# Volume Visualization on Web
**URL:** https://discourse.paraview.org/t/volume-visualization-on-web/8568
**Category:** Web Support
**Created:** [December 6, 2021, 10:37am UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/volume-visualization-on-web/8568 "2021-12-06T10:37:03Z")
**Posts on this page:** 4
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@cfd\_payne](https://discourse.paraview.org/u/cfd_payne)
#### Post date: [December 6, 2021, 10:37am UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/volume-visualization-on-web/8568/1 "2021-12-06T10:37:03Z")
1. Emulated hosting Webservice using Windows Web Service (IIS) : works well [Tried Glance viewer, VolumeViewer.html templates]
Seems VolumeViewer.html is made to read a \*.vti and not vtkjs
1. Ported the Chrome (Browser) to use the GPU as well, the image above shows the dedicated GPU usage while rendering
The Visualization experience is slightly different than using the resampled image (NVIDIA\_indeX), am I missing something can we improve the visualization to match the web with desktop version.
---
### Author:  [@Forrest\_Li](https://discourse.paraview.org/u/Forrest_Li)
#### Post date: [December 6, 2021, 2:55pm UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/volume-visualization-on-web/8568/2 "2021-12-06T14:55:26Z")
1. VolumeViewer indeed only runs on \*.vti images. If you want vtkjs files, then I think you need to use [LegacyAsciiParser](https://github.com/Kitware/vtk-js/tree/master/Sources/IO/Legacy/LegacyAsciiParser)
2. Are your color transfer functions the same? I would be surprised if web rendering would cause that much difference.
---
### Author:  [@jourdain](https://discourse.paraview.org/u/jourdain)
#### Post date: [December 6, 2021, 3:41pm UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/volume-visualization-on-web/8568/3 "2021-12-06T15:41:06Z")
1. vtkjs format is a state for a scene definition. Basically [HttpSceneLoader](https://github.com/Kitware/vtk-js/tree/master/Sources/IO/Core/HttpSceneLoader) read that format.
2. I would agree with @Forrest_Li. The transfer function+color map does not look the same. On top of that, the sampling/step distance on your web rendering seems very high (top left slider). If you reduce it, it should look nicer.
---
### Author:  [@cfd\_payne](https://discourse.paraview.org/u/cfd_payne)
#### Post date: [December 7, 2021, 8:52am UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/volume-visualization-on-web/8568/4 "2021-12-07T08:52:01Z")
Thank you @jourdain ,@Forrest Li for your reply.
Seems the "shadow slider " in the VolumeViewer.html was causing that graininess behavior.
> [@Forrest\_Li](#):
>
> - VolumeViewer indeed only runs on \*.vti images. If you want vtkjs files, then I think you need to use [LegacyAsciiParser](https://github.com/Kitware/vtk-js/tree/master/Sources/IO/Legacy/LegacyAsciiParser)
> [@jourdain](#):
>
> - vtkjs format is a state for a scene definition. Basically [HttpSceneLoader](https://github.com/Kitware/vtk-js/tree/master/Sources/IO/Core/HttpSceneLoader) read that format.
will try with the parser,sceneloader đź‘Ť
> [@jourdain](#):
>
> On top of that, the sampling/step distance on your web rendering seems very high (top left slider). If you reduce it, it should look nicer.
Reducing it to zero worked .
> [@Forrest\_Li](#):
>
> 1. Are your color transfer functions the same? I would be surprised if web rendering would cause that much difference.
The color transfer function → “erdc\_rainbow\_bright” in both cases.
Use Case : [combxyz\_artefacts1.pvsm](https://discourse.paraview.org/uploads/short-url/z1LIkoXmpPCvhTTR8viphnmQ12B.pvsm) (840.1 KB)
Caveat: I had to convert the ResampletoImage in the pipeline to vti to make it to use in the VolumeViewer.html