Hi Simon,

well the step size marginally improved the result.  But using CudaVoxelBased as the BP rather than CudaRayCast completely solved it !

Thank you for your time and advice,

best regards,

Vincent

On 27.10.19 21:42, Simon Rit wrote:
Hi Vincent,
I'm not sure why the step size would make such a large difference but that's an interesting lead indeed. Feel free to add the step size as an option, I hope this will indeed solve your problem!
Best regards,
Simon

On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 11:55 AM vincent <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

    Hi Simon,

    thank you very much for the suggestions.  I think I have a lead
    and I was wondering if you could give me your opinion before I
    roll up my sleeves and dive into the code.

    Since the issue is number-of-voxels-dependent, and because I use
    CudaRayCast both for forward and backward projections, my guess
    was that it has to do with  the forward projection operator, and
    more specifically with the step size along the ray;  while it is
    an option in rtkforwardprojections, it is not customizable in
    rtksart. To investigate further, I reprojected the reconstructed
    FDK volume (700x700x700 voxels, voxel size = 0.23 mm) 3 times,
    once with Joseph, once with CudaRayCast and the default step (1)
    and one with a custom step (0.1).  The vertical streaks appear as
    I expected in the second case but not in the others:

    https://ibb.co/ZX57FPM
    https://ibb.co/MnMk5Ny
    https://ibb.co/gzfPQG1

    So I think that adding the step size option in rtksart should get
    rid of my problem, but I would like your feedback before, as I
    trust your experience more than my intuition :) !

    Thanks again,

    Vincent

    On 23.10.19 22:30, Simon Rit wrote:
    Hi Vincent,
    There is a problem indeed! It's hard to guess what's the problem
    from the images you sent. I would check the projections to see
    what could be wrong. The first thing I would check for example is
    whether air is really at 0 (as it should be). You can also look
    at the difference between the forward projections of this first
    iterate and the measured projections. It's known that SART should
    be stopped at a few iterations but 1 should not give such a
    result. You can always check if the conjugate gradient provides a
    better result, you can add some regularization in it.
    Good luck solving this!
    Simon


    On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 3:03 PM vincent <[email protected]
    <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

        Hi everyone,

        I am trying to reconstruct a volume representing an aluminum
        casted part
        and investigate the differences between FDK and SART.

        Here are the parameters involved: the images are 700*820
        pixels and I
        have 900 projections.  The physical pixel size is 0.28 mm and
        the sdd
        and sid are 558.3 mm and 461.3 mm respectively, which gives me a
        magnification factor of 1.2 roughly.  I performed one
        iteration of SART
        with CudaRayCast as forward and backward projectors and I
        wanted to
        reconstruct a 700*700*700 volume with a 0.23 mm (= 0.28/1.2)
        voxel
        size.  The result is shown on the two pictures attached:

        https://ibb.co/8sLdJxw
        https://ibb.co/N3NLg2D

        The result is getting worse as I increase the number of
        iterations

        I have a hard time understanding where the stripes come from.  A
        reconstruction with the standard 256*256*256 volume and 1mm
        spacing
        gives a "smoother" result, closer to what FDK gives. I
        thought it might
        be related to the linear system resolution, but unless I am
        mistaken, I
        am trying to solve a system with 700*700*700 unknown with
        700*820*900
        equations, which should be ok.

        Furthermore, the reconstruction with FDK at the same "full"
        resolution
        gives satisfactory results.

        Any help/explanation will be greatly appreciated !

        I thank you very much in advance,

        Vincent




        _______________________________________________
        Rtk-users mailing list
        [email protected]
        <mailto:[email protected]>
        https://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/rtk-users

    _______________________________________________
    Rtk-users mailing list
    [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
    https://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/rtk-users

_______________________________________________
Rtk-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/rtk-users

Reply via email to