Re: Zooming new problem

Posted by Gluender-2 on Mar 11, 2009; 4:17pm
URL: http://imagej.273.s1.nabble.com/Zooming-and-smoothing-tp3693324p3693332.html

Sorry Sir,

but what you intend to do is invent pictorial information that is not
present in your original data (I won't discuss super-resolution here)
and you yourself used the term "cheating".

Why not show pixelated data if it represents the given image resolution?

Is an image at its original resolution not believable or robust?

I don't get the point from what you are saying.

Best wishes

Herbie

>I understand that it is to be used for making scientific measurements and
>that is what I need to use it for. The problem is that if those measurements
>dont look believable or robust to everyone else, they wont believe that the
>technique itself is believable or robust unless you spend an hour explaining
>why it is so. Sometimes, it is better to eliminate this step, if it makes no
>difference to the actual measurement - as in this case.
>
>Thanks for your comment though.
>
>
>Gluender-2 wrote:
>>
>>  Dear,
>>
>>  there might be a fundamental misunderstanding:
>>
>>  ImageJ is meant as a tool for scientific image analysis and not for
>>  nice looking pictures and image cosmetics!
>>
>>  Best
>>
>>  Herbie
>>
>>>oh dear
>>>
>>>This is difficult because i have a fairly rounded structure, then I draw a
>>>free hand selection and it creates a zigzag in pixels which makes it
>>>impossible to follow the round.  Likewise for the thresholding - the
>>>pixelation is very obvious.
>>>
>>>Is there a way of cheating by creating a new image which includes the
>>>interpolated pixels?
>>>
>>>I need my selections and thresholding to look nice as well as actually
>>>create measurements in order for people to buy in to the technique!
>>>
>>>Thanks
>>>
>>>Gabriel Landini wrote:
>>>>
>>>>   On Wednesday 11 March 2009 15:00:09 flettster wrote:
>>>>>   However, the selection tool and thresholding are still pixelated.
>>>>>
>>>>>   Is there a way of interpolating for these too?
>>>>
>>>>   No, there isn't. You need to remember that you are working on a
>>>>  discrete
>>>>   space.
>>>>
>  >>  > G.