From simon.rit at creatis.insa-lyon.fr  Sun Aug  2 16:13:46 2020
From: simon.rit at creatis.insa-lyon.fr (Simon Rit)
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2020 22:13:46 +0200
Subject: [Rtk-users] Geometry Calibration and AddProjection Problem
In-Reply-To: <512cf9b2.2b71.173a3530f7d.Coremail.alphonso64@126.com>
References: <512cf9b2.2b71.173a3530f7d.Coremail.alphonso64@126.com>
Message-ID: <CAF0oig2CYC1tKy2aGhO1HfJ_cGA3X3cgJxtbSAR-DYuOASVzwQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,
I'm not sure why that is. Can you open an issue on github and I'll have a
look when I get more time (not before the end of August)?
I don't understand your second question, sorry. Can you detail what you
want to do?
Best regards,
Simon

On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 7:24 AM ??? <alphonso64 at 126.com> wrote:

> Hi Simon:
>
>     Im doing  Geometry Calibration and  Got a new Projection Matrix, but
> when I use  AddProjection(const HomogeneousProjectionMatrixType & pMat),it
> return a error ?Failed to AddProjection? caused by ?VerifyAngles? .Why
> did this happen? The Projection matrix is like ? -579.694626 0.346023
> 55.985596 -21593.430343 2.372489 -582.222909 40.620927 -13026.736098
> 0.012678 0.028489 0.999514 -391.927351?.
>
>     Another question.Im not sure how to change the image coordinate to uv
> in pMat*(x,y,z,1)'=(u,v,1)'.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rtk-users mailing list
> Rtk-users at public.kitware.com
> https://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/rtk-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://public.kitware.com/pipermail/rtk-users/attachments/20200802/ee600c25/attachment.htm>

From heshiqing168 at 126.com  Thu Aug 20 04:52:17 2020
From: heshiqing168 at 126.com (=?GBK?B?utjKy8fl?=)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 16:52:17 +0800 (GMT+08:00)
Subject: [Rtk-users] DSA vedio files reconstruction
Message-ID: <27aa3acf.65d0.1740b119b61.Coremail.heshiqing168@126.com>

Dear Sir or Madam,
Can I use the Reconstruction Toolkit to reconstruct the DSA vedio files? Because the DSA 
Vedio files can?t convert into tomographic images of Dicom format. 
Best regards.
He Shiqing 
| |
???
|
|
???heshiqing168 at 126.com
|

??? ?????? ??
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://public.kitware.com/pipermail/rtk-users/attachments/20200820/363fcf24/attachment.htm>

From vl at xris.eu  Thu Aug 27 06:57:50 2020
From: vl at xris.eu (Vincent Libertiaux)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 12:57:50 +0200
Subject: [Rtk-users] Gantry rotation direction and artefacts
Message-ID: <05ae1f62-0b5d-7a90-0203-65bec365b814@xris.eu>

Dear RTK users,

I am trying to reconstruct a volume using the opposite rotation 
direction; I basically defined my rotation angle to be -360 degrees and 
my initial angle to be 359.6 (I have 900 projections).

The results present artefacts, mostly important blurs compared to the 
"original" reconstruction.? To be sure I was not misinterpreting the way 
rtk deals with the geometry, I performed the same reconstruction with 
the "direct" rotation direction (from 0 to 359.6) but reordering my 
projections instead, which yields in the same blurry results.

I feel I am missing some basic understanding of what is happening, any 
help you can provide would be much appreciated !

