Reproduction of ODP-PIV from the 1998 “Particle Image Velocimetry with Optical Flow” paper

[quenot]

Original article: Quénot, Georges & Pakleza, Jaroslaw & Kowalewski, Tomasz. (1998). Particle Image Velocimetry with Optical Flow. Experiments in Fluids. Volume 25, Issue 3, pp 177–189. 10.1007/s003480050222.

PDF URL: http://mrim.imag.fr/georges.quenot/rescience/jeif98/ReScience_C_ODP_PIV.pdf Metadata URL: http://mrim.imag.fr/georges.quenot/rescience/jeif98/metadata.yaml Code URL: https://github.com/quenot/opflow/tree/master/jeif98

Scientific domain: Image Processing Programming language: ANSI C Suggested editor:

[rougier]

Thanks for your submission. We'll assign a editor soon.

@delsuc @khinsen @pdebuyl Can any of you edit this (late) submission for the tern years reproducibilioty challenge?

[delsuc]

Hello, I will edit this submission - sorry for the delay.

[delsuc]

@bsciolla or @soolijoo could one of you review this submission ?

[delsuc]

@bsciolla or @soolijoo gentle reminder...

[soolijoo]

I'm sorry I don't have the bandwidth or the expertise for this. You'll have to find someone else.

[delsuc]

thanks @soolijoo for the fast answer - @bsciolla ? One review is enough for a Reproduction paper.

[rougier]

Maybe @emmanuelle would be interested in reviewing this paper in image processing.

[pdebuyl]

@MathieuLeocmach ?

[MathieuLeocmach]

Hey, why not. I'm not an expert in the theory of image processing, but indeed I am chewing on exactly that problem right now. Can you point me to explanations of what is expected from a review here?

[rougier]

Here are the instruction for review https://rescience.github.io/edit/. But you can of course adapt them. Since all reviews are public, you read others at https://github.com/ReScience/submissions/issues?q=is%3Aissue to give you an idea.

[rougier]

@delsuc @MathieuLeocmach Gentle reminder

[MathieuLeocmach]

Sorry, I slept on this one. I read the original paper and the paper before my holidays, and then ...

I have an issue with the way the repository is organised: the code is archived in a tgz rather than living in the git repository. Of course, I can unpack it myself, but changes or improvements will be more difficult to track. @quenot can you update your repository with the unpacked code?

[delsuc]

same here - sorry - :-/

[quenot]

Hello,

Thanks for the feedback. I unpacked the archives and made a few improvements, including adding the scripts for running the experiments.

Best regards,

Georges.

Le 09/09/2020 à 22:31, Mathieu Leocmach wrote:

Sorry, I slept on this one. I read the original paper and the paper before my holidays, and then ...

I have an issue with the way the repository is organised: the code is archived in a tgz rather than living in the git repository. Of course, I can unpack it myself, but changes or improvements will be more difficult to track. @quenot https://github.com/quenot can you update your repository with the unpacked code?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ReScience/submissions/issues/43#issuecomment-689805067, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AHH7KGVCUAWV5MV33RMRGD3SE7Q2FANCNFSM4M5WYVAQ.

-- Dr. Georges Quénot - Directeur de Recherche CNRS Laboratoire d'Informatique de Grenoble - Équipe MRIM - Bureau 349 Bâtiment IMAG - 700 avenue Centrale - CS 40700 - 38058 GRENOBLE CEDEX 9 Email: [email protected], Tel: (33-4) 57 42 15 48

[delsuc]

Thank you @quenot , @MathieuLeocmach any chance to look at this ?

[MathieuLeocmach]

I'm still looking at it, but I suggest a few ergonomic improvements:

• have compilation instructions in the readme.md (make -f makelinux all in each folder)
• have ./ or source prepended to all bash script call within bash script. Having #!/bin/bash should have been enough, but it's not on my platform (debian linux). For example, if I run bat8.sh, it's not able to call table1-2.sh

Edit: also, the link to the PDF file of the reproducibility paper is now broken. I think the reproducibility paper should be included in the git repository, side by side with the PDF of the original paper.

[khinsen]

@delsuc @MathieuLeocmach What's the status of this review? It's been dormant for 280 days.

[bkmgit]

Nice article. Could run the code and obtain tables 1 and 2 from the original paper. Can provide a further review if needed.

[quenot]

Dear Benson, This was a while ago, thanks a lot for reactivating this for me. Besides the pandemics, I had personal difficulties for some times and later I found it a bit hard to resume it. I have seen messages indicating that you worked on improving my scripts as initially requested by the reviewers, thanks also for that. I suppose that I should check and validate your modifications but am not a git expert and I am not sure about how to do it. Best regards, Georges.

[bkmgit]

Thanks for your message. Perhaps download the zip file at https://github.com/bkmgit/opflow/archive/refs/heads/script-updates.zip If they seem ok, you can merge the pull request.

There is a tutorial on git at https://swcarpentry.github.io/git-novice/

For merging see https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/collaborating-with-pull-requests/incorporating-changes-from-a-pull-request/merging-a-pull-request#merging-a-pull-request

The second modification uses Guix, but can be examined once bash scripts are validated to run.