TL;DR;
It would be nice to save processed versions, e.g. projections of 3D volumes, in the same zarr structure as the acquired raw data.
The forum thread discusses this in the context of HCS plates and out of three options the following option, suggested by @imagejan, seems to be the most favored one:
The new sub-group is another multi-scale image. In the case of projections it would have one dimension less than the original raw data.
The content and name of the sub-group should not be fixed. The spec should be general enough such that we could store any kind of processed data. It would be nice to cover the following use-case as well:
@jluethi suggested to add the information of these sub-groups to the multiscales list in .zattrs. This would allow consumers to know about the different sub-groups by only parsing .zattrs.
The plate.zarr/A/1/0/.zattrs for the second example would then look like this:
This issue started as a discussion on image.sc.
TL;DR; It would be nice to save processed versions, e.g. projections of 3D volumes, in the same zarr structure as the acquired raw data.
The forum thread discusses this in the context of HCS plates and out of three options the following option, suggested by @imagejan, seems to be the most favored one:
The new sub-group is another multi-scale image. In the case of
projections
it would have one dimension less than the original raw data.The content and name of the sub-group should not be fixed. The spec should be general enough such that we could store any kind of processed data. It would be nice to cover the following use-case as well:
@jluethi suggested to add the information of these sub-groups to the
multiscales
list in.zattrs
. This would allow consumers to know about the different sub-groups by only parsing.zattrs
.The
plate.zarr/A/1/0/.zattrs
for the second example would then look like this:Looking forward to develop this further and extending the ome-zarr spec :balloon: