Hi, You're right, it's better to cover slightly more than 360 degrees if the scanner follows the same piece of trajectory at the beginning and at the end (on a circle since you're using FDK). Rotation angles are currently forced between 0 and 2 pi, see here <https://github.com/SimonRit/RTK/blob/master/src/rtkThreeDCircularProjectionGeometry.cxx#L103>. I think you can feed RTK with unordered projections, it will order them to compute angular gaps between the projections. See code here <https://github.com/SimonRit/RTK/blob/master/src/rtkThreeDCircularProjectionGeometry.cxx#L430-L484>. My advice is to quickly write a simulation code with a sample geometry to check that you obtain the expected results. Keep us posted if something does not work as expected, Simon
On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 7:19 PM Benjamin W. Maloney via Rtk-users < rtk-users@public.kitware.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I had a question about the angular arc of projections fed into > the ThreeDCircularProjectionGeometry to be used in an FDK Cone Beam > Reconstruction. > > The hardware for the CT system I'm using is not capable of moving exactly > 360 degrees as part of a scan. If I know the angular step well is it better > for the projections to cover slightly less or slightly more than 360 > degrees? > > Can RTK handle arcs larger than 1 full rotation or arcs slightly less than > 1 full rotation without errors? > > My assumption is that slightly largely is best to avoid artifacts but I > want to verify that RTK can handle larger rotations without errors > > Best, > Ben > > _______________________________________________ > Rtk-users mailing list > Rtk-users@public.kitware.com > https://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/rtk-users >
_______________________________________________ Rtk-users mailing list Rtk-users@public.kitware.com https://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/rtk-users
