Dear Harry,
Sorry, this did end up sounding harsher than I intended, and it could
have done with a few judiciously placed smileys :) . My mailer may also have
been overzealous: there was no intention of bombarding you with disapproval.
I was simply trying to say that we are still far f
Wow.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I got told three times.
Gerard is, of course, right about pixel non-independence (think "point
spread function", among other things), and I wouldn't care to argue
statistics with him, but as far as I know (and I could well be wrong) most
of the in
Dear all,
I think we need to stop and think right here. The errors in pixel
values of images are neither Poisson (i.e. forget about taking square roots)
nor independent. Our ideas about image statistics are already disastrously
poor enough: the last thing we need is to make matters even worse
Hi
Lossy compression should be okay, provided that the errors introduced are
smaller than those expected for counting statistics (assuming that the
pixels are more-or-less independent) - i.e. less than the square-root of
the individual pixel intensities (though I don't see why this can't be
e
CTED] On Behalf Of
James Holton
Sent: 23 August 2007 18:47
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] diffraction images images/jpeg2000
Well, I know it's not the definitive source of anything, but the
wikipedia entry on JPEG2000 says:
"The PNG (Portable Network Graphics) format is sti
Message-
From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
James Holton
Sent: 23 August 2007 18:47
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] diffraction images images/jpeg2000
Well, I know it's not the definitive source of anything, but the
wikipedia entry on JPEG2000
to know or care...
Just my 2c on this one.
Cheers,
Graeme
-Original Message-
From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Maneesh Yadav
Sent: 18 August 2007 00:02
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: [ccp4bb] diffraction images images/jpeg2000
FWIW, I don't agree wi
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 10:46:51 -0700 James Holton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> So would PNG be better? It does support 16 bit greyscale. Then
> again, so does TIFF, and Mar already uses that. Why don't they use
> the LZW compression feature of TIFF?
Because of the patents on LZW
(http://en.wi
ccp4 J. P. Abrahams pack_c.c compression offers. At the
I used this when I was a postdoc but had forgotten about this. It doesn't
build (?) as far as I can tell in the default ccp4 install. I found it,
and a fortran program, in the ipdisp directory, tried "make" and got this
rather crypt
t; Cheers,
>
> Graeme
>
> -Original Message-
> From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Maneesh Yadav
> Sent: 18 August 2007 00:02
> To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Subject: [ccp4bb] diffraction images images/jpeg2000
>
> FWIW, I don'
one.
Cheers,
Graeme
-Original Message-
From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Maneesh Yadav
Sent: 18 August 2007 00:02
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: [ccp4bb] diffraction images images/jpeg2000
FWIW, I don't agree with storing image data, I don't thi
007 00:02
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: [ccp4bb] diffraction images images/jpeg2000
FWIW, I don't agree with storing image data, I don't think they justify
the cost of storage even remotely (some people debate the value of the
structures themselves)...but if you want to do it anyway, may
FWIW, I don't agree with storing image data, I don't think they justify the
cost of storage even remotely (some people debate the value of the structures
themselves)...but if you want to do it anyway, maybe we should use a format
like jpeg2000.
Last time I checked, none of the major image p
13 matches
Mail list logo
