can find a book that will satisfy their level of interest in radiology, and of course, you get out what you put in. You put in a lot of time in the rotation, that is your decision and I think it was worth it. I learned more of my physics principles during my rotation(although it helped I was an engineer) than residency, so when it came time to take physics CORE, I didn't have to study. Physics CORE is basically the step 1 of radiology, the exam can be hard as shit, and unlike step 1, there is no UFAP or UWORLD lol.

Radiology textbook can be obscure in that they often don't explicitly mention physics principles, so if you don't them, you can't truly appreciate a textbook in my opinion, and how I studied radiology basically was I always had four textbooks open at any given time.

Robbins for pathophysiology, Whatever radiology textbook I was using, a copy of Netters, and maybe an embryology review book if I felt it was necessary. Never steered me wrong, radiology and anatomy textbooks open at all times are especially important, but try to keep the anatomy book and pathophys book closed while "interpreting" the textbook, only to re-correlated after you have thought about it and read a section to get a second more in depth look.

Costantly reminding yourself of principles is important and often missed. I am sure all of you know radiology is one of the most basic science heavy specialties, so reviewing your basic sciences, even well beyond medical school, makes for a fantastic radiologist.

However be careful not to get attached to any given textbook as well, you can't exactly have netters and robbins with you in the reading room.

Returning to posting just to tell everyone to stop trying to make this happen. I'm a Catholic and an analytical chemist, and I've read the papers.

The scientific studies purporting to "prove" the shroud's origin are just awful. Behind the vast majority are Giulio Fanti, whose recent career has involved studying nothing but the shroud, which he's clearly convinced is real before performing the experiments (this is not good science). His main results are rejected by the scientific community--the tests used to establish an origin around 0 AD were not published in a scientific journal, but in a book Fanti wrote (because they were not considered reputable) (1). The tests he used (including IR, Raman, and a mechanical test) did not follow established protocols; they were calibrated in Fanti's lab, verified by no other party, and immediately used to date the shroud. The archbishop of Turin has claimed "there is no value to these experiments" (2). Some of the results Fanti actually managed to get published (the so called "biological evidence") have been retracted as "data presented in this article are not sufficient to support the conclusions drawn". (3)

You can question the carbon dating if you like--but there is not any real evidence supporting the shroud's origin ~0 AD. Given that the shroud was entirely unknown until the 14th century, a much earlier origin is unlikely.

1. https://www.amazon.com/Shroud-Turin-First-Century-Christ/dp/9814669121
   
2. https://www.lastampa.it/2013/03/28/vaticaninsider/sindone-la-battaglia-dei-reperti-ma-fanti-li-ha-buoni-Jg4vnlWaNsnSe4DXvDyTNN/pagina.html
   
3. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0180487

USDA, FBI, CIA, USACE, USNAVY, USARMY, USAIRFFORCE, USNPS, USF&W, HHS, USFS, NASA (for rocket launches) and multiple state governement agencies too, from my experience working with these data and professionals directly: TDEC, TWRA, TVA.

This is in no way an exhaustive list, and I can provide context for each of these groups. Mostly this is just from Jensen's Remote Sensing of the physical environment 2nd, which, even though is from 2006 and there is new data for these topics now, does a wonderful job of describing topics for those without STEM backgrounds.

You might appreciate this book on remote sensing (used of course, also check eBay) I came across in grad school (spatial analysis & processing satellite imagery) that's more along the lines of algorithmic processing in post production rather than composition in the field. It's a great look (academically speaking) at the language of math as it applies to handling rasters.

[Ninja edits: jfc autocorrect...]

I'm in my last class finishing up my certificate through Penn State. One thing I can tell you is put all your class projects into an online portfolio. I didn't do that so I will have to go back track and put them all up.

I have no background in GIS and started the program out of genuine interest. The program was well worth the money but since I have no prior experience it was kind of a GIS intro/immersion program. Basically I wouldn't apply to GIS jobs based on my certificate alone. Because of this I plan on studying on my own using ESRI's books to reinforce what I learned through Penn State . Again, I plan on posting the associated projects from these books into an online portfolio.

Current books I will be going through:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1589482824/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1405071816&sr=8-1&pi=SY200_QL40

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1589483359/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1405071858&sr=8-1&pi=SY200_QL40

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/158948214X/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1405071905&sr=8-1&pi=SY200_QL40

Congrats on your promotion! I did my undergrad in Geography and am almost done with my MPH, so fellow GIS person here. There is an interest group in the American Association of Geographers you can reach out to if you haven't already. I'm not sure what your baseline is for public health, but I've included two books I've liked and used for reference on occasion. I'm sure you'll know all the geography concepts, but it's nice to see how they relate to the public health side.

