[Insight-users] IJ Test that will fail

[Kevin H. Hobbs]

On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 15:15 -0400, Wes Turner wrote:
> Just for clarification.  When I read the initial post, my assumption
> was that the difference between the parallel and serial results was
> due to a different ordering of operations and was not necessarily a
> "real" error.  I.e. while the serial and parallel results could be
> different, they could both be equally valid.  Is this the case, or is
> it in fact a true failure in the parallel implementation?
> 
> 
> - Wes

I have to call it real error because it's big, I don't know what's
causing it, and I can't make it go away.

Having said that I don't care about it very much because :

I'm trying to do fast marching in parallel. 

The error shows up in background pixels near the piece boundaries.

I'm interested in the pixels in the dendrites with values less than a
few hundred, so differences of thousands in the background where values
are stratospheric don't concern me. ( that was a mouthful )

I can't say that somebody else won't care though. ( image compare sure
freaks out )
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://www.itk.org/pipermail/insight-users/attachments/20091026/83c710f2/attachment.pgp>