[SciPy-Dev] scikit-signal or Similar

[Ralf Gommers]

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Travis Oliphant <travis at continuum.io> wrote:

>
> On Feb 1, 2012, at 3:53 AM, Stuart Mumford wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
>
>> *That's great. Have you been following the discussion that's happened
>> about this package earlier on this list? Here's a summary I made -
>> http://brocabrain.blogspot.in/2012/01/scikit-signal-python-for-signal.html
>> *
>>
>
> I have read the discussion and your blog post. I think that development in
> scikit-signal is a good thing as long as we keep open the possibility of
> merging bits (all) of it into other places later. It really depends on
> where the project goes, as you said in your blog post, I don't really
> understand the intricacies of namespaces either so I am just happy to work
> on some code.
>
> *But I think the above shows that this really belongs in scipy. I think
>> we should either improve scipy.signal.wavelets or look at merging
>> pywavelets into scipy. This particular wheel gets reinvented way too often.
>> *
>>
>
> I agree that scipy.signal.wavelets needs improving, the reason myself and
> my friend started developing this wavelet code, was the only piece of
> Continuous Wavelet Transform code we could find was the piece we based what
> is now in the GitHub on. Even that had major omissions to what we needed
> and therefore we have spent time making the code fit our needs.
>
> There is http://projects.scipy.org/scipy/ticket/922 which the author has
kept on developing despite the unfortunate lack of feedback. It looks quite
far along and may be useful for you:
https://github.com/lesserwhirls/scipy-cwt

There is also a cwt function in signal.wavelets, but it's very limited.

> As for pyWavelets that seems to be a good standalone project and appears
> to be good at Discrete Wavelet Transforms, which I have not looked into.
> Again there is no need to reinvent the wheel so I don't think implementing
> a DWT into SciPy is necessary, however with the amount of applications for
> CWT I feel it would be better off in SciPy when it is ready.
>
> Agreed.

The DWT is exactly the kind of tool SciPy needs.   The goal would not be to
> re-invent DWT with SciPy, but simply integrate pywavelets into SciPy if
> that is at all possible.    Having so many packages is good for developers,
> but not very good for consumers as people have to collect a lot of
> different packages together to get what they want.   Some of this pressure
> is being alleviated by "distributions" of Python, and I expect that trend
> will continue.   But, it is still useful for SciPy to grow "fundamental"
> libraries like a DWT.
>
> I'll send the pywavelets author an email, would be great to get his input
on this.

Ralf
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/scipy-dev/attachments/20120201/e4b13b2a/attachment.html>