Best regards,

Vincent


From simon.rit at creatis.insa-lyon.fr  Thu Aug 27 11:02:16 2020
From: simon.rit at creatis.insa-lyon.fr (Simon Rit)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 17:02:16 +0200
Subject: [Rtk-users] Gantry rotation direction and artefacts
In-Reply-To: <05ae1f62-0b5d-7a90-0203-65bec365b814@xris.eu>
References: <05ae1f62-0b5d-7a90-0203-65bec365b814@xris.eu>
Message-ID: <CAF0oig1EVeOf2TirGEyX3gw5X-qDhgHNNSWSjGOPaAPX--ZroA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Vincent,
This sounds like a typical geometry problem. It's hard to guess what could
be the problem without data. Is it a system for which you're able to
reconstruct in the opposite direction?
Simon

On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 2:17 PM Vincent Libertiaux <vl at xris.eu> wrote:

> Dear RTK users,
>
> I am trying to reconstruct a volume using the opposite rotation
> direction; I basically defined my rotation angle to be -360 degrees and
> my initial angle to be 359.6 (I have 900 projections).
>
> The results present artefacts, mostly important blurs compared to the
> "original" reconstruction.  To be sure I was not misinterpreting the way
> rtk deals with the geometry, I performed the same reconstruction with
> the "direct" rotation direction (from 0 to 359.6) but reordering my
> projections instead, which yields in the same blurry results.
>
> I feel I am missing some basic understanding of what is happening, any
> help you can provide would be much appreciated !
>
> Best regards,
>
> Vincent
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rtk-users mailing list
> Rtk-users at public.kitware.com
> https://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/rtk-users
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://public.kitware.com/pipermail/rtk-users/attachments/20200827/afaaaca4/attachment.htm>

From vl at xris.eu  Thu Aug 27 11:55:46 2020
From: vl at xris.eu (Vincent Libertiaux)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 17:55:46 +0200
Subject: [Rtk-users] Gantry rotation direction and artefacts
In-Reply-To: <CAF0oig1EVeOf2TirGEyX3gw5X-qDhgHNNSWSjGOPaAPX--ZroA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <05ae1f62-0b5d-7a90-0203-65bec365b814@xris.eu>
 <CAF0oig1EVeOf2TirGEyX3gw5X-qDhgHNNSWSjGOPaAPX--ZroA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <d1ca4ed5-3ed6-a111-23bf-7863b180e477@xris.eu>

Hi Simon,

Yes, we have very decent reconstructions in the opposite direction.

If you want to have a look, here is a link towards the sinogram and the 
two geometry files:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/xtzof23ar89vutm/AAASZhDBcCez_c1BN2ed74H_a?dl=0

I downsampled the projections so that the file size remains reasonable.

Thank you very much for you help,
Vincent

On 27.08.20 17:02, Simon Rit wrote:
> Hi Vincent,
> This sounds like a typical geometry problem. It's hard to guess what 
> could be the problem without data. Is it a system for which you're 
> able to reconstruct in the opposite direction?
> Simon
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 2:17 PM Vincent Libertiaux <vl at xris.eu 
> <mailto:vl at xris.eu>> wrote:
>
>     Dear RTK users,
>
>     I am trying to reconstruct a volume using the opposite rotation
>     direction; I basically defined my rotation angle to be -360
>     degrees and
>     my initial angle to be 359.6 (I have 900 projections).
>
>     The results present artefacts, mostly important blurs compared to the
>     "original" reconstruction.? To be sure I was not misinterpreting
>     the way
>     rtk deals with the geometry, I performed the same reconstruction with
>     the "direct" rotation direction (from 0 to 359.6) but reordering my
>     projections instead, which yields in the same blurry results.
>
>     I feel I am missing some basic understanding of what is happening,
>     any
>     help you can provide would be much appreciated !
>
>     Best regards,
>
>     Vincent
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Rtk-users mailing list
>     Rtk-users at public.kitware.com <mailto:Rtk-users at public.kitware.com>
>     https://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/rtk-users
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://public.kitware.com/pipermail/rtk-users/attachments/20200827/bfe3e77b/attachment.htm>

From simon.rit at creatis.insa-lyon.fr  Thu Aug 27 15:11:59 2020
From: simon.rit at creatis.insa-lyon.fr (Simon Rit)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 21:11:59 +0200
Subject: [Rtk-users] Gantry rotation direction and artefacts
In-Reply-To: <d1ca4ed5-3ed6-a111-23bf-7863b180e477@xris.eu>
References: <05ae1f62-0b5d-7a90-0203-65bec365b814@xris.eu>
 <CAF0oig1EVeOf2TirGEyX3gw5X-qDhgHNNSWSjGOPaAPX--ZroA@mail.gmail.com>
 <d1ca4ed5-3ed6-a111-23bf-7863b180e477@xris.eu>
Message-ID: <CAF0oig0R4SeL5TPuLh+pk+tEq=ktCv+if6n=VxBL94CcmrhDdA@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks for the dataset. When I run
  rtkfdk -p . -r ^proj.mha$ -g direct.xml --spacing 0.5 -d 300 --hardware
cuda -o fdk.mha
The result looks good to me. Obviously, when I run
  rtkfdk -p . -r ^proj.mha$ -g inverse.xml --spacing 0.5 -d 300 --hardware
cuda -o fdk.mha
the result is bad since the correct rotation direction seems to be the
direct one. Did you expect the second line to produce the correct result?
Or is the first line not producing a good enough result in your opinion?


On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 8:21 PM Vincent Libertiaux <vl at xris.eu> wrote:

> Hi Simon,
>
> Yes, we have very decent reconstructions in the opposite direction.
>
> If you want to have a look, here is a link towards the sinogram and the
> two geometry files:
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/xtzof23ar89vutm/AAASZhDBcCez_c1BN2ed74H_a?dl=0
>
> I downsampled the projections so that the file size remains reasonable.
>
> Thank you very much for you help,
> Vincent
>
> On 27.08.20 17:02, Simon Rit wrote:
>
> Hi Vincent,
> This sounds like a typical geometry problem. It's hard to guess what could
> be the problem without data. Is it a system for which you're able to
> reconstruct in the opposite direction?
> Simon
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 2:17 PM Vincent Libertiaux <vl at xris.eu> wrote:
>
>> Dear RTK users,
>>
>> I am trying to reconstruct a volume using the opposite rotation
>> direction; I basically defined my rotation angle to be -360 degrees and
>> my initial angle to be 359.6 (I have 900 projections).
>>
>> The results present artefacts, mostly important blurs compared to the
>> "original" reconstruction.  To be sure I was not misinterpreting the way
>> rtk deals with the geometry, I performed the same reconstruction with
>> the "direct" rotation direction (from 0 to 359.6) but reordering my
>> projections instead, which yields in the same blurry results.
>>
>> I feel I am missing some basic understanding of what is happening, any
>> help you can provide would be much appreciated !
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Vincent
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rtk-users mailing list
>> Rtk-users at public.kitware.com
>> https://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/rtk-users
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://public.kitware.com/pipermail/rtk-users/attachments/20200827/0fa64f8f/attachment.htm>

From simon.rit at creatis.insa-lyon.fr  Fri Aug 28 06:13:50 2020
From: simon.rit at creatis.insa-lyon.fr (Simon Rit)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 12:13:50 +0200
Subject: [Rtk-users] Gantry rotation direction and artefacts
In-Reply-To: <1ecb9fb8-5e5a-2b1e-5582-3d873cac24ed@xris.eu>
References: <05ae1f62-0b5d-7a90-0203-65bec365b814@xris.eu>
 <CAF0oig1EVeOf2TirGEyX3gw5X-qDhgHNNSWSjGOPaAPX--ZroA@mail.gmail.com>
 <d1ca4ed5-3ed6-a111-23bf-7863b180e477@xris.eu>
 <CAF0oig0R4SeL5TPuLh+pk+tEq=ktCv+if6n=VxBL94CcmrhDdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1ecb9fb8-5e5a-2b1e-5582-3d873cac24ed@xris.eu>
Message-ID: <CAF0oig1O2vn+71a4Y9FoWnPEQVT-_PpiBZZ3nZSWq-+nNQ54Sw@mail.gmail.com>

Mirror in which direction? Depending on the direction, it can also be a
180? offset of the angle. If it reconstructs well, I would assume that the
direct direction is the correct one but there is something else you need to
understand...

On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 10:44 AM Vincent Libertiaux <vl at xris.eu> wrote:

> Hi Simon,
>
> thank you for testing my dataset.
>
> I get the same results you describe and I am quite happy with the first
> result. However, the reconstructed volume is a "mirror" view of the real
> object, and my guess was that the rotating plate was going in the opposite
> direction assumed by rtk. Is it the wrong assumption?
>
> Thank you again for your help,
>
> best regards,
>
> Vincent
>
>
> Thanks for the dataset. When I run
>   rtkfdk -p . -r ^proj.mha$ -g direct.xml --spacing 0.5 -d 300 --hardware
> cuda -o fdk.mha
> The result looks good to me. Obviously, when I run
>   rtkfdk -p . -r ^proj.mha$ -g inverse.xml --spacing 0.5 -d 300 --hardware
> cuda -o fdk.mha
> the result is bad since the correct rotation direction seems to be the
> direct one. Did you expect the second line to produce the correct result?
> Or is the first line not producing a good enough result in your opinion?
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://public.kitware.com/pipermail/rtk-users/attachments/20200828/8f8a4789/attachment.htm>

From vl at xris.eu  Fri Aug 28 07:14:53 2020
From: vl at xris.eu (Vincent Libertiaux)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 13:14:53 +0200
Subject: [Rtk-users] Gantry rotation direction and artefacts
In-Reply-To: <CAF0oig1O2vn+71a4Y9FoWnPEQVT-_PpiBZZ3nZSWq-+nNQ54Sw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <05ae1f62-0b5d-7a90-0203-65bec365b814@xris.eu>
 <CAF0oig1EVeOf2TirGEyX3gw5X-qDhgHNNSWSjGOPaAPX--ZroA@mail.gmail.com>
 <d1ca4ed5-3ed6-a111-23bf-7863b180e477@xris.eu>
 <CAF0oig0R4SeL5TPuLh+pk+tEq=ktCv+if6n=VxBL94CcmrhDdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1ecb9fb8-5e5a-2b1e-5582-3d873cac24ed@xris.eu>
 <CAF0oig1O2vn+71a4Y9FoWnPEQVT-_PpiBZZ3nZSWq-+nNQ54Sw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e4ddf736-4987-155a-73a4-34c47bddbd57@xris.eu>

Hi Simon,

I am afraid I was no clear enough. Please find a picture of the real 
object and the reko at that link:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ul0oy9kv3us4ey7/AABQ5Y4R1PR-jcRawGFKOUK4a?dl=0


So you can see that on the part, the serial number is on the "head" side 
while it is on the "tail" side on the reconstruction, using the "direct" 
geometry.? That is what I call the mirror image.? The rotation axis is 
along the vertical direction of the image.? I could easily reorder the 
reconstructed slice to get it in the right orientation, but I was 
wondering where the issue comes from.

Best regards,
Vincent

On 28.08.20 12:13, Simon Rit wrote:
> Mirror in which direction? Depending on the direction, it can also be 
> a 180? offset of the angle. If it reconstructs well, I would assume 
> that the direct direction is the correct one but there is something 
> else you need to understand...
>
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 10:44 AM Vincent Libertiaux <vl at xris.eu 
> <mailto:vl at xris.eu>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Simon,
>
>     thank you for testing my dataset.
>
>     I get the same results you describe and I am quite happy with the
>     first result. However, the reconstructed volume is a "mirror" view
>     of the real object, and my guess was that the rotating plate was
>     going in the opposite direction assumed by rtk. Is it the wrong
>     assumption?
>
>     Thank you again for your help,
>
>     best regards,
>
>     Vincent
>
>
>     Thanks for the dataset. When I run
>     ? rtkfdk -p . -r ^proj.mha$ -g direct.xml --spacing 0.5 -d 300
>     --hardware cuda -o fdk.mha
>     The result looks good to me. Obviously, when I run
>     ? rtkfdk -p . -r ^proj.mha$ -g inverse.xml --spacing 0.5 -d 300
>     --hardware cuda -o fdk.mha
>     the result is bad since the correct rotation direction seems to be
>     the direct one. Did you expect the second line to produce the
>     correct result? Or is the first line not producing a good enough
>     result in your opinion?
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://public.kitware.com/pipermail/rtk-users/attachments/20200828/7c8e205f/attachment-0001.htm>

From simon.rit at creatis.insa-lyon.fr  Fri Aug 28 08:13:14 2020
From: simon.rit at creatis.insa-lyon.fr (Simon Rit)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 14:13:14 +0200
Subject: [Rtk-users] Gantry rotation direction and artefacts
In-Reply-To: <e4ddf736-4987-155a-73a4-34c47bddbd57@xris.eu>
References: <05ae1f62-0b5d-7a90-0203-65bec365b814@xris.eu>
 <CAF0oig1EVeOf2TirGEyX3gw5X-qDhgHNNSWSjGOPaAPX--ZroA@mail.gmail.com>
 <d1ca4ed5-3ed6-a111-23bf-7863b180e477@xris.eu>
 <CAF0oig0R4SeL5TPuLh+pk+tEq=ktCv+if6n=VxBL94CcmrhDdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1ecb9fb8-5e5a-2b1e-5582-3d873cac24ed@xris.eu>
 <CAF0oig1O2vn+71a4Y9FoWnPEQVT-_PpiBZZ3nZSWq-+nNQ54Sw@mail.gmail.com>
 <e4ddf736-4987-155a-73a4-34c47bddbd57@xris.eu>
Message-ID: <CAF0oig2ND0AuBt-Fr6ASQ-HiK+WDGcrWDN8V5eBYV0QUyF+g3g@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks for the illustration. Maybe the detector is not oriented as intended
by RTK? If you look at the first drawing of the geometry doc
<http://www.openrtk.org/Doxygen/DocGeo3D.html>, I would question the
direction of the vector v. You can probably just flip it to put it in the
right direction? e.g. with
rtkfdk -p . -r ^proj.mha$ -g direct.xml --spacing 0.5 -d 300 --hardware
cuda -o fdk.mha --newdirection 1,0,0,0,-1,0,0,0,1 --neworigin -140,151.6,0
which comes down to flipping the y axis after reconstruction without the
last two options. I think that the RTK coordinate system becomes indirect
if you flip this v axis which is probably ignored by your visualization
tool. I admit I realized only recently that I often reconstruct data which
are like this.
I hope I'm clear, if not that's probably because I don't master so well all
this...
Simon

On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 1:23 PM Vincent Libertiaux <vl at xris.eu> wrote:

> Hi Simon,
>
> I am afraid I was no clear enough. Please find a picture of the real
> object and the reko at that link:
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ul0oy9kv3us4ey7/AABQ5Y4R1PR-jcRawGFKOUK4a?dl=0
>
>
> So you can see that on the part, the serial number is on the "head" side
> while it is on the "tail" side on the reconstruction, using the "direct"
> geometry.  That is what I call the mirror image.  The rotation axis is
> along the vertical direction of the image.  I could easily reorder the
> reconstructed slice to get it in the right orientation, but I was wondering
> where the issue comes from.
>
> Best regards,
> Vincent
>
> On 28.08.20 12:13, Simon Rit wrote:
>
> Mirror in which direction? Depending on the direction, it can also be a
> 180? offset of the angle. If it reconstructs well, I would assume that the
> direct direction is the correct one but there is something else you need to
> understand...
>
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 10:44 AM Vincent Libertiaux <vl at xris.eu> wrote:
>
>> Hi Simon,
>>
>> thank you for testing my dataset.
>>
>> I get the same results you describe and I am quite happy with the first
>> result. However, the reconstructed volume is a "mirror" view of the real
>> object, and my guess was that the rotating plate was going in the opposite
>> direction assumed by rtk. Is it the wrong assumption?
>>
>> Thank you again for your help,
>>
>> best regards,
>>
>> Vincent
>>
>>
>> Thanks for the dataset. When I run
>>   rtkfdk -p . -r ^proj.mha$ -g direct.xml --spacing 0.5 -d 300 --hardware
>> cuda -o fdk.mha
>> The result looks good to me. Obviously, when I run
>>   rtkfdk -p . -r ^proj.mha$ -g inverse.xml --spacing 0.5 -d 300
>> --hardware cuda -o fdk.mha
>> the result is bad since the correct rotation direction seems to be the
>> direct one. Did you expect the second line to produce the correct result?
>> Or is the first line not producing a good enough result in your opinion?
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://public.kitware.com/pipermail/rtk-users/attachments/20200828/886ef926/attachment.htm>

