For giggles, we also discovered that you can deliberately force images to be structurally wacky while still getting high scores on quality metrics (please don't try this at home) (4/5)

Most alarmingly, it turns out that sometimes these metrics tell you that your image has got better after image processing, even when your downstream biological analysis gets worse as a result ☹️ (3/5)

We show that PSNR and SSIM fundamentally suck (technical scientific term there) for fluorescence microscopy in general. They also love processed images - even if those processed images don't look all that great. (2/5)

Had a great time teaching on #SOMC25, including my first ever field trip and resultant microscope-based exposure therapy to try and cure myself of my irrational crustacean phobia

I love everything about this relic I just found at my parents' house. My great uncle Donald met Valentina Tereshkova! Look how happy he is! Look how unimpressed she is with Concorde when she has been into been into actual literal space! Look how mansplainy the caption is!

I have tried 😀 I have failed 😩
This threw an error for our test image (18215x18215 pixels, 3 channels) - I tried massaging the chunk size with no joy. Happy to share the error if it's helpful, but I'm 99% sure that the problem is that I am an idiot and failing to understand something fundamental

Putting the AAAAARRRRRRGGGGHHHH into OME-Zarr

My actual life

I am of course delighted to be here.