Diffusion Processing Pipeline/bugs and feature requests: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
* <tt>mrifilt3</tt> | * <tt>mrifilt3</tt>, <tt>mricrop</tt>, <tt>mrisubset</tt>, and possibly others mangle the parameters file. In particular, if you operate on a DWI, the output won't have the b matrix recorded. Also the <tt>MRISpaceShift</tt> just gets clobbered to 0 0 0. A workaround right now is to just copy the old image's parameters file, but the latter two programs change the scale and offset. | ||
* Streamtube generation gets slower and slower as the program runs. What's going on? Is it running out of memory, reading inefficiently through a big file, doing something probabilistic that gets less likely the more tubes there are? We need a speedup! | * Streamtube generation gets slower and slower as the program runs. What's going on? Is it running out of memory, reading inefficiently through a big file, doing something probabilistic that gets less likely the more tubes there are? We need a speedup! | ||
[[Category:Diffusion MRI]][[Category:Bug Tracking Pages]] | [[Category:Diffusion MRI]][[Category:Bug Tracking Pages]] | ||
Revision as of 22:44, 9 November 2008
- mrifilt3, mricrop, mrisubset, and possibly others mangle the parameters file. In particular, if you operate on a DWI, the output won't have the b matrix recorded. Also the MRISpaceShift just gets clobbered to 0 0 0. A workaround right now is to just copy the old image's parameters file, but the latter two programs change the scale and offset.
- Streamtube generation gets slower and slower as the program runs. What's going on? Is it running out of memory, reading inefficiently through a big file, doing something probabilistic that gets less likely the more tubes there are? We need a speedup!