Posted by
CARL Philippe (LBP) on
Oct 20, 2017; 9:16am
URL: http://imagej.273.s1.nabble.com/64-bits-and-32-bits-tp5019568p5019571.html
Dear Michael and Guillaume,
On top reason, I would as well add a difference within the reading of the scaling calibration settings.
Maybe one version is using by default an importer that is correctly reading the meta data as the other version is using a reader where the meta data are not well interpreted.
Have a nice week-end,
Philippe
-----Message d'origine-----
De : ImageJ Interest Group [mailto:
[hidden email]] De la part de Michael Schmid
Envoyé : vendredi 20 octobre 2017 11:05
À :
[hidden email]
Objet : Re: 64 bits and 32 bits
Hi Guillaume,
there should be absolutely no difference between the results obtained with the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Java. All calculations are done with the same accuracy, regardless of the Java version.
If you see a difference, it could be:
- different protocols or other differences how different people work
- different versions of plugins or macros used
- different settings of ImageJ preferences (Edit>Options>Reset restores them to the defaults)
- different settings of preferences used by some plugin (not only the ImageJ core, also plugins can save settings in IJ_Prefs.txt. In case of doubt, copy the IJ_Prefs.txt to the other computers (usually in the home directory in a .imagej hidden folder, on Macs in the user's
Library/Preferences)
- maybe some settings file of a plugin, if there is one
- different versions of ImageJ (Help>Update ImageJ)
- very unlikely, a bug that is effective only for your 64-bit system or only for the 32-bit systems.
(for my feeling, the most likely points are at the top, the least likely at the bottom)
Michael
________________________________________________________________
On 20/10/2017 10:23, ULMANN Guillaume wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We use ImageJ to quantify the muscle surface area of our patients at the third lumbar vertebra.
> I use a 64bits version of ImageJ but some of my colleagues use a 32 bits version and our results, for a same image, differ of at least 25 cm2, even if I do the reading on both computers.
> Does anyone know where that problem comes from and what version I should trust?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Guillaume Ulmann
> Praticien Attaché
> Service de Biochimie
> Hôpital Cochin - HUPC - APHP
>
--
ImageJ mailing list:
http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html--
ImageJ mailing list:
http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html