I know a lot of universities offer free classes for their employees, maybe you could take a couple of public health courses if you were so inclined just to get a good baseline. I'm not sure what area of public health your doing your work in, but it's never a bad idea to pay attention to publications to see what's new.

https://www.amazon.com/Cartographies-Disease-Mapping-Medicine-expanded/dp/1589484673/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1498073326&sr=8-6&keywords=GIS+public+health

https://www.amazon.com/GIS-Public-Health-Ellen-Cromley/dp/1609187504/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1498073326&sr=8-1&keywords=GIS+public+health

I had a hard time with this too. the book that eventually ended up giving the best explanation (for me) was this one: http://www.amazon.com/MRI-Ray-Hashman-Hashemi-PhD/dp/1608311155/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1407170208&sr=8-1&keywords=mri+the+basics

It was available online for free at my institution.

The Blue-Eyed Son series, by Chris Lynch.

http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Relations-Blue-eyed-Chris-Lynch/dp/1853717819/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1

> Most all entry jobs require experience.

Are you trying to get an entry job into natural resources or something like a GIS technician? I can see it being pretty difficult to get a strictly GIS related job if you only had two classes at university.

Learn as much as you can from tutorials online. Try out QGIS. See what books your local library can get you. Work on your own projects.

Since you don’t have an expensive piece of paper that says you know GIS, your best bet is to start putting together a portfolio of your projects for potential employers to review.

If you can’t get access to Esri products through the university, you can get this tutorial book for ArcMap 10.3 for $32 and it comes with a 6 month trial license. There’s also this one for ArcGIS Pro (Esri’s new flagship software) for $62. I would assume it comes with a trial license as well.

If you do buy a tutorial book, always buy new. The trial license is just a code in the book to activate it. If you buy used there’s no way to know if that code has been used already or not.

I haven't seen evidence to say that GIS is necessary to get a job, but I still strongly recommend it. I know several people, myself included, who have been told that GIS experience has gotten their resumes taken out of the pile.

Even if your school doesn't offer a course on arcGIS, the company that puts out the software offers a pretty good workbook that comes with a trail of the software if you want to look at it yourself.

You just need the intuition behind the ideas, a book like this

https://www.amazon.com/Topology-Applications-Topological-Spaces-Near/dp/9814407658

would go some way towards that as a study guide alongside Munkres, as well as Sasho

https://www.amazon.com/Illustrated-Introduction-Topology-Homotopy/dp/1439848157

This.
Also a decent resource IMO.:
http://www.amazon.com/Getting-Know-ArcGIS-Desktop-Michael/dp/1589483081/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1417111106&sr=8-1&keywords=arcgis+10.2

The program itself (I learned on the 2013 version) comes with three guides, as I recall. The tour guide is the only one that comes to mind at the moment. Maybe the field guide is another. I used the tour guide primarily. The annoying thing was learning the program with the guides that were not updated. So if a lesson says it should take x amount of time, it will take more, due to you having to figure out where certain tools have been moved to.

Here is the 2010 tour guide, its probably the one I used.

I would also suggest taking the time to learn about the chip & subset tool, and supervised and unsupervised classification. Those are the most powerful tools I learned to use. I really like remote sensing, and would love to land a job doing at least some rs. Its a great way to create your own raster data.

If you are looking for reading on the topic of RS, I used two books by John R. Jensen, Remote Sensing of the Environment, and Introductory Digital Image Processing. The latter being the most useful imo.

My lab had this book by Ashby. I didn't use it that much but the first few chapters do a good job of introducing concepts behind proper experimental design and why design is so important to the GLMs you'll use to analyze the data. To be honest though, Vince Calhoun is the real person to listen to when it comes to fMRI analysis. He has a way deeper and broad understanding of the bold signal and how to analyze it than old school people like Friston or Ashby.

Seconded. Another book in that vein is Ashby's Statistical Analysis of fMRI Data:(http://www.amazon.com/dp/0262015048/ref=rdr_ext_sb_pi_sims_2)

I took the registry a few months ago and while I don't want to discourage you I feel it's best to be brutally honest. I took the test after taking classes and clinical for my bachelors degree. I also want to state for the record that I passed my rad boards with a 94 and my CT boards with a 89... That being said the MRI registry was the hardest test I've ever taken. I passed with a 77... And I was shocked when it came out that high.

Part of the problem is I couldn't find any good study materials. The one registry review book on amazon is really sketchy... Lots of wrong answers, some outdated material... And I found it didn't reflect the boards at all. Being away from it so long is going to make it even harder for you.

If you really want to do it though, go all in. Try and find some CE seminars through the ASRT or other organizations, that would probably be your best bet. Or see if the ASRT has those learning modules for MR like they do for CT.

