Posted by
Ruszkai Ákos on
Nov 29, 2009; 5:02pm
URL: http://imagej.273.s1.nabble.com/Questions-about-analyze-particles-tp3690273p3690283.html
2009/11/29 Gabriel Landini <
[hidden email]>
> >do you want the
> column in a different place?
>
Exactly. I'd like to have it in the first rows. Imho that makes sence there.
> > 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...
>
> I don't understand fully this, but one thing is sure: even ImageJ produces
a bad table. Why's there a baln row with "-" in there anyway?
> 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".
>
Yes, my thesis is not about which program gives back better results. It'll
focus more about the features, the usability, userfriendlyness etc. I won't
tell you a secret, that ImagePro+ costs a lot of money to use only on one
PC. ImageJ is free and opensource, (that gives me a huge thumbs up anyway),
so why don't use it if it has the features we need? Not to mention other
laboratories we keep contact use it too, so it might be easier to share our
results/methods if we'd use the same software.
> 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.
>
I'll look into these, thank you.
> Finding out what algorithms are implemented in the different plugins will
> avoid reinventing the wheel.
>
That's why I already like ImageJ, as I can read the source of the plugins,
so I'll know what they do exactly.
Best regard:
Ákos