Forum Replies Created

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Feedback #22006

    magnunor
    Participant

    The calibration field is useful, but I think it would be better to have checkboxes for the more standard EELS post-processing steps: aligning core loss to zero loss peak, remove power law background, … Like currently is being done with the deconvolutions. This would be useful for example in HyperSpy, where it would be useful to know what kind of processing has been done to a dataset, without having to manually parse a freehand string. This could again be useful for doing some “big” data processing of several datasets.

    Also, sorry for uploading more datasets with the “energy range” bug. I don’t even have DM on my computer these days 🙂 I don’t know if there is some simple way to export it from HyperSpy so it plays nice with EELSDB.

    in reply to: Feedback #21922

    magnunor
    Participant

    After checking the spectra in “Spectrum Awaiting Moderation” page again, the dispersion in the visualizations are also wrong. While the offsets are correct.

    in reply to: Feedback #21920

    magnunor
    Participant

    Some more feedback:

    I’ve uploaded some spectra exported using HyperSpy into .msa, and in the “Spectrum Awaiting Moderation” page the energy ranges and dispersion are very wrong: “123567.93 eV – 502537.81 eV”. The visualization of the spectra is correct.

    Also the “Calibration” tag should have some more information about what is appropriate to put there. Aligning zero loss peak while acquiring the data? Aligning it afterwards by acquiring quasi-simultaneously the zero loss peak, then using some kind of alignment tool?

    There could also be some post-processing tags for core loss spectra. Like: PCA, zero loss peak sub-pixel alignment, background subtraction, …

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)