No subject

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.

--f46d042ef47949693504c5adcc75
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Folks,<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><br>Sorry for the late answer, I wa=
s not quite able to reach a descent connexion during my trip.<br><br>From w=
hat I remember and what I just checked quickly: <br><br>The &quot;<i>itkIma=
geToTubeRigidRegistration</i>&quot; is the re-factored and cleaned version =
of the initial one given the exact same results while the &quot;<i>itkImage=
ToTubeRigidRegistration</i>2&quot; is a modified version of this previous c=
lass.<br>

This last one is supposed to be better as described here: (<a href=3D"https=
://docs.google.com/open?id=3D1psAY1BKx2pEfVPDF4S-xwHOuSP4Mrp7AxQXErgmmQvHth=
A-LvFauCEdfpQQs" target=3D"_blank">https://docs.google.com/open?id=3D1psAY1=
BKx2pEfVPDF4S-xwHOuSP4Mrp7AxQXErgmmQvHthA-LvFauCEdfpQQs</a>).<br>

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 f=
irst and as you are saying: <br><div class=3D"im"><br><blockquote style=3D"=
margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-lef=
t:1ex" class=3D"gmail_quote">

Comparing the output of the tests, the registered tube resampled onto<br>
an image, the &quot;2&quot; result does not resemble the input image (as fa=
r as<br>
I can tell).<br></blockquote></div><div>--&gt; See Image enclosed. <br></di=
v><br>I just have some trouble to explain this as the performance measureme=
nt on the second metric seems to be more accurate and following a &quot;mor=
e&quot; coherent curve and equations compared to the initial one (c.f. prev=
ious link &amp;&amp; enclosed convergence curves). I was thinking about fir=
st making the read of the &quot;.tre&quot; file to be able to make some vis=
ual comparisons; I am really open to any explanations/ideas about why the r=
esults are that &quot;bad&quot; given the new metric.<br>

<br>Then, concerning the ability to read a &quot;.tre&quot; file into a vie=
wer, 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 integrati=
on with a MRML scene.<br>

Thank you to let me know if the plan suits you and do not hesitate for any =
comments/suggestions.<br><br>Regards,<br>Michael J-L.</div><br>

--f46d042ef47949693504c5adcc75--