Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Microscope] Re: Better Stacking Comparison

Expand Messages
  • Gordon Couger
    Hi Graham, HF has the prettier image bit not seeing the original I can t say which is the better representation of the subject. I suspect it is HF in most
    Message 1 of 7 , May 1, 2005
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Graham,

      HF has the prettier image bit not seeing the original I can't
      say which is the better representation of the subject. I suspect
      it is HF in most respects and all microscope imagages are not
      true repsetaions of what is there. So picking the one that looks
      the best is not an ethical problem as long as it does not
      materially change the appearance of what you are trying to show
      in the image.

      But we can add false data to images and believe it with out
      knowing it is false I know I have done it my self. Fortuatly I
      found before I made a fool of myself in from of to many people.

      Gordon

      Graham Matthews wrote:
      > 119 Images - that's impressive.
      >
      > Here is another comparison, using a stack of 15 low compression jpegs:
      >
      > http://www.gpmatthews.nildram.co.uk/diatoms/actinoptychus_cz5_HF01.jpg
      >
      > This time there is a very distinct difference between the two programs.
      >
      > The default settings were used for both programs.
      >
      > Graham
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Graham Matthews
      Gordon, Interpretation has always been a major aspect of microscopical observation, be it introducing the novice to the appearance of bubbles in different
      Message 2 of 7 , May 1, 2005
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Gordon,

        Interpretation has always been a major aspect of microscopical
        observation, be it introducing the novice to the appearance of
        bubbles in different media as you focus up and down (a valuable
        exercise), or examination of more complex structures by the most
        experienced microscopists. I think that reminding ouselves of this
        regularly can only be a good thing.

        It seems to me with the comparison of HF with CZ5 (and I think ver 5
        is looking to be a great advance on ver 4), we can see that each
        program has its own strengths. Sometimes the choice between the two
        will be a purely aesthetic one, sometimes because one illustrates a
        particular aspect of detail or structure better, or maybe just gives
        a better overview (see for example,

        http://www.gpmatthews.nildram.co.uk/diatoms/Actinoptychus3Dc.jpg

        created in HF, which although not great in resolution gives a good
        idea of the 3D
        layout of the diatom and assists in interpretation of other images)
        In some cases it looks as though one will just not give an
        acceptable image, but the other will. In the end, the interpretation
        of what the image is really showing comes down to knowledge,
        experience, and inevitably, because we are human, aesthetics and gut
        feel.

        Though we lean on the same balustrade
        The colours of the mountain are different
        - Zenrin Kushu, coll. by Toyo Eicho

        I think, also, seeing the comparisons with a range of different
        subjects should help us all be aware of the possibilities and
        limitations of these programs.

        I raise my glass to Alan Hadley, the author of CZ, and to the
        authors of Helicon - an excellent job by all...

        Cheers!

        Graham

        --- In Microscope@yahoogroups.com, Gordon Couger <gcc@c...> wrote:
        > Hi Graham,
        >
        > HF has the prettier image bit not seeing the original I can't
        > say which is the better representation of the subject. I suspect
        > it is HF in most respects and all microscope imagages are not
        > true repsetaions of what is there. So picking the one that looks
        > the best is not an ethical problem as long as it does not
        > materially change the appearance of what you are trying to show
        > in the image.
        >
        > But we can add false data to images and believe it with out
        > knowing it is false I know I have done it my self. Fortuatly I
        > found before I made a fool of myself in from of to many people.
        >
        > Gordon
        >
        > Graham Matthews wrote:
        > > 119 Images - that's impressive.
        > >
        > > Here is another comparison, using a stack of 15 low compression
        jpegs:
        > >
        > >
        http://www.gpmatthews.nildram.co.uk/diatoms/actinoptychus_cz5_HF01.jp
        g
        > >
        > > This time there is a very distinct difference between the two
        programs.
        > >
        > > The default settings were used for both programs.
        > >
        > > Graham
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Yahoo! Groups Links
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.