The orig.mgz is closer to the raw data than T1.mgz, but it will be
different in a number of ways. First, it will be 256^3, 1mm voxel size
regardless of the dimensions of the raw data. Second, it will be 8 bits
(0-255) with some rescaling.
On 5/2/18 7:43 AM, C.P.E. Rollins wrote:
> Ext
External Email - Use Caution
Just to clarify, by that I mean would the NIFTI converted from orig.mgz
(with mri_convert) be different than the NIFTI produced by dcm2niix from
the raw DICOMs?
Thanks,
Colleen
Original Message
Subject: orig.mgz versus T1.mgz
Date:
External Email - Use Caution
Thanks Bruce. Will the orig.mgz file be different from the raw data in
any significant way?
Thanks again,
Colleen
Original Message
Subject: orig.mgz versus T1.mgz
Date: 2018-04-30 11:54
From: "C.P.E. Rollins"
To: Freesurfer
Dear
Hi Colleen
it depends on what you want to do. The T1.mgz probably isn't the correct
volume to use in any case. The orig.mgz is close to the raw data (e.g. it
has a skull in it and has not been bias corrected). If you want a
skull-stripped, bias-corrected version you could use either the norm.mg
External Email - Use Caution
Dear Freesurfer developers,
A collaborator shared with me Freesurfer outputs, but I would like to
some analyses requiring the scans in NIFTI format. I understand
mri_convert should do the trick for this, though I was wondering whether
I should use "
