Posted by
Knecht, David on
URL: http://imagej.273.s1.nabble.com/3D-projections-tp5023114p5023122.html
The problem is that confocal data is rarely cubic voxels. They are nearly always much larger in z and x-y. In the case of the data I was analyzing they were 0.06 x 0.06 x 0.5 µm and that is not unusual. So you would expect to see the side on projection as a smear given you are looking through elongated voxels. Dave
Dr. David Knecht
Professor, Department of Molecular and Cell Biology
University of Connecticut
91 N. Eagleville Rd.
U-3125
Storrs, CT 06269-3125
860-486-2200
On Mar 31, 2020, at 1:37 PM, Herbie <
[hidden email]<mailto:
[hidden email]>> wrote:
*Message sent from a system outside of UConn.*
Good day Kenneth,
thanks for your reply!
"Now...why doesn't the same logic apply to image "planes"?"
With a stack of voxel-size 1x1x1 and when I use "Reslice..." (e.g.
Rotate 90deg), I'm quite happy with the result.
Not sure what's the original problem...
Regards
Herbie
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Am 31.03.20 um 18:38 schrieb Kenneth Sloan:
Understood. Now...why doesn't the same logic apply to image "planes"?
--
Kenneth Sloan
[hidden email]<mailto:
[hidden email]> <mailto:
[hidden email]>
Vision is the art of seeing what is invisible to others.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Herbie <
[hidden email]<mailto:
[hidden email]> <mailto:
[hidden email]>>
Subject: Re: 3D projections
Date: March 31, 2020 at 05:37:15 CDT
To:
[hidden email]<mailto:
[hidden email]> <mailto:
[hidden email]>
Reply-To:
[hidden email]<mailto:
[hidden email]> <mailto:
[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]<mailto:
[hidden email]> <mailto:
[hidden email]>
Vision is the art of seeing what is invisible to others.
--
ImageJ mailing list:
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fimagej.nih.gov%2Fij%2Flist.html&data=02%7C01%7Cdavid.knecht%40uconn.edu%7Cd82c64e363bb4c479b7508d7d59a6a96%7C17f1a87e2a254eaab9df9d439034b080%7C0%7C0%7C637212731502269387&sdata=nzDYjWDdPdYvAbRrrJzPhKZx3ceDKN46W3%2FBWlUdtTw%3D&reserved=0--
ImageJ mailing list:
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fimagej.nih.gov%2Fij%2Flist.html&data=02%7C01%7Cdavid.knecht%40uconn.edu%7Cd82c64e363bb4c479b7508d7d59a6a96%7C17f1a87e2a254eaab9df9d439034b080%7C0%7C0%7C637212731502279382&sdata=SJU186JVMxsZqSKO9jcUk7CB%2FItPcStT7fFwKGoIShk%3D&reserved=0--
ImageJ mailing list:
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fimagej.nih.gov%2Fij%2Flist.html&data=02%7C01%7Cdavid.knecht%40uconn.edu%7Cd82c64e363bb4c479b7508d7d59a6a96%7C17f1a87e2a254eaab9df9d439034b080%7C0%7C0%7C637212731502279382&sdata=SJU186JVMxsZqSKO9jcUk7CB%2FItPcStT7fFwKGoIShk%3D&reserved=0--
ImageJ mailing list:
http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html