Closed tischi closed 3 years ago
The latter approach has the advantage that it fits better the structure of the other transformations that we currently have.
Yes, I like the second approach.
From discussion with @tischi:
We will just have a grid
transformation with position
as optional field.
If position
is given, the sources will be arranged accordingly. If not, they will be arranged automatically, as in the previous autoGrid.
@constantinpape
In general, to ease the discussions: sourceDisplay
= imageDisplay
| segmentationDisplay
.
The grid views in the current example don't contain a sourceDisplay
, but I realized that they MUST (or at least SHOULD), because only sources mentioned in the sourceDisplay
are shown (in the grid).
That also means that the source names given in the sourceTransformations
MUST occur in an sourceDisplay
. We could alleviate this to SHOULD
and then ignore the ones that are not to be displayed during the process of source transformation.
The grid views in the current example don't contain a
sourceDisplay
, but I realized that they MUST (or at least SHOULD), because only sources mentioned in thesourceDisplay
are shown (in the grid).That also means that the source names given in the
sourceTransformations
MUST occur in ansourceDisplay
. We could alleviate this toSHOULD
and then ignore the ones that are not to be displayed during the process of source transformation.
I think we should leave it at MUST, I will update the grid views in the example to also include the correct sourceDisplay
.
I have updated the example accodingly.
@constantinpape
I think for the multi-well plate transforms we may have to use something else but
autoGrid
, because it can be that certain wells are missing (i.e. have not been acquired). We thus probably have to explicitly specify to which row and column the respective images have to go. Probably we should look at what the currently proposal for NGFF is and maybe lean on that.Posting here what the NGFF currently has:
Maybe we should do something similar, e.g., calling it
grid
(without theauto
):or
The latter approach has the advantage that it fits better the structure of the other transformations that we currently have.
For the situation where there are multiple sites per well, we could do a similar nested grouping of grids as discussed in the autoGrid: https://github.com/mobie/mobie.github.io/issues/24