[Tubetk-developers] itkImageToTubeRigidRegistration2

[Michael Jeulinl]

Hi Folks,

Sorry for the late answer, I was not quite able to reach a descent
connexion during my trip.

>From what I remember and what I just checked quickly:

The "*itkImageToTubeRigidRegistration*" is the re-factored and cleaned
version of the initial one given the exact same results while the "*
itkImageToTubeRigidRegistration*2" is a modified version of this previous
class.
This last one is supposed to be better as described here: (
https://docs.google.com/open?id=1psAY1BKx2pEfVPDF4S-xwHOuSP4Mrp7AxQXErgmmQvHthA-LvFauCEdfpQQs
).
It is the one I would like to be the right one (I may have to go through an
other clean step however), nevertheless I was waiting for some feedbacks
first and as you are saying:

Comparing the output of the tests, the registered tube resampled onto
> an image, the "2" result does not resemble the input image (as far as
> I can tell).
>
--> See Image enclosed.

I just have some trouble to explain this as the performance measurement on
the second metric seems to be more accurate and following a "more" coherent
curve and equations compared to the initial one (c.f. previous link &&
enclosed convergence curves). I was thinking about first making the read of
the ".tre" file to be able to make some visual comparisons; I am really
open to any explanations/ideas about why the results are that "bad" given
the new metric.

Then, concerning the ability to read a ".tre" file into a viewer, It is
exactly what I am currently working on. I will create a specific module to
get the reading and representation done as well as the integration with a
MRML scene.
Thank you to let me know if the plan suits you and do not hesitate for any
comments/suggestions.

Regards,
Michael J-L.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://public.kitware.com/pipermail/tubetk-developers/attachments/20120725/a5ab36f2/attachment.html>