Where communities thrive

  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
Repo info
  • Sep 23 15:54
    coveralls commented #683
  • Sep 23 15:31
    glb23482 synchronize #683
  • Sep 17 11:58
    coveralls commented #683
  • Sep 17 11:45
    glb23482 synchronize #683
  • Sep 15 11:04
    coveralls commented #684
  • Sep 15 10:50
    nghia-vo opened #684
  • Sep 07 10:38
    coveralls commented #683
  • Sep 07 10:26
    glb23482 opened #683
  • Aug 27 16:11

    dkazanc on new_class_structure

    added method to FBP option (compare)

  • Aug 27 15:52
    dkazanc closed #682
  • Aug 27 15:39
    coveralls commented #682
  • Aug 27 15:27
    glb23482 opened #682
  • Aug 27 15:26
    glb23482 closed #674
  • Aug 27 13:48
    coveralls commented #674
  • Aug 27 13:34
    glb23482 synchronize #674
  • Aug 24 15:28
    coveralls commented #674
  • Aug 24 15:16
    glb23482 synchronize #674
  • Aug 18 09:30
    srikanthnagella added as member
  • Aug 18 09:07
    aaron-parsons added as member
  • Aug 17 12:21
    coveralls commented #681
Mark Basham
Test message
Aaron Parsons
Aaron Parsons
Hello, I thought I would post this here so it's a wider discussion
Would it be possible/sensible to change how CD_PROJECTION etc are defined, based on the dimensionality of the incoming data?
This way we could use a scanned application definition for a single point on say, a fluorescence scan, but it wouldn't matter which order the axes were scanned for tomo. ie. scans of x,y,theta or x,theta,y would all be equally valid
We could define them according to the NXtransformations
I just wanted to avoid having to write more "types" if we can reuse the existing ones....
Mark Basham
Ah, you have spotted exactly the reason for the current planning for a rewrite we are doing at the moment, to deal with exactly this problem. Thanks for the info though, and I will keep you updated on changes made to the system
Nicola Wadeson
I have a note... Aaron earlier suggested here as a place for leaving them...
Because of the way hdf5 works, all output files are created at the beginning of the run and will be populate with incorrect meta_data if any changes are made during the processing. Does that sound correct and is it something we need to change?
Mark Basham
Following on from our discussion today, I think the use of metadata now is a good step forward in this.