I am currently working on measuring various length in histological sections. I have a grid overlay that measures about 20,000+ line lengths in each section. The discrepancy is that when I open the image in Photoshop to edit and then transfer it to imagej all of the line lengths increase in length by about 1 micrometer in comparison to just opening the tif in imagej. Is there a difference in the way a tif is saved in photoshop that would change the picture size or pixel ratio? I am really interested to find out how this could be resolved.
Thanks. |
Hi,
sorry your question does not rally make the problem clear, I fear. > all of the line lengths increase in length by about 1 micrometer ?? what does that mean?? What is your image size, and how many pixels correspond to 1 um? If I take an image with spatial calibration, open and save it in Photoshop, the spatial calibration is gone. So, in ImageJ it won't give distances in micrometers, only in pixels. Michael ________________________________________________________________ On 8 May 2007, at 17:28, Jfallica13 wrote: > I am currently working on measuring various length in histological > sections. > I have a grid overlay that measures about 20,000+ line lengths in each > section. The discrepancy is that when I open the image in > Photoshop to edit > and then transfer it to imagej all of the line lengths increase in > length by > about 1 micrometer in comparison to just opening the tif in > imagej. Is > there a difference in the way a tif is saved in photoshop that > would change > the picture size or pixel ratio? I am really interested to find > out how > this could be resolved. > Thanks. |
Hello,
I am using ImageJ Version 1.37 and I see that there is no angle measurement tool in the measurement settings. Has it been removed or its in another location. Thanks, Prabhakar |
In reply to this post by Michael Schmid
Hello,
I actuallu finally figured it out and it did have something to do with the calibration settings and how the numbers generated were being rounded. Thanks for the input, Jon
|
In reply to this post by Michael Schmid
Hello,
I actuallu finally figured it out and it did have something to do with the calibration settings and how the numbers generated were being rounded. Thanks for the input, Jon
|
In reply to this post by Michael Schmid
Hello,
I actually finally figured it out and it did have something to do with the calibration settings and how the numbers generated were being rounded. Thanks for the input, Jon
|
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |