amen zwa, esq.<p>When I was in <a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/tags/CS" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>CS</span></a> grad school, back in the early 1990s, <a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/tags/wavelets" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>wavelets</span></a> were hot in 3D volumetric CG—oh, those SIGGRAPH symposia on the topic. At the same time in <a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/tags/EE" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>EE</span></a>, loads of papers were published on their efficacy in DSP. Just about everyone in EE and CS seemed to have published at least one paper on wavelets. Fun times. But the current state of wavelet academic <a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/tags/research" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>research</span></a> seemed to have dried up.</p><p>I don't quite understand why wavelet transform has not supplanted Fourier transform in many <a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/tags/engineering" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>engineering</span></a> and <a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/tags/computing" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>computing</span></a> application domains, considering its estimable time-frequency locality and its prodigious multi-resolution analysis capabilities, compared to Fourier analysis.</p><p>I am but a mere "maths carpenter". So, what am I missing, I wonder.</p>