Hi Nick,
On Tuesday 12 May 2009 15:39:47 Nick Schmansky wrote:
> Martin,
>
> That etiv number seems high. Does the -tal-check stage pass? did you
> rerun the -segstats stage? that calculates etiv.
The data were first pushed through the whole FS pipeline in 2006. As I look at
the recon-all.log
Martin,
That etiv number seems high. Does the -tal-check stage pass? did you
rerun the -segstats stage? that calculates etiv.
Nick
On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 15:04 +0200, Martin Kavec wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> but I am running 4.3.0
>
> Thanks,
> Martin
>
> On Tuesday 12 May 2009 14:55:05 Bruce Fisch
Bruce,
but I am running 4.3.0
Thanks,
Martin
On Tuesday 12 May 2009 14:55:05 Bruce Fischl wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> I'll leave this for Nick, but we fixed the atlas eTIV calculations in the
> new version. Not sure which step you need to rerun though.
> Bruce
>
_
Hi Martin,
I'll leave this for Nick, but we fixed the atlas eTIV calculations in the
new version. Not sure which step you need to rerun though.
Bruce
On Tue, 12 May 2009, Martin Kavec wrote:
Hi Bruce,
On Tuesday 12 May 2009 13:28:36 Bruce Fischl wrote:
Hi Martin,
there are probably some
Hi Bruce,
On Tuesday 12 May 2009 13:28:36 Bruce Fischl wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> there are probably some files it wants to see early in the stream that
> didn't exist in 2006. I think the only cure is to string together the
> individual commands you want to run (you can find them in the recon-all
>
Hi Martin,
there are probably some files it wants to see early in the stream that
didn't exist in 2006. I think the only cure is to string together the
individual commands you want to run (you can find them in the recon-all
help).
cheers,
Bruce
On Tue, 12 May 2009, Martin Kavec wrote:
Hi B
Hi Bruce,
-make all is not really helping; recon-all starts from the beginning. However,
in these subjects I did not run the whole pipeline. In fact, here is what I
did with the subjects: in 2006: recon-all -all, and in 2009:
recon-all -autorecon2 -autorecon3, where the autorecon3 failed. It se
Many thanks for so fast responce, Bruce!
I will give -make all try again tomorrow on few of the latest "unsuccessful"
completes.
Thanks,
Martin
On Sunday 10 May 2009 22:07:58 Bruce Fischl wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> -make all is what we would suggest. Is there any reason the timestamps
> would be
Hi Martin,
-make all is what we would suggest. Is there any reason the timestamps
would be wrong on your files to make make all rebuild everything?
cheers,
Bruce
On Sun, 10
May 2009, Martin Kavec wrote:
Hi,
I have a bunch of analyzes (about 30), for which recon-all -all terminates
prematu
