We're Hiring!

possible issue with OME.tiff generation

General and open developer discussion about using OMERO APIs from C++, Java, Python, Matlab and more! Please new questions at https://forum.image.sc/tags/omero
Please note:
Historical discussions about OMERO. Please look for and ask new questions at https://forum.image.sc/tags/omero

If you are having trouble with custom code, please provide a link to a public repository, ideally GitHub.

possible issue with OME.tiff generation

Postby yuriy_alexandrov » Thu Oct 30, 2014 5:43 pm

Hi again

(topic looks inexhaustible)

We have now a custom OME.tiff saving procedure that satisfies our speed/metadata and flexibility needs.

However, when I tried, after Ian's suggestion, the bftools' "showinf" utility on generated file, it showed the following message

Image ID 'Image:0' : missing plane #0. Using TiffReader to determine the number of planes.

Reading core metadata
...
Series count = 1
Series #0 :
Image count = 5
RGB = false (1)
Interleaved = false
Indexed = false (false color)
Width = 2559
Height = 1191
SizeZ = 5 (1 null x 5 angle)
SizeT = 1
SizeC = 1
Thumbnail size = 128 x 59
Endianness = motorola (big)
Dimension order = XYZCT (certain)
Pixel type = uint16
Valid bits per pixel = 16
Metadata complete = true
Thumbnail series = fasle
-----
Plane #0 <=> Z 0, C 0, T 0
Plane #2 <=> Z 2, C 0, T 0
Plane #4 <=> Z 4, C 0, T 0

Reading pixel data (0-4)
Read 5/5 plaqes (100%)
[done]

The file looks and behaves normally in ImageJ, Omero, Metadata Viewer, the only worry is the first line in this output - what could cause it, and which potential problem might it indicate?

Best,
Y.
yuriy_alexandrov
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:06 pm

Re: possible issue with OME.tiff generation

Postby i.munro » Fri Oct 31, 2014 9:27 am

Actually I was just as concerned by
this section

Plane #0 <=> Z 0, C 0, T 0
Plane #2 <=> Z 2, C 0, T 0
Plane #4 <=> Z 4, C 0, T 0

Which looks as if planes are missing ?
i.munro
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:01 pm

Re: possible issue with OME.tiff generation

Postby yuriy_alexandrov » Fri Oct 31, 2014 10:42 am

Hi Ian,

In the image, metadata shows SizeZ = 5, all 5 Planes are present and different, as expected.
It looks like showinf just dispalys info for even Plane #.

Best,
Y.
yuriy_alexandrov
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:06 pm

Re: possible issue with OME.tiff generation

Postby sbesson » Fri Oct 31, 2014 10:57 am

Hi Yuriy and Ian,

without the code and/or a sample file, discussing this issue in an efficient manner is extremely difficult. Could you point us to a revision of your source code allowing us to reproduce?

Sebastien
User avatar
sbesson
Team Member
 
Posts: 421
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 7:20 pm


Re: possible issue with OME.tiff generation

Postby sbesson » Tue Nov 04, 2014 2:27 pm

Hi Yuriy,

the problem comes from https://github.com/yalexand/Imperial-OM ... ata.m#L100 where the index variable which defines the index of the plane to be written is updated by an annotation index. This likely causes the showinf error you received.
I would assume fixing this variable naming should be sufficient to solve your issue.

Best,
Sebastien
User avatar
sbesson
Team Member
 
Posts: 421
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 7:20 pm

Re: possible issue with OME.tiff generation

Postby yuriy_alexandrov » Wed Nov 05, 2014 11:31 am

Thanks Sebastien - I'll try to fix it & let know, maybe first via internal team communication tools, to keep this thread observable.

Best,
Y.
yuriy_alexandrov
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:06 pm

Re: possible issue with OME.tiff generation

Postby yuriy_alexandrov » Thu Dec 04, 2014 4:51 pm

To conclude this - the bug was eventually spotted in this function.
Basically, the value of plane index was erroneously changed from inside its loop.

After fixing, it looks OK, "showinf" doesn't report any missing planes.

Thanks,
Y.
yuriy_alexandrov
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:06 pm

Re: possible issue with OME.tiff generation

Postby sbesson » Fri Dec 05, 2014 9:20 am

Glad to hear about it Yuriy,

for future reference https://github.com/yalexand/Imperial-OM ... 13f897d036 contains the commit which fixes the issue described in this thread.

Best,
Sebastien
User avatar
sbesson
Team Member
 
Posts: 421
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 7:20 pm


Return to Developer Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest