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

em-raw size #22

Open
tischi opened this issue Nov 30, 2020 · 8 comments
Open

em-raw size #22

tischi opened this issue Nov 30, 2020 · 8 comments

Comments

@tischi
Copy link
Owner

tischi commented Nov 30, 2020

@constantinpape

How big is the em-raw (100nm^3) data set in MB?

@constantinpape
Copy link
Contributor

Including all scale layers and segmentation:

$ du -sh em-raw.ome.zarr/
12G	em-raw.ome.zarr/

Only the raw data at 100nm^3 (to be more precise this is actually 80x80x100)

$du -sh em-raw.ome.zarr/s0/
8,2G	em-raw.ome.zarr/s0/

@tischi
Copy link
Owner Author

tischi commented Dec 1, 2020

Thanks!

@tischi
Copy link
Owner Author

tischi commented Dec 2, 2020

hi @constantinpape
cc @joshmoore

  1. Could you also upload a version where the downsampling is based on powers of 3?
  2. Do you already do something to account for initial anisotropy during downsampling?
  3. Do do you average bin or something more fancy, like blurring and picking the central sample values?

cc @K-Meech (this is also relevant for your writer code, I think, because we should propose some good defaults).

@constantinpape
Copy link
Contributor

constantinpape commented Dec 2, 2020

  • Could you also upload a version where the downsampling is based on powers of 3?

I can try to upload something later, but I would start from the same initial resolution, so we don't produce too much data.

  • Do you already do something to account for initial anisotropy during downsampling?

Yes, I first downsample by [1, 2, 2] (in z, y, x axis convention).

  • Do do you average bin or something more fancy, like blurring and picking the central sample values?

Here, I just take the average. I tried a couple of different options a while back and in my experience average worked best for EM data.

@tischi
Copy link
Owner Author

tischi commented Dec 2, 2020

maybe then start [1,3,3,] ok?

@constantinpape
Copy link
Contributor

maybe then start [1,3,3,] ok?

Sorry, I think what I wrote wasn't quite clear.

For the [3, 3, 3] downscaling I would start from (80, 80, 100) nm, which is (approximately) isotropic and always downscale by [3, 3, 3].

To start with [1, 3, 3], I would need to start from the full resolution again, which is (10, 10, 25) nm.
I would rather avoid doing that, because it would take a while and produce a large amount of data.

@tischi
Copy link
Owner Author

tischi commented Dec 2, 2020

For the [3, 3, 3] downscaling I would start from (80, 80, 100) nm, which is (approximately) isotropic and always downscale by [3, 3, 3].

That's good!

@constantinpape
Copy link
Contributor

@tischi I have uploaded the version downscaled with factors of 3 to embl/i2k-2020/em-raw3.ome.zarr/.

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

2 participants