Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Elliposid transform axis names #34

Open
tischi opened this issue Dec 9, 2021 · 6 comments
Open

Elliposid transform axis names #34

tischi opened this issue Dec 9, 2021 · 6 comments

Comments

@tischi
Copy link

tischi commented Dec 9, 2021

Can we have axis names for the elliposid transformed image such that we know what is what?
Then we could use those to also name them like this in the exported image.
image

@NicoKiaru
Copy link
Member

Sure, but where and what would you modify ?

@NicoKiaru
Copy link
Member

Can we put different names for different axis ?

@NicoKiaru
Copy link
Member

We can only put one unit in ImagePlus's calibration, so not sure I can do anything here

@tischi
Copy link
Author

tischi commented Dec 17, 2021

Yes, I had the same thought.... sucks a bit.

But there is: new ImagePlus().getProperty(key)
What about adding keys: AxisNameX, AxisNameY, ... ?

Given that OME.ZARR will support also both: unit and name for each axis (@constantinpape). I think it would be important to also add support for this to our SourceAndConverter eco-system.

I actually think the elliposid-transformed images are a very good use case to develop this, because we now have the axes (correct me if I am wrong):

  • relative_radius, no unit
  • latitude, radian
  • longitude, radian
  • time, time point

@constantinpape, would we currently have something in OME.Zarr for "no unit" and just for "time point"?

@constantinpape
Copy link

@constantinpape, would we currently have something in OME.Zarr for "no unit" and just for "time point"?

Not sure what you mean by this, but you can currently give arbitrary values for the type, name and unit of the axes.
(There are SHOULD requirements in order to strongly suggest using the defined values in the spec, but for experimental things you can use what you need.)

@tischi
Copy link
Author

tischi commented Dec 18, 2021

There are SHOULD requirements in order to strongly suggest using the defined values in the spec, but for experimental things you can use what you need.

I think what I mean is whether something like "count" for time point would be available in the SHOULD requirements.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants