Begin forwarded message:

From: shapeworks-dev-request@sci.utah.edu

Subject: Message for list shapeworks-dev from allen@sci.utah.edu to be approved.

Date: June 8, 2020 at 12:52:26 PM MDT

To: shapeworks-dev-editor@sci.utah.edu

Reply-To: sympa@sci.utah.edu

One new message for list shapeworks-dev from allen@sci.utah.edu arrived.

5 messages are awaiting moderation.
To view the messages, please click on the following URL:
<https://lists.sci.utah.edu/sympa/ticket/37406813086779>

To distribute the attached message in list shapeworks-dev:
<mailto:sympa@sci.utah.edu?subject=DISTRIBUTE%20shapeworks-dev%20ebaca1000277370b3acf9327fd9031d0>
Or send a message to sympa@sci.utah.edu with the following subject:
DISTRIBUTE shapeworks-dev ebaca1000277370b3acf9327fd9031d0

To reject it (it will be removed):
<mailto:sympa@sci.utah.edu?subject=REJECT%20shapeworks-dev%20ebaca1000277370b3acf9327fd9031d0>
Or send a message to sympa@sci.utah.edu with the following subject:
REJECT shapeworks-dev ebaca1000277370b3acf9327fd9031d0

The messages moderating documentation:
<https://lists.sci.utah.edu/sympa/help/admin#moderate>

From: Allen Sanderson <allen@sci.utah.edu>

Subject: Re: initial surface after optimization

Date: June 8, 2020 at 12:45:27 PM MDT

To: Alan Morris <amorris@sci.utah.edu>

Cc: Jadie Adams <jadieraeadams@gmail.com>, "shapeworks-dev@sci.utah.edu" <shapeworks-dev@sci.utah.edu>

Hi Alan,

That sounds about what I would like to do. So please do send an example. That said does one have to have the actual reconstructions ??? What I would almost prefer at this point is to see the correspondence particles and far they are from the mean?

Here is my line of thinking. The correspondence particles are placed on the image voxels during the optimization process. That part is the splitting. I am fuzzy on what actually happens during the “optimization iterations”.  Is this step where the actual correspondence is done? But once done and go to the Analysis step I get a reconstructed image just based on the correspondence particles which as Jadie notes is not very good unless the distance transforms are used. 

I would actually like to visualize each individual dataset with its correspondence particles but with a vector and colored by the magnitude. This visualization is similar to the group but allows one to see individual datasets compared to the mean. Most importantly it does not rely on a reconstruction (which is problematic for thin surfaces).

At this I understand, this visualization may not be possible but if I knew which files contained the mean particles tat would be helpful. For instance, not sure what these files contain:

-rw-r-----   1 allen  admin     3024 Jun  5 17:09 example_surface_1_00.rasterized_sp0.1_bad-sparse.particles

-rw-r-----   1 allen  admin   192909 Jun  5 17:09 example_surface_1_00.rasterized_sp0.1_good-sparse.particles

-rw-r-----   1 allen  admin    16384 Jun  5 17:09 example_surface_1_00.rasterized_sp0.1_goodPoints.txt

-rw-r-----   1 allen  admin   195933 Jun  5 17:09 example_surface_1_00.rasterized_sp0.1_sparse.particles

I noticed that each dataset had these files, but they were the same? These should be the initial particles.

-rw-r-----   1 allen  admin   245088 Jun  5 17:09 example_surface_1_00.rasterized_sp0.1.lpts

-rw-r-----   1 allen  admin   245088 Jun  5 17:09 example_surface_1_00.rasterized_sp0.1.wpts

Also this appears to the reconstruction. 

-rw-r-----   1 allen  admin   330664 Jun  5 17:09 example_surface_1_00.rasterized_sp0.1_dense.vtk

Oddly this morning when I started SWStudio it did not get loaded in which I expected. I had to do the reconstruction again. Thought I may have missed something.

Cheers,

Allen 

On Jun 7, 2020, at 5:24 PM, Alan Morris <amorris@sci.utah.edu> wrote:

Allen,

The mesh to mesh comparison tools are a little light at the moment. I recently moved over the older group differences functionality into Studio, but it only compares the means of two groups. In the near future we’ll be enhancing this quite a bit.

At the moment, I can think of one possible way to do what you want, once you have good reconstructions. In the old analysis parameter file format, you can specify <group_ids> and list 1’s and 2’s (I can send an example). To compare one sample against the mean, you could list all shapes in group 1 and then just the sample in question as group 2. This sample could also be in group 1 to make it the mean of all shapes. The group difference functionality would then show you what you’re looking for, I believe. You’d have to make a separate parameter file for each one and load them in separate sessions.

I’ll add this as a feature request. 

Alan

On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 5:52 PM Allen Sanderson <allen@sci.utah.edu> wrote:

Thanks Alan and Jadie,

I think for now the construction may be problematic. Here is what I would like to see but not sure how to get it and may not without a good reconstruction. But I would like to see is the difference from the mean on each original mesh.  That should be possible, no?

Cheers,

Allen




> On Jun 5, 2020, at 3:11 PM, Alan Morris <akenmorris@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I found the documentation in a Studio PDF:
>
> -Max Angle:This is the largent angle between particle normals (from
> respective sam-ples) permitted to label the particle as a good
> corresponding particle across the given population, and is useful for
> surface reconstruction.
>
> -Mesh Decimation:The PreView library code can decimate the number of
> triangles to the value set here. The default is 0.30 or 30 percent.
>
> -# Clusters:To help speed up reconstruction, you can define how many
> samples/clus-ters are used to warp their image volumed into the mean
> space. 0 indicates to use all of the samples.
>
> -Run Reconstruction:Click this to run the reconstruction step. If it
> fails, the iso-surface filter from the visualization toolkit (VTK) is
> used instead to generate the finalsurface reconstructions. You can
> re-run with different Optimizations as needed.
>
> -----------------
> In general, you need a good correspondence for the surface
> reconstruction to work well.
>
> Alan
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 2:31 PM Jadie Adams <jadieraeadams@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Allen,
>>
>> From my understanding the initial surface is constructed just based on the particles which is why it looks so bad. If you hit Run Reconstruction it uses the distance transforms to reconstruct the surface which makes it look much better.
>> The surfaces in the analyze part of Studio are just for visualization. You can always load your original mesh and the .particles file into a tool like Paraview to help visualize as well.
>>
>> @Alan do you know if the reconstruction parameters are documented anywhere?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jadie
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 12:47 PM Allen Sanderson <allen@sci.utah.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Jadie,
>>>
>>> Questions for you, after the optimization is completed and one goes to the analysis there is an initial surface. I assumed that it was the reconstructed surface. I got a really bad surface so I decided to change the Max from 10 to 5 and got a much improved surface but still not as expected.
>>>
>>> Would these results be expected?? and can you point me to any documentation on the various parameters.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Allen
>>>