Re: ImageJ "mean" vs Photoshop "mean"?
Posted by
Robert Smith on
Dec 01, 2020; 1:56pm
URL: http://imagej.273.s1.nabble.com/ImageJ-mean-vs-Photoshop-mean-tp5024242p5024264.html
I have to agree with this statement. The more options for images, the more ‘scientific’ it becomes due to the variety of ways an image has to be captured to obtain the data required.
Robert J. Smith
Sent from Mail<
https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10
From: Kenneth Sloan<mailto:
[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 8:03 PM
To:
[hidden email]<mailto:
[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: ImageJ "mean" vs Photoshop "mean"?
A meta-comment. I am a bit put off by the characterization of devices which use non-linear transfer functions as "non-scientific".
One almost gets the impression that the fact that ImageJ ignores transfer function information present in a .tif file is somehow a "feature". I consider it a "limitation", if not actually a "bug".
If the image source happens to use a non-linear transfer function, I would consider it "unscientific" to ignore it. I consider it only a little bit less bad to say "oh, that image source is 'unscientific' - so we won't support it". More accurate is to say "ImageJ is limited to linear images".
Actually, upon reflection, I *do* consider it a "bug" that ImageJ loads a .tif image with a non-linear transform noted - and instead displays it linearly without even a warning (if, in fact, that's what it's doing).
--
Kenneth Sloan
[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=04%7C01%7C%7C21fcc0730c12484c147608d89594f04c%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637423814195366663%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=JAKlU7npgh7dnvhQ8F1VgZJadkRg55nFN81ikkN7eXc%3D&reserved=0--
ImageJ mailing list:
http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html