Loading... |
Reply to author |
Edit post |
Move post |
Delete this post |
Delete this post and replies |
Change post date |
Print post |
Permalink |
Raw mail |
G'day folks,
I was just wondering how reliable are macros? I know this was touched upon in previous listings saying that they are very reliable, but no-one has explicitly given a figure - 90%? 99%??? I have never seen anything in the literature stating anything, yet everyone uses them! surely there must be some source of error - nothing can really be perfect, or can it....... can anyone 'put this one to bed' Regards Paul. |
Loading... |
Reply to author |
Edit post |
Move post |
Delete this post |
Delete this post and replies |
Change post date |
Print post |
Permalink |
Raw mail |
Hi Paul,
I'm not sure what you are looking for here. Statistics like "macros are 90% reliable" are vague and essentially meaningless. If you want assurances that the macro language does not contain bugs, of course that cannot be guaranteed, but know that many people use macros every day with very good results. They typically execute as expected, and in general are very robust. And if there are specific bugs, the ImageJ community is both extremely active, and led by a very talented and responsive developer who releases new versions on a rapid development cycle, so you can feel confident that bugs in the macro language will be fixed very quickly. I think the biggest gotcha for new ImageJ macro programmers is that the macro recorder does not always record every action taken (for example, recording brightness/contrast adjustments does not work as expected). But there is quite a bit of documentation about the macro language on the web site to assist with puzzling things out, and if that's not enough there's always the mailing list. What more do you want? -Curtis On 11/28/06, Paul Batty <[hidden email]> wrote: > G'day folks, > > I was just wondering how reliable are macros? I know this was touched upon in previous listings saying that they are very reliable, but no-one has explicitly given a figure - 90%? 99%??? I have never seen anything in the literature stating anything, yet everyone uses them! surely there must be some source of error - nothing can really be perfect, or can it....... > > can anyone 'put this one to bed' > > Regards > > Paul. > |
Loading... |
Reply to author |
Edit post |
Move post |
Delete this post |
Delete this post and replies |
Change post date |
Print post |
Permalink |
Raw mail |
If I understand the question, the reliability of a macro is
determined (a) by how accurately it does arithmetic, (b) the properties of the analytic method being implemented (Sobel edge detect, for example), (c) the actual implementation of the method. I would guess that the arithmetic of the macro is as good as Java can provide (correct?). See http://www.amazon.com/Java-Number-Cruncher-Programmers-Numerical/dp/0130460419 for a discussion on numerical methods in Java. Once implemented the macro should give the same result with the same image, "every time". Is that what you mean by reliability? How well it works with a group of "similar" images is a whole separate problem that you will have to figure out by testing the macro. M At 11:31 AM 11/28/2006, you wrote: >Hi Paul, > >I'm not sure what you are looking for here. Statistics like "macros >are 90% reliable" are vague and essentially meaningless. If you want >assurances that the macro language does not contain bugs, of course >that cannot be guaranteed, but know that many people use macros every >day with very good results. They typically execute as expected, and in >general are very robust. > >And if there are specific bugs, the ImageJ community is both extremely >active, and led by a very talented and responsive developer who >releases new versions on a rapid development cycle, so you can feel >confident that bugs in the macro language will be fixed very quickly. > >I think the biggest gotcha for new ImageJ macro programmers is that >the macro recorder does not always record every action taken (for >example, recording brightness/contrast adjustments does not work as >expected). But there is quite a bit of documentation about the macro >language on the web site to assist with puzzling things out, and if >that's not enough there's always the mailing list. > >What more do you want? > >-Curtis > >On 11/28/06, Paul Batty <[hidden email]> wrote: >>G'day folks, >> >>I was just wondering how reliable are macros? I know this was >>touched upon in previous listings saying that they are very >>reliable, but no-one has explicitly given a figure - 90%? 99%??? I >>have never seen anything in the literature stating anything, yet >>everyone uses them! surely there must be some source of error - >>nothing can really be perfect, or can it....... >> >>can anyone 'put this one to bed' >> >>Regards >> >>Paul. ... [show rest of quote]
|
Loading... |
Reply to author |
Edit post |
Move post |
Delete this post |
Delete this post and replies |
Change post date |
Print post |
Permalink |
Raw mail |
Also, ImageJ has evolved quite a bit. We find that macros written
years ago often need tweaking to work with new versions. But when we tweak, the macros get better because ImageJ always has new nifty features. -mc At 02:54 PM 11/28/06, you wrote: >If I understand the question, the reliability of a macro is >determined (a) by how accurately it does arithmetic, (b) the >properties of the analytic method being implemented (Sobel edge >detect, for example), (c) the actual implementation of the >method. I would guess that the arithmetic of the macro is as good >as Java can provide (correct?). See > >http://www.amazon.com/Java-Number-Cruncher-Programmers-Numerical/dp/0130460419 > >for a discussion on numerical methods in Java. > >Once implemented the macro should give the same result with the same >image, "every time". Is that what you mean by reliability? How >well it works with a group of "similar" images is a whole separate >problem that you will have to figure out by testing the macro. > >M > >At 11:31 AM 11/28/2006, you wrote: >>Hi Paul, >> >>I'm not sure what you are looking for here. Statistics like "macros >>are 90% reliable" are vague and essentially meaningless. If you want >>assurances that the macro language does not contain bugs, of course >>that cannot be guaranteed, but know that many people use macros every >>day with very good results. They typically execute as expected, and in >>general are very robust. >> >>And if there are specific bugs, the ImageJ community is both extremely >>active, and led by a very talented and responsive developer who >>releases new versions on a rapid development cycle, so you can feel >>confident that bugs in the macro language will be fixed very quickly. >> >>I think the biggest gotcha for new ImageJ macro programmers is that >>the macro recorder does not always record every action taken (for >>example, recording brightness/contrast adjustments does not work as >>expected). But there is quite a bit of documentation about the macro >>language on the web site to assist with puzzling things out, and if >>that's not enough there's always the mailing list. >> >>What more do you want? >> >>-Curtis >> >>On 11/28/06, Paul Batty <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>G'day folks, >>> >>>I was just wondering how reliable are macros? I know this was >>>touched upon in previous listings saying that they are very >>>reliable, but no-one has explicitly given a figure - 90%? 99%??? I >>>have never seen anything in the literature stating anything, yet >>>everyone uses them! surely there must be some source of error - >>>nothing can really be perfect, or can it....... >>> >>>can anyone 'put this one to bed' >>> >>>Regards >>> >>>Paul. ... [show rest of quote] ____________________________________________________________________________ Michael Cammer Analytical Imaging Facility Albert Einstein Coll. of Med. URL: http://www.aecom.yu.edu/aif/ |
Free forum by Nabble | Disable Popup Ads | Edit this page |