Oh great, I see. I just ignored the conversion to the freqency space. Of cause this makes totally sense. I was totally fixed on the must-have-square-dimensions of my images. This was way too much data analysis for today.
Sorry to bother you, I would like to take back the bug report :-) On 0, "David Nečas (Yeti)" <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 01:27:07PM +0100, David Nečas (Yeti) wrote: > > There might be some subtle bug, but basically the output seems correct. > > How things correspond between the direct and requency space? > > > > Direct space Frequency space > > ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── > > Pixel size Δx Image size 2π/Δx > > Pixel size Δy Image size 2π/Δy > > Image size Lx Pixel size 2π/Lx > > Image size Ly Pixel size 2π/Ly > > I should have complemented the table with the numbers of pixels in each > dimension: > > Direct space Frequency space > ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── > Resolution Nx Resolution Nx > Resolution Mx Resolution Mx > > They are the same in direct and fequency. But one needs to take this > into account explicitly to make sense of things... > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between. Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Gwyddion-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gwyddion-users
