[Insight-developers] So -- no concensus on smoothing re MultiResolutionPyramidImageFilter?

[Bradley Lowekamp]

Again. Please to do not make these changes to in a way that will  
effect peoples registrations! That is don't change the default  
behavior from how it has been for year!

Just because something is reported in Mantis doesn't mean that it is a  
bug. Some one needs to intelligently evaluate it and determine if it  
is really a bug or just one user's expected behavior. I expect that my  
registration will work the same from 3.10 to 3.11 to 3.12! And it has  
not been!

You are welcome to add a new parameter or option. BUT DO NOT CHANGE  
THE DEFAULT BEHAVIOR! I am getting tired of having to reverify my  
registration is working correctly.

Brad

On Apr 9, 2009, at 7:30 AM, Hans Johnson wrote:

> Since this is considered a bug for over a year
> http://www.vtk.org/Bug/view.php?id=7002 we should consider the fact  
> that
> MultiResolutionPyramidImageFilter smooths for unit shrink factors a  
> bug that
> would allow us to fix it (even through numerical sameness/backwards
> compatibility will be lost).
>
> This is not the behavior that I would expect by reading the  
> documentation on
> how an Image Pyramid should be constructed (i.e. The top level  
> should be an
> exact copy of the reference images).
>
> I think that this is a bug that also affects the
> RecursiveMultiResolutionPyramidImageFilter because it would produce
> different results for the unit shrink factor image if I change the  
> shrink
> schedule from being downward divisible to being non-downward  
> divisible.
> This is particularly nasty because given the same "shrink schedule
> [8,4,2,1]" the unit shrink result will be different depending on the  
> size of
> the input image.
>
> ===============
> If there are no objects today, then the solution that will be  
> implemented
> will be:
>
> 1) Add a test that fails when the unit shrink image is not the same  
> as the
> reference image (and the m_SmoothIfUnitShrinkFactors =false).
> 2) Add the m_SmoothIfUnitShrinkFactors conditional flag to allow  
> explicit
> smoothing of the unit shrink factors.
> 3) Set the default to "false" in all cases.
> ===============
>
>
> Regards,
> Hans
>
>
> On 4/9/09 1:56 AM, "Tom Vercauteren" <tom.vercauteren at gmail.com>  
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Kent,
>>
>> Even if there is no consensus about what the default should be, it
>> could be add a flag that lets the user decide (as Stephen suggested).
>>
>> Maybe something like:
>>  m_SmoothIfUnitShrinkFactors
>>
>> For backwards compatibility, the default for this flag would be:
>>  - true for MultiResolutionPyramidImageFilter
>>  - false for RecursiveMultiResolutionPyramidImageFilter
>>
>> Now, I also would like to propose a NON-backward compatible change to
>> fix something that might be very confusing to the user.
>>
>> Since RecursiveMultiResolutionPyramidImageFilter wil call
>> MultiResolutionPyramidImageFilter if the schedule is not downward
>> divisible, I suggest that RecursiveMultiResolutionPyramidImageFilter
>> sets
>>
>> internalNonRecursivePyramid->SetSmoothIfUnitShrinkFactors(this- 
>> >m_SmoothIfUnit
>> ShrinkFactors)
>> when the schedule is not downward divisible.
>>
>> With this small non-backward compatible change, it would at least  
>> make
>> things a bit clearer.
>>
>> Otherwise we might need a three state flag for
>> RecursiveMultiResolutionPyramidImageFilter:
>>  - AlwaysSmoothIfUnitShrinkFactors
>>  - NeverSmoothIfUnitShrinkFactors
>>  - SmoothIfUnitShrinkFactorsAndScheduleDownardDivisible (this being
>> the default for true backwards compatibility)
>>
>> Thoughts anyone?
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 23:27, kent williams <norman-k-williams at uiowa.edu 
>> >
>> wrote:
>>> It seems Hans assigned me yesterday to fix this 'bug':
>>>
>>> http://www.vtk.org/Bug/view.php?id=7002
>>>
>>> As is noted there, there still doesn't appear to be a consensus on  
>>> how to
>>> handle this problem.  So I've taken ownership of a bug with no  
>>> clear way to
>>> fix it.
>>>
>>> If the issue is truly tabled, does it need to hang around as an  
>>> open bug?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is  
>>> covered by the
>>> Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is  
>>> confidential
>>> and may be legally privileged.  If you are not the intended  
>>> recipient, you
>>> are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination,  
>>> distribution, or
>>> copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  Please  
>>> reply to the
>>> sender that you have received the message in error, then delete  
>>> it.  Thank
>>> you.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Powered by www.kitware.com
>>>
>>> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
>>> http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
>>>
>>> Please keep messages on-topic and check the ITK FAQ at:
>>> http://www.itk.org/Wiki/ITK_FAQ
>>>
>>> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
>>> http://www.itk.org/mailman/listinfo/insight-developers
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Powered by www.kitware.com
>>
>> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
>> http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
>>
>> Please keep messages on-topic and check the ITK FAQ at:
>> http://www.itk.org/Wiki/ITK_FAQ
>>
>> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
>> http://www.itk.org/mailman/listinfo/insight-developers
>
> _______________________________________________
> Powered by www.kitware.com
>
> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
>
> Please keep messages on-topic and check the ITK FAQ at: http://www.itk.org/Wiki/ITK_FAQ
>
> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://www.itk.org/mailman/listinfo/insight-developers