*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy*****
That's exactly right. Stretching 12-bit raw data to 16-bit totally changes
the image data. I wonder which vendor will do that.
Maybe the purpose of the list is to find out the bad guys to be avoided?
Tao
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Jean-Yves Tinevez <
[hidden email]>wrote:
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy> *****
>
> On 03-Feb-11 18:12, Jerry (Gerald) Sedgewick wrote:
>
> *****
>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy>> *****
>>
>> I would like to make a table of manufacturer's image formats that
>> separate scaled 16-bit images from those image formats in which
>> 12-bits of tonal data (0-4095 tones) are placed in a 16-bit (0-65,535)
>> "package."
>>
>> As an example, images saved as 16-bit TIFF files in SPOT software are
>> scaled from 12-bits to 16-bits, so these contain the full range of
>> tones (at least in earlier versions of the software).
>>
>
> Hi Jerry,
> I am a bit surprised by this choice. This stretch that change a 0-4095
> range to 16 times more must either occur through interpolation, which is
> not right (your raw data is not raw anymore), or leave some bin values
> empty.
>
> The choice of leaving the 4 large bits is at least consistent. And
> adapting to 16-bit image is only a problem of changing the display,
> which can't anyway display properly 12 or 16 bits.
>
> What is your opinion on this? What are your motivation for the list?
>
> cheers
> jy
>
> --
> Jean-Yves Tinevez
> PFID - Imagopole
> Institut Pasteur
> 25-28, rue du Docteur Roux
> 75724 Paris cedex 15
> France
> tel: +33 1 40 61 35 40
>
--
Tao Tong
Locked
