Previous Message | Next Message Previous in Topic | Next in Topic Previous by Same Author | Next by Same Author Previous Page (August 2003) | Back to Main IMAGEJ Page
	Reply | Post a New Message | Join or Leave IMAGEJ, or Change Options | Search
	Chronologically | Most Recent First | Wrap Text (Proportional Font) | Don't Wrap Text (Non-proportional Font)

Content-Language: en
Priority: normal
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-ID:  <[log in to unmask]>
Date:         Fri, 15 Aug 2003 15:41:24 +1000
Reply-To:     ImageJ Interest Group <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       ImageJ Interest Group <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Miss Marita Goodwin <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Quantitation of pixel intensities

Hi Bryan, thanks for replying so promptly.  Of course, the mean*area will give me exactly what I want.  Thanks.

With the division though, if I divide an image that is very bright, it represents the total fluorscence of the cell (the average pixel intensity is say around 200) and I divide that by the same image but one that represents a slice of the cell, therefore is a lot less bright (say average pixel intensity is around 10), I still get basically a two toned (black and white) image, I've lost all the grey scale.  The clincher was when I divided the same image by itself (therefore each pixel in the resulting image should equal one) I should have got either a totally white or a totally black image(whatever one was supposed to equal).  However, this wasn't the case.  I still got a mixed black and white image that looked exactly how my sample images looked. It didn't seem to matter what I divided, I got the same resulting image.  It just had me a bit baffled.  Anyway, I should get the data I need from the pixel mean*area so thanks for you help.

Regards,

Marita

Center for Information Technology National Institutes of Health Bethesda, Maryland 20892 301 594 6248 (v) 301 496 8294 (TDD) Comments and Assistance Accessibility