http://imagej.273.s1.nabble.com/Improving-Particle-Analyzer-accuracy-tp4999626p4999636.html
outlines of the counted particles (Show: Overlay Outlines). If you
(Process-Filters-Gaussian Blur). The preview option allows to check
> On 01/08/12 11:22, Gabriel Landini wrote:
>> On Wednesday 01 Aug 2012 10:35:03 Matthew Moore wrote:
>>> On low DPI images, saved straight to jpg, imagej consistently comes well
>>> under manual counts. On high DPI images, saved to tiff and then
>>> converted (on max settings) to jpgs (so imagej can load them), imagej
>>> consistently counts higher than the manual counts.
>> Shouldn't the amount of ram to hold the loaded image be the same regardless of
>> the format that is stored in?
>> But you can improve accuracy in the representation of your image data by not
>> using lossy formats (like lossy jpeg).
>
> The loading issue was that imagej wouldn't read the tiff created by
> xsane (which I'm using for the scanning). I've converted the tiffs from
> xsane into a tif with no compression and imagej loads them fine now.
>
>> Do you see where the the differences are? for example do you detect too many 1
>> pixel regions? Is that noise or data? Have you tried different segmentation
>> methods? Do they converge?
>
> The main problem is that the 'Make binary' that you have to use before
> running the particle analyzer introduces lots of noise into the image,
> so it picks up lots of false positives.
>
>>> Does anyone have any ideas as to how I can improve accuracy? I've spent
>>> a while trying different pixel^2 and circularity settings. I'm using
>>> the version of imagej from the ubuntu repositories (1.44i).
>> Without more details it is difficult to know what is going on, but I would be
>> willing to bet it is not the particle analyzer accuracy, but the segmentation
>> approach used.
>>
>> You would benefit from the constant bug fixing. Latest ij.jar is 1.47b6 (the
>> daily build).
>
> I'm sorry, but I've no idea what segmentation approach I'm using. Not
> entirely sure what you mean there (and not been able to figure it out
> from the docs). The dots are quite obvious really, it's a plain white
> piece of paper with black blobs on it.
>
> I'll certainly try the latest daily.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Matthew Moore
> Surgical Materials Testing Laboratory
> System Administrator
> Telephone: +44 (0)1656 752165
> Email:
[hidden email]
>
> --
> ImageJ mailing list:
http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html