You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Describe the bug
When comparing intensity features computed with square and circular masks using Show measurement map, I noticed that there seemed to be a slight shift.
Digging into code, the relevant bit is starts here.
makes it possible to visualize the image in ImageJ. The screenshot suggests there could be an issue of shifting, at least if the width and height of the region is an even number.
If there is an odd number of pixels, the result looks ok:
(The contrast was changed differently in each case, to highlight the excluded pixels with NaN values)
Expected behavior
No apparent shift, regardless of whether there is an even or odd number of pixels in the image.
Desktop (please complete the following information):
OS: All
QuPath Version: Probably all up to v0.4.x
Additional context
This shouldn't be addressed in an 0.0.x release, since it would change results. But the circular tiles calculation should be revisited for a major release, since 1 pixel could be a substantial shift if the region is small (e.g. a low-resolution tile).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Bug report
Describe the bug
When comparing intensity features computed with square and circular masks using Show measurement map, I noticed that there seemed to be a slight shift.
Digging into code, the relevant bit is starts here.
Adding a line
makes it possible to visualize the image in ImageJ. The screenshot suggests there could be an issue of shifting, at least if the width and height of the region is an even number.
If there is an odd number of pixels, the result looks ok:
(The contrast was changed differently in each case, to highlight the excluded pixels with NaN values)
Expected behavior
No apparent shift, regardless of whether there is an even or odd number of pixels in the image.
Desktop (please complete the following information):
Additional context
This shouldn't be addressed in an 0.0.x release, since it would change results. But the circular tiles calculation should be revisited for a major release, since 1 pixel could be a substantial shift if the region is small (e.g. a low-resolution tile).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: