http://imagej.273.s1.nabble.com/Scale-is-SOMETIMES-lost-during-import-tp5017331p5017333.html
Sorry for that big stack. This smaller stack will work as well:
I know that the values are correct. But I was wondering if this
> Dear Thorsten,
>
> I can confirm your findings but is it really necessary to use such a
> huge
> stack for test purposes?
>
> "unit is given in cm"
>
> Yes, but this is a matter of taste. The values are correct anyway.
>
> Best
>
> Herbie
>
> :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
> Am 10.10.16 um 12:20 schrieb Thorsten Wagner:
> >
> > Dear List,
> >
> >
> > I've encountered a problem when I try to import a set of images.
> >
> > To reproduce please download the following set of images:
> >
> >
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/560426/TEST.zip (it's currently
> > uploading)
> >
> > Now apply File -> Import -> Image Sequence and check "Use Virtual
> > Stack". The data is correctly scaled to 0.66 x 0.66 µm.
> >
> > Now apply File -> Import -> Image Sequence again but do not check
> > "Use
> > Virtual Stack". Now the scale is lost.
> >
> > If you delete L'45AA7.tif the data will be correctly imported with
> > the
> > second approach as well.
> >
> > Did I found a bug?
> >
> > Another question:
> > If you open a single image you will the that the unit is given in
> > cm.
> > But if you import it with the first approach, the unit is given in
> > µm.
> > Does ImageJ internally convert the units?
> >
> > Best,
> > Thorsten
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
http://imagej.1557.x6.nabble.com/Scale-> is-SOMETIMES-lost-during-import-tp5017331p5017332.html
> Sent from the ImageJ mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> --
> ImageJ mailing list:
http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html