Login  Register

Re: Process Virtual Stack...

Posted by Bill Mohler on Sep 17, 2008; 7:47pm
URL: http://imagej.273.s1.nabble.com/Process-Virtual-Stack-tp3695050p3695052.html

Wayne-

Are there jar files available for versions after 1.41e?  I can't find
them on the download page.

Thanks,
Bill

>On Sep 17, 2008, at 1:24 PM, Jeffrey B. Woodward wrote:
>
>>ImageJ'ers,
>>
>>I have recently been doing a fair amount of work with Virtual
>>Stacks (both writing new plugins that consume and produce Virtual
>>Stacks and consuming Virtual Stacks from existing plugins such as
>>Import->Sequence), and I have come across the following complaint
>>from one of my users. Operations under the "Process" menu (such as
>>Find Edges, Smooth, etc) go through all of motions of processing a
>>virtual stack; however, the outcome of the processing is never
>>realized. I assume that this is because of the getProcessor()
>>nature of VirtualStacks makes them effectively readonly and the
>>various plugins under the Process menu attempt to process the stack
>>in place rather than returning a new stack for the results. Not
>>sure if this behavior is considered a bug or not, but it is
>>somewhat frustrating for the end user (whom may or may not know or
>>understand what it means to be processing a Virtual stack).
>>Ideally, it would be nice if the plugin were to return a new stack
>>when attempting to operate in place on a virtual stack; however,
>>that would probably mean that each such plugin would have to be
>>modified accordingly. Is there anything that the ImageJ platform
>>can do to help this situation?
>
>Recent versions of ImageJ display this message when the user
>attempts to process a virtual stack using a Process menu command:
>
>       Custom code required to process virtual stacks.
>
>ImageJ 1.41l and later displays this message:
>
>       Custom code required to process this virtual stack
>       (e.g., "Process Virtual Stack" macro) or it must be
>       converted to a normal stack using Image>Duplicate,
>       which will require xxx MB of additional memory.
>
>-wayne