Understood. Now...why doesn't the same logic apply to image "planes"?
> From: Herbie <
[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: 3D projections
> Date: March 31, 2020 at 05:37:15 CDT
> To:
[hidden email]
> Reply-To:
[hidden email]
>
> "ImageJ does not treat PIXELS as infinitely small in x and y [...]"
>
> If you would, which were correct, you wouldn't see anything.
> Therefore and in general, the cheapest interpolation is applied:
> Little squares or rectangles of constant value(s).
> Actually, such block images are incorrect as well, because the correct interpolation is a totally different one that is much more costly and cannot be realized by common display technology.
>
> Regards
>
> Herbie
>
> :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
> Am 30.03.20 um 23:49 schrieb Kenneth Sloan:
>> This has always confused me. After all, ImageJ does not treat PIXELS as infinitely small in x and y - so why should it consider VOXELS to be infinitely thin in z (but with finite width and height)?
>> --
>> Kenneth Sloan
>>
[hidden email]
>> Vision is the art of seeing what is invisible to others.
>> --
>> ImageJ mailing list:
http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html>
> --
> ImageJ mailing list:
http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html