Edit- included link for my review book. But read the reviews, they are on the money.


http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1444333909/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1411062323&sr=8-1&pi=SY200_QL40

Maybe work through a full book on the subject? Like this: https://www.amazon.com/Gauge-Gravity-Duality-Foundations-Applications/dp/1107010349

If you have the time and money or library access, this book Color Appearance Models - M Fairchild, is pretty good and comprehensive. Colour is a bit of a rabbit-hole topic, it goes quite a long way down (for instance different camera manufacturers have different color models and as I understand sell modified versions in different geographies -so point a Canon and a Nikon at an X-rite and you get different results)
Book
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Appearance-Models-Imaging-Science-Technology/dp/1119967031

Also this guy's blog is pretty good http://www.strollswithmydog.com/perfect-color-filter-array/

I used this one for a GIS Criminal Justice class at my university

GIS Tutorial for Crime Analysis (GIS Tutorials) https://www.amazon.com/dp/158948214X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_lZrzzbVF7ZZ23

Looking for PDF

https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Science-Imaging-Magdy-Khalil/dp/3319400681/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1537223169&sr=8-2&keywords=Basic+Science+of+PET+Imaging

Basic Science of PET Imaging

ISBN-13: 978-3319400686

ISBN-10: 3319400681

Willing to pay $10 Paypal
CLOSED

I found [Gauge/Gravity Duality] (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Gauge-Gravity-Duality-Foundations-Applications/dp/1107010349) by Ammon and Erdmenger to be very well written and a pleasure to learn from, I don't know if that constitutes beautiful.

Well, to come up with my own shorthand definition or contrast of the two, Remote sensing is obtaining or creating data through indirect means of instrument-based measurement while GIS may do some of that but is much more the analysis and processing of said data into useful information and derivative products.

You are correct that fire mapping might make heavy use of both, but there still might be specific position or roles. A drone operator might not touch GIS for much more than AOI (are of interest) and flight path definition. Someone doing fuels mapping based on multi or hyper spectral imagery might spend the majority of their time in non-GIS software, only using GIS to generate some outputs or again with the AOI. A GIS analyst might take some of that information with other sources and then look at how many homes are at what risk, or determine evactuation routes, or just generate maps with boundaries and other information - never touching raw remote sensing beyond maybe some imagery.

This is the textbook from my intro to remote sensing class and this and this are two similar '100 level' books for GIS. You might see if you can find a copy in a local library to take a look at, as even just skimming available chapters and the chapter overviews would give you a fairly in-depth idea of what the differences are. I think if you pick a couple of certificate and degree programs, and then look at the course summaries for what's required you might get an idea of how those tracks differ. I would think you would also have some contacts within your organization you could talk with as far as getting an idea of which skillset is needed for what with how they do things.

These are all in a great coffee table book called Microcosmos that I can't recommend enough. That copy is a large paperback version that I haven't seen, though. I have the smaller hardbound version but apparently it's 70 bucks on Amazon now, wtf.

ETA: I've never had a guest over that didn't eventually pick it up and spend 20-30 minutes flipping through it. It's fascinating.

Looking for:

https://www.amazon.com/GIS-Tutorial-Basic-Workbook-Tutorials/dp/1589484568

$5obo Paypal, Amazon, SquareCash, Venmo

I'm nearing the end of my geography major. As someone who is just starting (and struggling big-time) to learn the programmatic side of things, you really have a leg up on the competition. The programming language of choice for GIS apps is Python, so if you still want to be doing some programming that is the language you want to focus on. A Geography grad avgs 50k/year. A geog major who knows python averages 75K!

Broadly speaking, I'd recommend picking up a book like ESRI's Getting to Know ArcGIS and working the examples there. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1589483081?keywords=arcgis&qid=1450722894&ref_=sr_1_2&s=books&sr=1-2

Get to know key terms like rasters, vectors, shapefiles, and the basic operations like clip, buffer, etc. And above all realize that everything exists in space and time, so everything can be analyzed spatially!

The source of this image is Microcosmos: Discovering The World Through Microscopic Images From 20 X to Over 22 Million X Magnification by Brandon Boll (Amazon link). The Daily Mail wrote a review including several other images from the book a couple of months ago.

The "point" I am making is that people in this thread are going around saying Violet is this and Purple is that... but...

Who got to decide that?

Because it certainly isn't the court of public opinion, who couldn't give a shit about wavelengths or spectral purity or eye response.

How do you know the claim made by the OP is even true?

Looking around the net, most websites that discuss the matter seem to be just copying each other as if it was an urban legend. Many dictionaries give multiple definitions (as opposed to the "strict" single definition given by the OP), and wikipedia just cites a book that is targeted towards industrial uses (as opposed to colloquial use).

>Magenta, then.

My point exactly.

If it wasn't for the common industrial use of magenta in printers during the last few decades, nobody would give a fuck about magenta being a combination of two wavelengths. Everyone would still be thinking of that color as just a color. Like yellow. Or purple. Or violet.

Just because an industry or scientific field creates a definition of a word for their own use, doesn't magically make it also the definition for colloquial use, e.g. your average redditor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJnncI3XjyQ

It is a very interesting study and one of the latest books virtually proved it is genuine. Will give you details later

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/9814669121/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=&sr=#sims-fbt-shipping-details_1542242293111

by Giuliani Fanti, but also Bernard Ruffin and Ian Wilson. Also by one of best believing historians (Warren H. Carroll)