Colin Bergeron wrote:
The second option works well for me especially that I do have some sections scanned to higher resolution. There are also minor drawbacks. For example, the point labels are lost when creating a mean value curve. Also, when you match the 2 parts and no ring overlap (stop measuring at one ring and start at the next one), it creates a zero ring in the normalized curve of the mean value. It disappears after you save the .wid file and reopen it. Would it be a better strategy to have some overlapping measured rings when matching the 2 parts of the same radius
I see no reason why not to make the measurements overlap each other! I usually do it that way. Is there any drawback?
The other question, on lost labels from .pos-files when converting to a mean value curve:
That could be fixed by saving them in some new format for the .wid-files, but that does not solve the problem when putting the .wid-files into a collection.
These labels can indeed be exported from a collection into a tabular format text file but only if the collection is based on .pos-files!
To make ring-labels (point-labels) appear in .rwl or .fh files we have to start using special formatted comments that register this ring specific information.
In a future these problems might be solved with the DCCD xml-format - though 1. we do not yet have support for that in CooRecorder/CDendro
and 2. we probably nevertheless need a standardization of that xml data to take care of such labels.
The only quick solution to handle the case of several .pos-files for one radius is probably to extend the .wid-file format.
Though is this really such a requested solution that I should fix it?
Then, question is whether somebody has written another program that reads CDendro .wid-files and would be influenced by such a change?