Hi, Jason B. What do you mean by " edit the tickmarks manually "? I didn't find a way for manually editing

@matheorem I meant enter the tickmarks for the contouplot3D manually, sorry. You can enter a list for the tickmarks that would let you specify the positions, lengths, and label for each tickmark. But it's easier to specify a scaling function like above.

@JasonB Yeah, this package is really handy. Thanks : )

@JasonB Hi, Jason B. I found you actually don't need to create an empty Frame. Just embedded the Image3D in Show and apply the Ticks options in Show is a direct way.

@matheorem - that's great! I can update this answer or you can put in another answer

@JasonB An update is enough, it is a small improvement : )

@JasonB Why now your image is much clear than OP's? I can not reproduce your image. What have you done?

@JasonB And also I just realize there is one more problem in coordinate. Check out tutorial/ImageProcessing, in the coordinate section. The coordinate should be upside down, because Image3D stack from top to bottom.

I don't know why mine is more clear, I get pretty much the same image from OP that I would get from my code i.imgur.com/sFC6uxo.png . Will look at the coordinate issue

I think we should Reverse[colorArray,{1,2,3}] before Image3D, to make the coordinate back to normal

Sorry, I don't get it. What do you mean by "I don't know why mine is more clear, I get pretty much the same image from OP that I would get from my code"

You said "Why now your image is much clear than OP's", and I pointed out in the attached image that the image I get from OP's code and from my own are identical aside from the tick marks

And interestingly enough, you have to reverse the first two levels of the array, but not the third.

Are you sure not a total reverse? My test shows that total reverse is the right to go. And I remember before your updating, your image3D is the same as OP, but now your image3D is clearer, this is weird, because I can't get such a clear image3D as yours

Er...Jason B. Don't forget to add @ sign, because I don't want to miss your commnet : )

@JasonB Oh, my fault. I made a wrong test. You are right on reverse. Thank you for correcting me. About the image quality, I think your mma is quite different to mine now, see postimg.org/image/oxzgzxeu1 . The image is not the same as yours. Did you update your mma or using a different setting or new computer maybe?

@matheorem maybe it's a linux thing? or faulty graphics on my end? I notice that the help page for my version looks like this:

(where I expanded the image to make it bigger)

but the help on the web has a blurry appearance

@JasonB Yeah, the blurry image is what I got. But I clearly remember the image before your update is also blurry

@JasonB Very weird. Maybe we need someone else to confirm your strange image3D

Right, I was using windows then, and also version 9

@JasonB You have to add @ sign. Jason. Or I won't get notified when you reply me...

@JasonB I don't have a linux at hand to confirm this. But if it is due to OS, that is also an inconsistency, bug like

@matheorem I made a post about it, maybe there is something to be fixed

@JasonB OK, wait and see : )

@JasonB I came up with an explanation about why they made the first two dimension reversed. They design it according the most natural way of chopping a cubic. You have to imaging you have a knife at hand, the most natural way of chopping should be from top to bottom, and back to front, finally left to right. What do you think?

@JasonB Oops, the chopping of last dimension is not natural. The natural way should be from right to left.

@JasonB I am wrong : (

@matheorem i knew this was familiar to me

I knew two years ago that you have to reverse two of the dimensions lol

there it is too: Reverse[table, {1, 2}]

as to the logic behind it, I can't really speculate on that