|Tracking|| Main project page|
Previous entry Next entry
I've been looking over my sub.vis in my program since Koch and I figured out a more interesting way to create these fake images. And i have found some bugs in these .vis. Not exactly bugs but things that could have screwed me up. These sub.vis i guess aren't robust enough nor are they intuitive. I made them early on just to see if i can. and now it is like full steam ahead with we are gonna so i think i am gonna just scrap everything and start over. I'll still have the main things written but i am gonna have to rip things apart and make it smarter this time around. That is the major problem from these old programs i wrote is that they aren't smart. But i just don't have the energy for that today. So this might have to wait for after san fran. Since next week i gotta spend the time on the poster.
So I don't forget in the course of the two weeks of not being able to do this (possibly because of too much alcohol consumption) I should write down Koch and mine new idea for this fake image making deal.
We want to place airy discs along the microtubule. Each airy disc represents a dye and each one's intensity will add together along the microtubule and create the image we see. Koch and I have some things to iron out like high res and low res and the best way to go about it. but I can start at the very least of making adding airy discs along the mirotubule and seeing basically what it'll look like.
This is where i found the bad programming i did earlier. I run the .vi to find the airy disc formula once and then just keep shifting the origin of it around. This wasn't easy to do with the old way i had the sub.vi set up. I can do this pretty easily if i turn it into an image and then use shift the image. But that won't work if i want to add pixel intensity together. But once i sit down and actually think about this i might be able to get it done. I just don't wanna think about it now.
Another thing i might have the x and y coordinates of the Airy Disc mixed up. It is possible since the function has circular symmetry. But I do stupidly make 2-d arrays out of the x and y points when 1-d arrays for both would be fine. Or just combining them into a 2-d. but i probably made the 2-d array so i was able to make the 3-d image that i had in my notebook way back in November 2009. that makes sense but it isn't useful now so a new .vi might be more so.
Steve Koch 17:08, 13 February 2010 (EST): Thoughts from our meeting yesterday: