Stardust@home Suggestion Thread

Discuss your experiences with and ideas about Stardust@home here.

Moderators: Stardust@home Team, DustMods

dabar
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:13 am
Location: Cagayan de Oro, RP

Zoom Tool for FireFox

Post by dabar »

Image Zoom 0.2.7

I find this tool of considerable use on some images... you know the ones... :wink:

Now, if we only had a CONTRAST tool...

Nikita
DustMod
Posts: 994
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 8:33 pm
Location: Indiana, USA

Post by Nikita »

Some people have noted that the Zoom programs work great, but cause errors when clicking on a track with them. Do you get out of it before you click on a possible track? If not, are you having any errors?
From dust we come

dabar
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:13 am
Location: Cagayan de Oro, RP

No problems with zoomed images... YET

Post by dabar »

So far, when I click on a track while zoomed all seems to work as usual.

I'd hate to think the possible track I just found with high-zoom would be ignored by the system... :(

fjgiie
DustMod
Posts: 1253
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:47 am
Location: Hampton, SC, US

Zooming focus movies

Post by fjgiie »

Hi dabar,

There are no points awarded nor taken away when you judge a real movie, therefore you will not be able to tell if the correct coordinates were sent to the Virtual Microscope. If you click on one of those obvious calibration movies with the screen zoomed, and your score goes down, then you will know that the zoom feature interferes with sending the correct coordinates. You should be able to "go back" and see if the correct coordinates were clicked in firefox. See this link about missing calibration movies.

http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... php?t=1094

If you have a problem missing a calibration movie, zoom back to 100% before you click on any kind of track.

scopdrvr
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 6:26 pm
Location: Lafayette, IN, USA

Suggestion for deeper focus field

Post by scopdrvr »

Many inclusions appear at the bottom of the focus field, and a fair number of movies are "bad focus". For the areas not yet examined, and for the regions that need repeat focus movies, I have a suggestion. Might the team consider increasing the increments between each frame of the focus movie by, say, 25%? With 40 frames in the ideal movie, this would add depth of focus equal to 10 frames. Inclusions generally appear in focus for about 5 frames in depth to my measurement, so this would help us focus through and see many of the inclusions for what they are. Anything first appearing that deep would almost certainly be an inclusion and not a track. I think it would be more productive, since fewer original movies would have to be retaken for "bad focus". Since tracks are much longer, I don't think we would miss any tracks this way, either. Any comments?

GelDelve

Re: Suggestion for deeper focus field

Post by GelDelve »

scopdrvr wrote:Many inclusions appear at the bottom of the focus field, and a fair number of movies are "bad focus". For the areas not yet examined, and for the regions that need repeat focus movies, I have a suggestion. Might the team consider increasing the increments between each frame of the focus movie by, say, 25%? With 40 frames in the ideal movie, this would add depth of focus equal to 10 frames. Inclusions generally appear in focus for about 5 frames in depth to my measurement, so this would help us focus through and see many of the inclusions for what they are. Anything first appearing that deep would almost certainly be an inclusion and not a track. I think it would be more productive, since fewer original movies would have to be retaken for "bad focus". Since tracks are much longer, I don't think we would miss any tracks this way, either. Any comments?
I really like this idea, and would even like to see it increased anywhere from 50% to 100% (that is to say, each frame of a movie would be 1.5 to 2 times deeper than it currently is), rather than 25%, while at the same time reducing the number of frames per movie. At 50%, we might be able to look at 30 frames instead of 40. At 100%, we might be able to look at 25 frames instead of 40. Thus a 50% increase in distance at 10 fewer frames would increase the depth of view by 12.5% and decrease loading time by 25%. At a 100% increase in distance and 15 fewer frames, the depth of view increases by 25% and decreases loading time by 37.5%. Of course the trade off is the greater distance between each frame. In my experience I don't find that I gain a whole lot of knowledge looking just between two adjacent frames, but have to look at a series of at least 3 to 5 or more to make a decision, both about a track and where the surface is.

GelDelve

Re: Zooming focus movies

Post by GelDelve »

fjgiie wrote:Hi dabar,

There are no points awarded nor taken away when you judge a real movie, therefore you will not be able to tell if the correct coordinates were sent to the Virtual Microscope. If you click on one of those obvious calibration movies with the screen zoomed, and your score goes down, then you will know that the zoom feature interferes with sending the correct coordinates. You should be able to "go back" and see if the correct coordinates were clicked in firefox. See this link about missing calibration movies.

http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... php?t=1094

If you have a problem missing a calibration movie, zoom back to 100% before you click on any kind of track.
Someone on this forum pointed out that if you right click the movie frame and click properties, whether in zoom mode or not, and the dimensions shown are not 375 X 500, then any click you make for a track on that movie will likely be errant. I don't know if it is true for firefox, but I do know it is true for IE.

Titanium
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 11:41 pm
Location: Nara, Japan

Post by Titanium »

I apologize if this has already been suggested, but I really can't be buggered to read 17 pages of posts. :oops:

I keep a .rtf file with all the movies I have clicked and a small note about each (such as "probably inclusion" or "upper left"). It would be great if we could have something like this built into the "My Events" page. Just an idea I thought I would toss out there! Cheers!
A journey of 1000 miles begin with just one step.

stardust1
Posts: 161
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 2:08 pm
Location: Germany

Post by stardust1 »

I think it would be great to get a high resolution view of the Phase I candidates listed in the Latest Candidates News. This could help
- to understand what were the features, scientists had looked at
- to compare and interprete the characteristics that can be found in the new 50 micron focus movies in addition to the 2 new samples added to the tutorial.
Thanks
Wir leben in einer Zeit vollkommener Mittel und verworrener Ziele. (Albert Einstein)

Koranzite
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:07 am

Certificate suggestion.

Post by Koranzite »

I think that a good idea would be to implement certificates for how many movies you have viewed, not just your score. :)
E.g: 1000 viewed, 2500 viewed, 10000 viewed ect...

DustSabre
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:51 pm

Post by DustSabre »

NOT a good idea; Then bad dusters who can't figure out which end is up, or a useless computer program that can't find anything, could all achieve great scores.

Domelsmith
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 1:53 pm
Location: Temple, Texas

Post by Domelsmith »

Since I'm about to break into the top 1%, how about certificates for the top 1% ? Shoot, since I wouldn't be doing the work, how about the top 2%, 5%, 10% ?
Domelsmith, Temple, Texas USA

DustSabre
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:51 pm

Post by DustSabre »

True, but the top 1% is always changing to the upside, so the certificate wouldn't be as hard to win as the same certificate later in the project.

derekd
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 6:24 pm
Location: U.K.

focus scale

Post by derekd »

Anyone agree, a horizontal scale may be better?

DustSabre
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:51 pm

Post by DustSabre »

Personally, I like the vertical scale as it is, but maybe that's just me.

Post Reply