Posted by
McAuley, Grant (LLU) on
Jan 04, 2007; 11:47pm
URL: http://imagej.273.s1.nabble.com/Raw-Image-Stacks-Image-Ordering-Reordering-tp3700697p3700699.html
Thanks Gabriel, Josh, Prof Wolf, Curtis, and Wayne for your help.
I really appreciate the prompt response from the List!
Sorting using the new 1.38 jar works great. Since I am stuck with the naming scheme from another piece of software, this saves *a lot* of renaming efforts.
~ Grant
-----Original Message-----
From: ImageJ Interest Group on behalf of Curtis Rueden
Sent: Thu 1/4/2007 1:58 PM
To:
[hidden email]
Subject: Re: Raw Image Stacks: Image Ordering/Reordering
Hi Grant,
For formats that the Bio-Formats Importer plugin understands, it
supports whatever kind of file numbering you want, with or without
zero padding, in its "stitch files with similar names" option. Choose
one of the zz files, check the stitch option, and you should be
prompted with a "file pattern" confirmation that displays the range of
files detected and matched using an easy to understand notation:
/path/to/my/files/zz-<1-48>.raw, or whatever.
Unfortunately, since your files are raw and do not have width and
height or other information embedded, they will not work properly in
Bio-Formats. We can look into better support for raw files in a future
release, though.
-Curtis
On 1/4/07, McAuley, Grant (LLU) <
[hidden email]> wrote:
> Sorry if this has been asked before (searched list archives - maybe not right combination of words?).
>
> I need to import stacks of raw images using File->Import->Raw and selecting 'Open All Files in Folder'. The images have filenames that contain letters and numbers: zz-1, zz-2, ... , zz-10, zz-11, ..., zz-48.
>
> When the stack gets created the order becomes: zz-1, zz-10, zz-11, ... , zz-2, zz-21, ... instead of what I want: zz-1, zz-2, ..., zz-10, zz-11, ...
>
> 1) Can I tell ImageJ to do a numeric instead of alpha sort on the filename numbers when the stack is created?
> 2) If not, is there a better way to resort the stack than the 'Stack Sorter' plugin (nice, but tedious for 48 images/stack)?
>