From vl at xris.eu  Fri Aug 28 03:25:42 2020
From: vl at xris.eu (Vincent Libertiaux)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 09:25:42 +0200
Subject: [Rtk-users] Gantry rotation direction and artefacts
In-Reply-To: <CAF0oig0R4SeL5TPuLh+pk+tEq=ktCv+if6n=VxBL94CcmrhDdA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <05ae1f62-0b5d-7a90-0203-65bec365b814@xris.eu>
 <CAF0oig1EVeOf2TirGEyX3gw5X-qDhgHNNSWSjGOPaAPX--ZroA@mail.gmail.com>
 <d1ca4ed5-3ed6-a111-23bf-7863b180e477@xris.eu>
 <CAF0oig0R4SeL5TPuLh+pk+tEq=ktCv+if6n=VxBL94CcmrhDdA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1ecb9fb8-5e5a-2b1e-5582-3d873cac24ed@xris.eu>

Hi Simon,

thank you for testing my dataset.

I get the same results you describe and I am quite happy with the first 
result. However, the reconstructed volume is a "mirror" view of the real 
object, and my guess was that the rotating plate was going in the 
opposite direction assumed by rtk. Is it the wrong assumption?

Thank you again for your help,

best regards,

Vincent


Thanks for the dataset. When I run
 ? rtkfdk -p . -r ^proj.mha$ -g direct.xml --spacing 0.5 -d 300 
--hardware cuda -o fdk.mha
The result looks good to me. Obviously, when I run
 ? rtkfdk -p . -r ^proj.mha$ -g inverse.xml --spacing 0.5 -d 300 
--hardware cuda -o fdk.mha
the result is bad since the correct rotation direction seems to be the 
direct one. Did you expect the second line to produce the correct 
result? Or is the first line not producing a good enough result in your 
opinion?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://public.kitware.com/pipermail/rtk-users/attachments/20200828/ae054ac8/attachment.htm>

From vl at xris.eu  Fri Aug 28 09:35:51 2020
From: vl at xris.eu (Vincent Libertiaux)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 15:35:51 +0200
Subject: [Rtk-users] Gantry rotation direction and artefacts
In-Reply-To: <CAF0oig2ND0AuBt-Fr6ASQ-HiK+WDGcrWDN8V5eBYV0QUyF+g3g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <05ae1f62-0b5d-7a90-0203-65bec365b814@xris.eu>
 <CAF0oig1EVeOf2TirGEyX3gw5X-qDhgHNNSWSjGOPaAPX--ZroA@mail.gmail.com>
 <d1ca4ed5-3ed6-a111-23bf-7863b180e477@xris.eu>
 <CAF0oig0R4SeL5TPuLh+pk+tEq=ktCv+if6n=VxBL94CcmrhDdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1ecb9fb8-5e5a-2b1e-5582-3d873cac24ed@xris.eu>
 <CAF0oig1O2vn+71a4Y9FoWnPEQVT-_PpiBZZ3nZSWq-+nNQ54Sw@mail.gmail.com>
 <e4ddf736-4987-155a-73a4-34c47bddbd57@xris.eu>
 <CAF0oig2ND0AuBt-Fr6ASQ-HiK+WDGcrWDN8V5eBYV0QUyF+g3g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <febac88c-0e54-25f9-f368-3080b2984b90@xris.eu>

On 28.08.20 14:13, Simon Rit wrote:
> Thanks for the illustration. Maybe the detector is not oriented as 
> intended by RTK? If you look at the first drawing of the geometry doc 
> <http://www.openrtk.org/Doxygen/DocGeo3D.html>, I would question the 
> direction of the vector v. You can probably just flip it to put it in 
> the right direction? e.g. with
> rtkfdk -p . -r ^proj.mha$ -g direct.xml --spacing 0.5 -d 300 
> --hardware cuda -o fdk.mha --newdirection 1,0,0,0,-1,0,0,0,1 
> --neworigin -140,151.6,0
> which comes down to flipping the y axis after reconstruction without 
> the last two options. I think that the RTK coordinate system becomes 
> indirect if you flip this v axis which is probably ignored by your 
> visualization tool. I admit I realized only recently that I often 
> reconstruct data which are like this.
> I hope I'm clear, if not that's probably because I don't master so 
> well all this...
> Simon
>
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 1:23 PM Vincent Libertiaux <vl at xris.eu 
> <mailto:vl at xris.eu>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Simon,
>
>     I am afraid I was no clear enough. Please find a picture of the
>     real object and the reko at that link:
>
>     https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ul0oy9kv3us4ey7/AABQ5Y4R1PR-jcRawGFKOUK4a?dl=0
>
>
>     So you can see that on the part, the serial number is on the
>     "head" side while it is on the "tail" side on the reconstruction,
>     using the "direct" geometry.? That is what I call the mirror
>     image.? The rotation axis is along the vertical direction of the
>     image.? I could easily reorder the reconstructed slice to get it
>     in the right orientation, but I was wondering where the issue
>     comes from.
>
>     Best regards,
>     Vincent
>
>     On 28.08.20 12:13, Simon Rit wrote:
>>     Mirror in which direction? Depending on the direction, it can
>>     also be a 180? offset of the angle. If it reconstructs well, I
>>     would assume that the direct direction is the correct one but
>>     there is something else you need to understand...
>>
>>     On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 10:44 AM Vincent Libertiaux <vl at xris.eu
>>     <mailto:vl at xris.eu>> wrote:
>>
>>         Hi Simon,
>>
>>         thank you for testing my dataset.
>>
>>         I get the same results you describe and I am quite happy with
>>         the first result. However, the reconstructed volume is a
>>         "mirror" view of the real object, and my guess was that the
>>         rotating plate was going in the opposite direction assumed by
>>         rtk. Is it the wrong assumption?
>>
>>         Thank you again for your help,
>>
>>         best regards,
>>
>>         Vincent
>>
>>
>>         Thanks for the dataset. When I run
>>         ? rtkfdk -p . -r ^proj.mha$ -g direct.xml --spacing 0.5 -d
>>         300 --hardware cuda -o fdk.mha
>>         The result looks good to me. Obviously, when I run
>>         ? rtkfdk -p . -r ^proj.mha$ -g inverse.xml --spacing 0.5 -d
>>         300 --hardware cuda -o fdk.mha
>>         the result is bad since the correct rotation direction seems
>>         to be the direct one. Did you expect the second line to
>>         produce the correct result? Or is the first line not
>>         producing a good enough result in your opinion?
>>
>
Hi Simon,

thanks for the explanation.? I'll have a go later today or Monday, but I 
will definitely let you know what was the result.


Have a nice week end,

Vincent

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://public.kitware.com/pipermail/rtk-users/attachments/20200828/a8518cf7/attachment-0001.htm>