help
help > RE: Parameterization
Dec 14, 2016 09:12 PM | Hugh Wang
RE: Parameterization
Originally posted by Trina Du:
I got same problem like Trina's. I got worse ADC after running the excise 3.2. The b01-l-hippo-CALD-smo ADC is 9793.8, far away from 1.31 in the documentation.
My workstation is running 64bit Ubuntu 16.04, Matlab R2016a,
Thanks in advance!
Hugh
Hi Pauline,
I have come across a similar problem. It has to do with the sprintf() function in thenew version of MATLAB no longer taking sparse matrices as input arguments. I think it can be solved by by chaging theta and phi to full matrices.
Things seems to run OK after this. My current problem is actually in the optimzed parameterization step, where I an not getting the same ADC with the example data as shown in the documentation. It would be great if you could let me know whether you encounter the same issue.
Hope that helps!
Trina
I have come across a similar problem. It has to do with the sprintf() function in thenew version of MATLAB no longer taking sparse matrices as input arguments. I think it can be solved by by chaging theta and phi to full matrices.
Things seems to run OK after this. My current problem is actually in the optimzed parameterization step, where I an not getting the same ADC with the example data as shown in the documentation. It would be great if you could let me know whether you encounter the same issue.
Hope that helps!
Trina
I got same problem like Trina's. I got worse ADC after running the excise 3.2. The b01-l-hippo-CALD-smo ADC is 9793.8, far away from 1.31 in the documentation.
My workstation is running 64bit Ubuntu 16.04, Matlab R2016a,
Thanks in advance!
Hugh
Threaded View
| Title | Author | Date |
|---|---|---|
| pauline maillard | Jan 27, 2012 | |
| Trina Du | Feb 3, 2012 | |
| Hugh Wang | Dec 14, 2016 | |
| Vera Gramigna | May 9, 2014 | |
| Xin Kang | Jul 21, 2013 | |
| Li Shen | Jul 21, 2013 | |
| pan hong | May 2, 2013 | |
| Li Shen | Feb 6, 2012 | |