Posted by
Gabriel Landini on
Nov 29, 2009; 4:42pm
URL: http://imagej.273.s1.nabble.com/Questions-about-analyze-particles-tp3690273p3690282.html
On Sunday 29 November 2009, you wrote:
> First, I'd like to ask what's the best pick to install: daily builds, or
> stable versions?
Hi,
That depends whether you want to have the latest bugfixes or not...
Working from older versions that have been fixed might not be a good idea.
> I'm not sure whether is this a bug or a feature, but I've noticed that the
> results do not follow each other exactly as they were selected in the Set
> Measurements dialogue.
You can avoid having the Slice column, by unchecking the "Stack Position" in
the Set Measurements dialog entry. Or maybe I misunderstood...do you want the
column in a different place?
> In the attached image, my problem is clear: it seems, that the results are
> shifted after "Feret". There are two columns with "-" that creates this
> problem. Ok, I can clear those and move the columns back to ther places in
> OpenOffice Calc, you can see that in xls I've uploaded to:
>
>
http://akion.planetnexuiz.de/sote/thesis/full_results.xls>
> Look at the end of the results: where does that very last column come from
> (in coumn X) ? I can't even see that in the Results table in ImageJ.
> I hope my letter isn't that long, and I'm not asking too basic things.
That seems to be because there are some extraneous data delimiters in your xls
file. I do not see column names delimited with double inverted commas in the
data files created from my install of IJ 1.43m3 (but they exist in the file
you linked).
Where are these delimieters coming from? As far as I know, the delimiter used
in IJ data files is the tab "\t" (i.e. 0x09) . Your file has 0x22 [the data]
0x22 and 0x09. It seems that loading this file creates other problems in Ooo
Calc because numbers are loaded as strings...
Of course I do not know what your comparison between packages is intending to
show, but be aware there are many different ways of encoding particle area &
perimeter, so different results across different programs do not mean
necessariily "incorrect results".
I wrote other 2 particle analyzer plugins for this reason (Particles8 and
Particles4 using Freeman's chain code method).
If you the Freeman papers and all the follow ups you will found out that this
has been researched quite extensively.
Finding out what algorithms are implemented in the different plugins will
avoid reinventing the wheel.
I hope it helps
G.