Curtis - Thanks so much for digging. This focuses my efforts greatly. Tobias - If you see this email... I noticed that you are listed as author of the ConnectedComponents class. Any thoughts as I dig in?
Thanks, Jay > On Jun 30, 2015, at 12:34 PM, Curtis Rueden <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Jay, > > Interesting bug. I did some digging. The two Img<UnsignedByteType> instances > are identical in terms of dimensionality and pixel values, so that isn't the > culprit. > > I also tried disabling the labeling computation for SCIFIO to see if it was > an issue of tainted state, but the order of computation doesn't seem to make > a difference either. > > I also stepped a bit with the debugger and certainly the issue is inside of > ConnectedComponents.labelAllConnectedComponents. On line 115, the value of > numLabels comes back as 2 for the SCIFIO image and 1 for the IJ1 image. > Digging deeper becomes tricky due to the multithreadedness of the algorithm, > but I fear that's what you'll have to do in order to isolate the difference > in behavior. > > Regards, > Curtis > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 1:01 AM, Jay Warrick <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Hi All, > > I am getting different behavior using the new ConnectedComponents class of > imglib2-algorithm depending on whether I get and Img<UnsignedByteType> from a > SCIFIO ImageOpener vs. when I get the same image as an Img<UnsignedByteType> > by wrapping an ImagePlus. In the SCIFIO case, ConnectedComponents finds the > expected single circle while with a wrapped ImagePlus, it doesn't find any > regions. > > Any thoughts/fixes? Might there be something occurring during the wrapping > process to cause an issue? Here is a tiny commented maven project with the > example scenario. > > https://github.com/jaywarrick/ConnectedComponentsTest > <https://github.com/jaywarrick/ConnectedComponentsTest> > > The tiny .tif I'm using is included in the project but is loaded by a string > path. Thus, you need to retype the path to the image to match your computer, > but that should be it. Sorry... wasn't sure how to avoid that easily. > > Thanks for your help, > > Jay > > > _______________________________________________ > ImageJ-devel mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > http://imagej.net/mailman/listinfo/imagej-devel > <http://imagej.net/mailman/listinfo/imagej-devel> >
_______________________________________________ ImageJ-devel mailing list [email protected] http://imagej.net/mailman/listinfo/imagej-devel
