On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 1:46 PM, Juan Nunez-Iglesias <jni.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think maybe 50% of our bug reports/help requests have to do with image > data types. Does anyone want to express an opinion about how we can fix > things? > > My humble (really) suggestions, *to start* (ie more needs to be done than > this): > > * If a 16-bit or higher image has no values above 4096 or below 0, treat > the image as 12 bit. This is a very common image type for some reason. > One common source for 12-bit is the DICOM standard used by industry for medical imaging. * If an integer image has no values above 255, treat it as an 8-bit image. > This also happens a lot. > > * If a floating point image has values outside [0, 1], don’t croak, just > accept it. (This might have already happened?) If it has values only in [0, > 1/255], and the user wants to convert to uint8, use the input range as the > range. > > I am in favor of accepting arbitrarily scaled floats unless the algorithm depends on values being within a particular range (not sure if we have many of these?). We do already allow unscaled floats in some places (e.g. compare_nrmse, etc), but it is not very consistent. For example, I recently noticed that denoise_wavelet enforces floats to be in [0, 1] (or [-1, 1]), but it would work equally well for unscaled data. > Some of these, especially the last one, may appear too magical, and in > some ways I think they are, but honestly, given the frequency of problems > that we get because of this, I think it’s time to suck it up and really > work on doing what most of our users want most of the time. We don’t need > to coddle the power users — they can be annoyed and micromanage the image > range properly. To paraphrase a tweet I saw once (sorry, couldn’t find > attribution): “edge cases should be used to check the design, not drive it.” > > Applied to this case, we shouldn’t scale a uint32 image by 2**(-32) just > because we can come up with a test case where this is useful. > > Some of these problems would be alleviated by some consistent metadata > conventions. > > Juan. > > > _______________________________________________ > scikit-image mailing list > scikit-image@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-image > >
_______________________________________________ scikit-image mailing list scikit-image@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-image
