http://imagej.273.s1.nabble.com/reliability-of-macros-tp3700932p3700935.html
Also, ImageJ has evolved quite a bit. We find that macros written
>If I understand the question, the reliability of a macro is
>determined (a) by how accurately it does arithmetic, (b) the
>properties of the analytic method being implemented (Sobel edge
>detect, for example), (c) the actual implementation of the
>method. I would guess that the arithmetic of the macro is as good
>as Java can provide (correct?). See
>
>
http://www.amazon.com/Java-Number-Cruncher-Programmers-Numerical/dp/0130460419>
>for a discussion on numerical methods in Java.
>
>Once implemented the macro should give the same result with the same
>image, "every time". Is that what you mean by reliability? How
>well it works with a group of "similar" images is a whole separate
>problem that you will have to figure out by testing the macro.
>
>M
>
>At 11:31 AM 11/28/2006, you wrote:
>>Hi Paul,
>>
>>I'm not sure what you are looking for here. Statistics like "macros
>>are 90% reliable" are vague and essentially meaningless. If you want
>>assurances that the macro language does not contain bugs, of course
>>that cannot be guaranteed, but know that many people use macros every
>>day with very good results. They typically execute as expected, and in
>>general are very robust.
>>
>>And if there are specific bugs, the ImageJ community is both extremely
>>active, and led by a very talented and responsive developer who
>>releases new versions on a rapid development cycle, so you can feel
>>confident that bugs in the macro language will be fixed very quickly.
>>
>>I think the biggest gotcha for new ImageJ macro programmers is that
>>the macro recorder does not always record every action taken (for
>>example, recording brightness/contrast adjustments does not work as
>>expected). But there is quite a bit of documentation about the macro
>>language on the web site to assist with puzzling things out, and if
>>that's not enough there's always the mailing list.
>>
>>What more do you want?
>>
>>-Curtis
>>
>>On 11/28/06, Paul Batty <
[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>G'day folks,
>>>
>>>I was just wondering how reliable are macros? I know this was
>>>touched upon in previous listings saying that they are very
>>>reliable, but no-one has explicitly given a figure - 90%? 99%??? I
>>>have never seen anything in the literature stating anything, yet
>>>everyone uses them! surely there must be some source of error -
>>>nothing can really be perfect, or can it.......
>>>
>>>can anyone 'put this one to bed'
>>>
>>>Regards
>>>
>>>Paul.
Michael Cammer Analytical Imaging Facility Albert Einstein Coll. of Med.