http://imagej.273.s1.nabble.com/64-bits-and-32-bits-tp5019568p5019575.html
> Hi Guillaume,
>
> to avoid similar problems in the future, in case you can identify which of
> the settings causes the difference between different computers, you could
> set that value in the StartupMacros file and distribute it on all computers
> that are used for this task.
> (use Plugins>Macros>Record to get the macro command corresponding to an
> action performed manually)
>
> Here are some options that are stored in the Prefs and may affect the
> quantitative result of image operations, also for operations performed by
> macros (the list is probably not complete, but these come into my mind):
>
> - Edit>Options>Conversions ("scale when converting" and "weighted RGB")
> - Process>Binary>Options ("black background" and "pad edges")
> - For line profiles, in Edit>Options>Plots the 'sub-pixel resolution'
> - In Edit>Options>Misc, the 'divide by zero value'
>
>
> Michael
> ________________________________________________________________
>
> On 20/10/2017 11:40, ULMANN Guillaume wrote:
>
>> Thanks everyone for your answer.
>> It was indeed different preferences on the two computers. I did a reset
>> on both and now the results are matching.
>>
>> Have a nice weekend,
>>
>> Guillaume
>>
>>
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : ImageJ Interest Group [mailto:
[hidden email]] De la part de
>> Philippe CARL
>> Envoyé : vendredi 20 octobre 2017 11:17
>> À :
[hidden email]
>> Objet : Re: 64 bits and 32 bits
>>
>> 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>>
>> --
>> ImageJ mailing list:
http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html>>
>>
> --
> ImageJ mailing list:
http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html>