By reading some books about wavelets, it seems that Discretized CWT is not the same thing as DWT.
Can we give a classification of Discretized CWT vs DWT vs FWT etc. ?
A few remarks :
All I read about DWT or MRA (multi-resolution analysis) involves a dyadic factor (2) for $a$ in $\frac{1}{\sqrt{a}} \Psi(\frac{t-b}{a})$, ie $a=2^m$. Is it always true ? Remark : This is good in order to have a non-redondant transform (see B Z's answer here Scalogram (and related nomenclatures) for DWT?), but the graphical representation of such a transform isn't very satisfying for visual analysis of a signal. The fact that there is $ a=2^m$ involved implies that the frequency bands studied [in the case where the mother-wavelet has a narrow-band fourier transform, e.g. Morlet wavelet http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/ieee_pilot/articles/06/ttg2009061375/assets/img/article_1/fig_3/large.gif] are things like [20hz,40hz], [40hz,80hz], [80hz, 160hz], etc. Thus we cannot hope a good graphical representation with precise frequency resolution. It seems that this kind of transform is more suited for "approximation + details" than for visual frequency analysis (scalogram, etc.)
On the other hand, a discretization of Continuous wavelet transform allows to take $a=1.0004^m$ for example, and thus have a more precise frequency resolution, for one who wants to do a graphical representation (scalogram).