Add option to set eta_step size for eta omega maps #573
Conversation
|
Although this works, I found an issue with modifying The problem is that for a detector split in eta, we need to remap the angles to be increasing with no gap. So, for instance, for dexelas, Something in the logic in that function is breaking for small |
psavery
force-pushed
the
eta-ome-maps-eta-step
branch
from
7ee5132
to
afa23aa
Compare
|
@donald-e-boyce This is working now. |
|
For reference, here are eta omega maps produced using different eta steps. A smaller eta step produces a higher resolution along the eta axis. The default eta value is 0.25, and that was hardcoded before this PR. 1.0
0.25
0.05
0.01
|
|
@donald-e-boyce I made your suggested changes and removed the histogramming entirely. It seems to work well! This is ready for your review. |
|
Unfortunately, removing the histogramming appears to have changed two things:
|
It was previously fixed to 0.25 degrees. However, the users may find it beneficial to change this. Smaller eta_step sizes might lead to less overlap between neighboring peaks in the eta omega maps, for example. Signed-off-by: Patrick Avery <patrick.avery@kitware.com>
Smaller values in eta step were breaking the branch cut logic here. The problem is that the arc length was not always less than 1e-4 when the eta_step was small (such as 0.05). It was less than 1e-2, so still close to zero, but not small enough. Then on top of that, some of the ring break logic was not working. To fix both of those issues, we loosen the logic to instead check to see if nearly the whole two pi range is covered, and if there is a big gap. If there is, then we assume it is a branch cut. And we locate the break via the big gap. This worked properly for eta step values from 0.01 to 1 Signed-off-by: Patrick Avery <patrick.avery@kitware.com>
This change was suggested by @donald-e-boyce He mentioned that the whole histogramming should be unnecessary, and we should just simplify the code to not use it. This appears to work properly for the different `eta_step` sizes as before. Thanks Don! Signed-off-by: Patrick Avery <patrick.avery@kitware.com>
psavery
force-pushed
the
eta-ome-maps-eta-step
branch
from
e095e3f
to
a7c79e5
Compare
This is easier than the logic checks we were doing before. Signed-off-by: Patrick Avery <patrick.avery@kitware.com>
|
@donald-e-boyce helped me fix this. The only potential issue is that, for a small eta step, there are some nans on the detector plates. However, indexing still worked fine. We will explore fixing this in the future, if needed. |
It was previously fixed to 0.25 degrees. However, the users may find it beneficial to change this.
Smaller eta_step sizes might lead to less overlap between neighboring peaks in the eta omega maps, for example.