Re: [Freesurfer] Error using -nonuintensitycor

2025-04-01 Thread Jeffrey Spielberg
External Email - Use Caution Hi all - just wondering if any workaround had been identified for this error. I'm reattaching the recon-all.log in case it's helpful On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 9:51 AM Jeffrey Spielberg wrote: > Yup - here you go > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 9:14 AM Jef

[Freesurfer] freesurfer 8

2025-04-01 Thread Gregory Book
External Email - Use Caution I'm attempting to run freesurfer 8 on debian 12. Are there any tips on making the Ubuntu package work on debian? or Is there a freesurfer 8 docker container out there? ___ Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@n

Re: [Freesurfer] FS8.0 Patch - Next Step Clarification

2025-04-01 Thread Huang, Yujing
Hi Carly, Can you be more specific about the missing values, the bug, and the script that you patched? Thanks. Yujing From: freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu On Behalf Of Carly McIntyre-Wood Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 12:16 PM To: freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu Subject: [Freesurfer] F

Re: [Freesurfer] Error using -nonuintensitycor

2025-04-01 Thread Huang, Yujing
I’m afraid that recon-all can’t be run with ‘-nonuintensitycor’ specified. From: Jeffrey Spielberg Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 9:41 AM To: freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu; Huang, Yujing Subject: Re: Error using -nonuintensitycor External Email - Use Caution Hi all - just wondering if a

[Freesurfer] FS8.0 Patch - Next Step Clarification

2025-04-01 Thread Carly McIntyre-Wood
External Email - Use Caution Hi there,   I have run FS8.0 on around 200 participants and, upon generating my stats, came upon the known bug. I have since run the patch script and it is now working.   Is there a quicker way to generate those missing values than rerunning autorec

Re: [Freesurfer] Error using -nonuintensitycor

2025-04-01 Thread Jeffrey Spielberg
External Email - Use Caution I'm confused: -nonuintensitycor is listed as an option in the recon-all help, and recon-all does accept it as an argument (i.e., on line 6575 of recon-all, which is relevant for line 2050 and after). So it seems to me that there must be a bug in 1 of t