| 12 | | The second image shows the ratio of the "observed" to variance image variances, along with a CDF of the singly detected objects present in the box considered for the profile as a function of x-position. It appears that we find more of these objects (which are believed to be largely false detections) in areas where the variance image underestimates the true image variance. |
| | 12 | The second image shows the ratio of the "observed" to variance image variances, along with a CDF of the singly detected objects present in the box considered for the profile as a function of x-position. It appears that we find more of these objects (which are believed to be largely false detections) in areas where the variance image underestimates the true image variance. This can be seen in an example cell from OTA67 (which the above plots are taken from): As the x-coordinate increases, the row-by-row variations increase as well, creating a higher-than expected variance. |
| | 13 | [[Image(OTA67xy71.png,400px)]] |
