Posted by
Scott, Mark on
URL: http://confocal-microscopy-list.275.s1.nabble.com/Image-Processing-Software-tp6821785p6847329.html
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy*****
Yes it was intended as a generalisation, most open source project software is slightly less robust, more buggy and lacks as nice a UI as it's more commercial counterparts. That wasn't to say that there are exceptions to the rule and some do look nice. Firefox isn't a realistic example though since it was designed to compete with other web-browsers of the time which clearly wasn't going to work as a legitimate competitor if it was a clunky box with pop-up windows and an unorganised UI.
I also was not condoning other applications over ImageJ, I was simply suggesting that it is worth not discounting other commercial applications just because ImageJ is free if those commercial software package encourage users to use them more, do more work and produce results faster and easier than then having to learn ImageJ from scratch. It seems certain members of the imaging community are rather touchy in defence of their beloved ImageJ and leap to its defence if anyone dares say anything other than that it is the only option. I for one find that while Volocity has a nice user friendly familiar UI, it is still rather unintuitive to use, but at the same time some users much prefer this.
Using ImageJ if your users are comfortable with it is fine, but using it just out of refusing to use other applications and "forcing" users to learn ImageJ because it is what you personally like is dangerous and I was simply suggesting that all points are addressed rather than dismiss other options outright just because people who have input into ImageJ refuse to acknowledge other applications even exist. I have seen non-computer savvy people be forced into using non-windows based platforms simply out of programmers refusing to use windows and this normally resulted in less productivity due to people not being comfortable with the other platforms.
All I was suggesting was that there are options and opting for ImageJ because it's free or opting for other software because (as you say) it looks pretty, doesn't make it the right choice. The end decision should come after considering the user needs and software requirements over all aspects, not just pricing and certainly not just looking nice, if it is for a multi-user facility.
Cheers
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel James White [mailto:
[hidden email]]
Sent: 27 September 2011 08:19
To: Confocal Microscopy List; Scott, Mark;
[hidden email]
Subject: Re: Image Processing Software
Hi Guys,
> Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 12:20:32 +0000
> From: "Scott, Mark" <
[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: Image Processing Software
>
>
> Hi Venkat,
>
> As many have already suggested ImageJ (or FIJI) is a very nice option since=
> it will do almost anything you could require of it and it is free. Howev=
> er, it is a rather cut down UI typical of open source software
Thats a rather sweeping generalization, and possibly a little inaccurate?
There are very many open source free softwares that have very nice
extensive and feature complete user friendly graphical user interfaces.
Ever heard of the Firefox web browser? Seen Icy? Seen PyMol and VMD?
Certainly imageJ has a low complexity tool bar only primary interface,
and that is to make it less confusing and easier to use for novices.
There are not too many clickable items, so its not too scary for a new user,
but tons of functionality is there in the menus and others tools,
so in total the user interface is very very rich.
ImageJ2 project is working hard to improve the GUI,
which does have its limitations,
and the Fiji project has added many GUI/functionality enhancements like the command finder/launcher.
There is nothing to stop anyone of us making whatever GUI for imageJ2 we desire,
that will fit the needs of a certain class of users perfectly.
> and as such =
> isn't the most user friendly of available software - and as it is for a fac=
> ility it is important that your users feel comfortable with using the softw=
> are (yes it might be feasible for you and I to learn how to do something bu=
> t not all microscope users are as comfortable with this thought).
In our experience, anyone who works in a research lab is smart enough
to figure out how to use imageJ, given a bit of basic training,
and some tips and tricks, and good documentation, eg the great new ImageJ manual,
and the websites sites of Fiji and ImageJ Documentation Wiki.
I tend to warn out users that just because an expensive software "looks" nice, doesn't mean its going to
be the best for for every job, or in fact even easy to use, once you get into the details.
Often you don't know what is really happening as the documentation is limited or missing.
Not the case for open source softwares.
Just because imageJ spits windows all over the place (which can indeed get confusing),
doesn't necessarily put it out of reach of beginners in image processing,
in fact, because its free and open source, and easy to use,
we prefer to use Fiji for all our teaching, and as the general platform for image processing and analysis in our institute.
cheers
Dan
Dr. Daniel James White BSc. (Hons.) PhD
Leader - Image Processing Facility,
Senior Microscopist,
Light Microscopy Facility.
Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics
Pfotenhauerstrasse 108
01307 DRESDEN
Germany
+49 (0)15114966933 (German Mobile)
+49 (0)351 210 2627 (Work phone at MPI-CBG)
+49 (0)351 210 1078 (Fax MPI-CBG LMF)
chalkie666 Skype
http://www.bioimagexd.net BioImageXD
http://fiji.sc Fiji - is just ImageJ (Batteries Included)
http://www.chalkie.org.uk Dan's Homepages
https://ifn.mpi-cbg.de Biopolis Dresden Imaging Platform (BioDIP)
dan (at) chalkie.org.uk
( white (at) mpi-cbg.de )