-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
New rendering settings specification #55
Comments
other elements like mapping family needs to be added: this assumes linear mapping Introducing an experimental branch will make sense otherwise we will have a long open PR |
A few high-level thoughts, I think the development workflow will come across several repositories (ome/omero-cli-zarr#88 is another example). Completely fine from my side with having an experimental/development branch where PRs get integrated more quickly. A few additional considerations:
|
Maybe for default dimensions, this might be nicer:
Also, note the discussion of naming style at ome/ngff#54 |
for the naming discussion, I am wondering if we should not follow the schema.org rule i.e. |
concept of group should be supported. We will need support for multiple groups
|
Looking at the BDV xml files, they need support for |
The physicalSizeX etc. will need to be known for scale bar but I assume that will be stored elsewhere in the file |
Resolution level, viewport could be considered |
@jburel If you're suggesting that the ngff spec uses a different naming convention than |
My comment is more general that this specific issue. The suggestion of following schema.org is coming from the fact that others efforts e.g. bioschema.org, ro-crate follow that convention so it might make more sense to follow similar rule instead of the |
There's a pretty good likelihood that we will eventually want to incorporate schema.org types into our metadata, but that's true for other ontologies & vocabularies as well. The likelihood of being able to find a set which follow the same naming style is basically zero. |
I am currently looking at https://www.ebi.ac.uk/spot/oxo/docs/api for a project: |
With the recent suggestions added, it would look like these:
Not sure where to put the |
A few initial thoughts while reading #55 (comment) (without having looked at the notes):
|
You're right, color as dictionary is better. And default Z/T (dimensions/axis) should be part of the I struggle a bit with a further generalisation of the dimension/axis bit. In general the axis are XYZTC (or whatever order). But they are not the same kind of thing. Channel is a special dimension, and you also still need the concept of a plane, plus extra dimensions. Right? But then @jburel said instead of channels one could also have angles (sorry I still don't really get this bit). Anyway, at the moment it would look like this: Another example
|
That's a good question too. I don't think we've discussed that yet. |
Currently, it looks like if the number of Apologies for missing any discussions on this, but what does
|
You need to somehow specify that you're viewing a x,y plane and that the further dimensions are labelled as z and t (in exactly that order). This axis list looks good. But is that ordered? And how would you in that case say you want to show the x,y plane for z-axis 3 by default for example? |
The |
But still needs a |
I think that |
I thought the point was to keep things as generic as possible, no matter what's currently supported by our or other software. But if we define the plane is always x/y and the axis are always z and t - like it is now - then this whole discussion is pointless and we can basically take the current output of the render plugin as rendering settings spec (just have to change a few names like |
plane cannot default to |
Just a quick, perhaps unrelated question: Is the idea that tool-specific (e.g. rendering specific) metadata becomes part of the "official" ngff spec? I'm wondering because I created this issue with regards to tool-specific metadata. Sorry if this has been answered already elsewhere. |
I don't see why coefficients is a list. if you have a mapping function that takes more than one parameter it will have to be a dictionary. The proposal is mixing 2 concepts:
|
Looking at the BDV example,
|
As the axis definition is apparently already in the "general" ngff spec, we might as well use the axis names z, t for the plane and defaultIndices instead of indices. I don't know where/what kind of dictionary this @unidesigner : Yes, it's going to be an ngff specfication, but as far as I know there will be places for tool specific metadata too. Updated example:
|
As mentioned during the call, angle is a new dimension so I have replaced |
From discussion today it should probably be
|
|
Fixing a few things:
edit: @will-moore I have added angle so people don't think we dropped it during our brainstorming |
I removed angle since it's not yet allowed as a dimension type by the spec v0.3 or v0.4 proposal at https://github.com/ome/ngff/pull/57/files#diff-ffe6148e5d9f47acc4337bb319ed4503a810214933e51f5f3e46a227b10e3fcdR214 |
For the spec that we propose when ready we can omit angle if we are not ready at the ngff spec level yet. |
With the current specification in mind
|
One remaining question is about the LUT, it is currently identify by a name. Is that acceptable? or do we want to ship the binary? A viewer will still need to be able to read the LUT. I think the name of the
|
@will-moore I have added a new parameter |
Suggestion from @chris-allan: use term |
Discussion about RGB support, possible options:
"defaultIndices": [null, 0:2, null, null, null], see also AllenCellModeling/aicsimageio#165 |
We could support this with |
Comment from @joshmoore
|
for (1)&(2) I think we need to review how we can extend when it comes into play. Initially it was |
(3)
|
I've just noticed that |
@will-moore Thanks for checking. This could be a limiting factor for the |
In napari, the vizarr has no 'rgb' mode |
I think the |
Following today's discussion
RGB case could possibly be covered:
|
Other option for RGB is to use a view per channel (as suggested previously) and combine the views in an RGB group Last point: drop ColorModel |
Latest example from today's discussion
RGB example
Summary
|
I still think the
|
Thinking about it other use cases might need some "group" flexibility e.g. FLIM with "small t"
cc @will-moore |
Final proposal before migrating to ngff issue.
RGB example
|
This issue has been mentioned on Image.sc Forum. There might be relevant details there: https://forum.image.sc/t/saving-volumetric-data-with-voxel-size-colormap-annotations/85537/28 |
I suppose we can just close this now @jburel ? bioformats2raw seems to put the rendering settings already in the .zattrs anyway, guess that's the spec then. |
Indeed, it's already in the spec: https://ngff.openmicroscopy.org/latest/#omero-md . |
I understood the purpose of this work was to replace the |
The render plugin is a good starting point to play around with different ideas. Wonder if we should have an 'experimental' branch maybe? /cc @jburel @dgault @francesw
Here's a first attempt, kind of a hybrid of the current render plugin output and the current NGFF draft specification
(code see draft PR #54 ):
Instead of
defaultZ/T
it's more genericdefault-dimension-
and what the dimensions actually mean is specified indimensions
, what a plane actually means likewise inplane
. Also the color can be more generic. See above for the common html color specification, but it could also hold lookup tables (e.g. specified by aname
or maybeurl
, etc.), e.g.Edit: Actually
default-dimension-
should better be a list, not several keys.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: