Posted by
Nico Stuurman-4 on
Mar 06, 2008; 4:11am
URL: http://imagej.273.s1.nabble.com/save-as-jpg-tp3696972p3696986.html
Hello Wayne,
> I am not sure if this might be deemed as not relevant to the group,
> so forgive me in advance if this is the case. We produce scientific
> imaging systems for a variety of applications, and we have customers
> who use ImageJ. We have had a debate going on for some time on the
> necessity of providing camera control and image acquisition from
> within the ImageJ environment. We have yet to do this for our
> systems, although we have had requests.
>
> Does it make any difference whether you bring files output from
> separate camera acquisition software into ImageJ, or use ImageJ
> itself for the acquisition of the image?
Thanks for considering making your cameras controllable from within
ImageJ. I am sure that quite a few people will appreciate this. What
might be even more useful is to build an 'adapter' for Micro-Manager (
http://micro-manager.org
). This way, your cameras will not only work within ImageJ (and be
completely controllable from ImageJ plugin code), but they can also be
used together with lots of other hardware used in microscopy (for a
list see
http://valelab.ucsf.edu/~nico/MMwiki/index.php/
Device_Support). As a bonus your cameras will also run from Matlab
scripts through Micro-Manager.
The advantage for plugin writers to control a camera through Micro-
Manager rather than through ImageJ plugins is that Micro-Manager
exposes a uniform interface for all cameras, i.e., a plugin written
for one camera will very likely also work for a camera from another
vendor.
Best,
Nico
>
>
> I welcome your opinions.
>
> Wayne Brown
> Apogee Instruments Inc.
> www.ccd.com