Improve com crop#350
Merged
Merged
Conversation
…k. The mask now also consistently uses <=.
Collaborator
Author
|
@cjh1 This looks good to go on my side. I tested it on some other data sets. I am not sure how to run the tests though. If this is good then we can merge and cut a new release. |
Member
|
@ercius Once this is merged I will cut a release. |
Member
|
I have cut a release that contains these changes. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I previously used a square mask to reject electrons outside the central beam. This is not ideal. I thought that making a radial mask would be slow, but it turns out to be slightly faster per frame. I estimate about 4 seconds saved for a medium sized 1kx1k sparse dataset and a more accurate measurement. Win-win!
This needs to be tested before merging. Ill update when it looks good to merge.