Closed aTrotier closed 7 months ago
I have not used PV360 and thus cannot really comment. It depends on how much changed whether to write a dedicated constructor. If there are only slight changes it is better to locally dispatch on ACQ_sw_version
.
I will try to reconstruct the flash sequence with 3 encoding:
I think that will cover most of the case and give a good vision about the new implementation. For the SMS case, I don't know how it is managed in the MRD format.
Error are from that line :
findfirst_(A, v) = something(findfirst(isequal(v), A), 0)
line="<Plateforme d'imagerie biomédicale Bordeaux Cé>"
j=findfirst_(line,'>')
line[2:j-1]
which returns the error
ERROR: StringIndexError: invalid index [48], valid nearby indices [47]=>'é', [49]=>'>'
The problem is related to ASCII / UTF-8 number of bytes (see)
I can use : prevind(line,49)
rather than j-1
@aTrotier: can this issue be closed?
yes
Le jeu. 7 déc. 2023 à 09:22, Tobias Knopp @.***> a écrit :
@aTrotier https://github.com/aTrotier: can this issue be closed?
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/MagneticResonanceImaging/MRIReco.jl/issues/157#issuecomment-1844874076, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AC5P7O6TSJHL7OQ25GRIT7DYIF4C3AVCNFSM6AAAAAA5SHLC3CVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTQNBUHA3TIMBXGY . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>
TROTIER Aurélien 31 allée de la Biotte 33470 Gujan-Mestras 06.09.12.61.61 @.***
We have upgraded one of our scanner with the Paravision version PV360.3.4 (the other one is still in PV6.0.1) I am able to read the method file but I have an issue when reading acqp :
I'll try to fix the jcampdx function but standard sequences also changed. For example Bruker now has the possibility to use Compressed-sensing and SMS in the FLASH sequence.
Should I try to keep a unified function RawAcquisitionDataFid for both PV360.X.X and PV6.0.X ?
I think it will be easier to create a dedicated
RawAcquisitionDataFid
function and dispatch with the fieldACQ_sw_version
rather than trying to unify both versions :@tknopp @alexjaffray are you still using Bruker systems ? Any thoughts about this ?