What is the top-level wiki page for this research area?

[Liz Barry]

hi guys, 

quick question, is https://publiclab.org/wiki/near-infrared-camera the top-level page for this research area? I'm trying to figure out where to organize the list of tools that are used for infrared imaging, and what experiments / observations can be done with them. 

Thanks!

--

Liz Barry
director of community development
@publiclab

publiclab.org

+1-336-269-1539

Love our work? Become a Public Lab Sustaining Member today!

[Liz Barry]

maybe its https://publiclab.org/wiki/near-infrared-imaging

--

Liz Barry
director of community development
@publiclab

publiclab.org

+1-336-269-1539

Love our work? Become a Public Lab Sustaining Member today!

[Jeffrey Warren]

I think one issue is that it's never been super well organized, but maybe we should make a new one called "multispectral-photography"? Other ideas?

--
Post to this group at plots-infrared@googlegroups.com
 
Public Lab mailing lists (http://publiclab.org/lists) are great for discussion, but to get attribution, open source your work, and make it easy for others to find and cite your contributions, please publish your work at http://publiclab.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "plots-infrared" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to plots-infrared+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Liz Barry]

Hey folks, 

I have a draft going on https://publiclab.org/wiki/sandbox with the same structure as https://publiclab.org/wiki/spectrometry

Can you click through and give me your quick first responses? Even better if you can send links, or edit in the sandbox directly, and write back here what you did. 

Ned and Chris, i copied you in here by name because you are huge contributors in this area. 

Thinking ahead, after we revise https://publiclab.org/wiki/near-infrared-imaging, we'll go through  

• https://publiclab.org/wiki/near-infrared-camera
  
• https://publiclab.org/wiki/infragram
  

and see where we're at with Jeff's idea of possibly an even higher level page, "multispectral-photography"

--

Liz Barry
director of community development
@publiclab

publiclab.org

+1-336-269-1539

Love our work? Become a Public Lab Sustaining Member today!

On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Jeffrey Warren <jywa...@gmail.com> wrote:

I think one issue is that it's never been super well organized, but maybe we should make a new one called "multispectral-photography"? Other ideas?

On Aug 4, 2016 12:16 PM, "Liz Barry" <l...@publiclab.org> wrote:

maybe its https://publiclab.org/wiki/near-infrared-imaging

--

Liz Barry
director of community development
@publiclab

publiclab.org

+1-336-269-1539

Love our work? Become a Public Lab Sustaining Member today!

On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Liz Barry <l...@publiclab.org> wrote:

hi guys, 

quick question, is https://publiclab.org/wiki/near-infrared-camera the top-level page for this research area? I'm trying to figure out where to organize the list of tools that are used for infrared imaging, and what experiments / observations can be done with them. 

Thanks!

--

Liz Barry
director of community development
@publiclab

publiclab.org

+1-336-269-1539

Love our work? Become a Public Lab Sustaining Member today!

--
Post to this group at plots-i...@googlegroups.com

 
Public Lab mailing lists (http://publiclab.org/lists) are great for discussion, but to get attribution, open source your work, and make it easy for others to find and cite your contributions, please publish your work at http://publiclab.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "plots-infrared" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to plots-infrared+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Liz Barry]

I'm also in the midst of figuring out where the comparison on methods should go like, one camera VS two cameras, or what filter to use for converting your camera if you intend to use a single camera rig or intend to use a dual-camera rig. 

--

Liz Barry
director of community development
@publiclab

publiclab.org

+1-336-269-1539

Love our work? Become a Public Lab Sustaining Member today!

[Ned Horning]

Hi Liz -

Here are some quick thoughts:

For the topic title I like Jeff's idea to broaden the scope but have a slight preference for multispectal imaging instead of photography.

One editorial note is that the "PDF"link in the last paragraph isn't working for me.

A couple sections that could be added are radiometric calibration (converting pixels to physical values) and image stitching/ mosaicking. These are two tasks that folks seem to be interested in applying and we have a few research notes already.

For the comparison of methods we could have a section on camera and filter selection criteria with details about the different options and advantages/drawbacks of each.

That's all for now but and happy to add more if useful.

Ned

[Liz Barry]

Thanks Ned!

I'll go in line (and hope others chime in too!)

For the topic title I like Jeff's idea to broaden the scope but have a slight preference for multispectal imaging instead of photography.

 

Sounds great! a top-level page of publiclab.org/wiki/multispectral-imaging

One editorial note is that the "PDF"link in the last paragraph isn't working for me.

ok will get that 

A couple sections that could be added are radiometric calibration (converting pixels to physical values) and image stitching/ mosaicking. These are two tasks that folks seem to be interested in applying and we have a few research notes already.

Is radiometric calibration for near-infrared imaging, or for spectrometers or...?

search results look like mostly spectrometry https://publiclab.org/search/radiometric

I am imagining that image stitching will go on the main aerial-mapping page, and will include Dan's OpenHour demonstration. Is there any tutorial on image stitching specifically with near infrared images? I have done it a lot to finish last year's wetlands map set, but haven't written up and specific docs for that

 

For the comparison of methods we could have a section on camera and filter selection criteria with details about the different options and advantages/drawbacks of each.

yes -- that would be great. let's think about whether that goes on this overall page, or on the filterpack page -- which is probably what the overall infragram page is evolving to, and this section in particular could host the comparison of filters for us in either a one or two cam setup https://publiclab.org/wiki/infragram#Converting+cameras

That's all for now but and happy to add more if useful.

THANKS!!!! 

--
Post to this group at plots-infrared@googlegroups.com

[Ned Horning]

Hi Liz,

Radiometric correction can be done for spectrometers, cameras, any other instrument recording radiance. The fundamental concept of transforming a measurement value like voltage or pixel value to a physical value such as radiance or reflectance is common to spectrometers and cameras but the way it is implemented is different. Chris (using histogram manipulation via software and white balance) and I (using calibrated targets) have some research notes on camera calibration.

For image stitching I agree that would make more sense in a mapping page and for that it would be good to explicitly include 3D mapping. I'm not aware of any stitching notes focused on IR images.

Ned

[Chris Fastie]

Hi Liz,

It might help me to have a better idea of what your goals are with this reorganization. I'm not sure whether you are laying the groundwork for improving the quality of research notes and/or allowing some research notes to carry more weight or whether this is just an episode of wiki gardening.

If there is going to be a higher level page, e.g., Multispectral Imaging, then the organization of topics will get another shuffle. So it might be good to start with an outline of the desired pages and their hierarchy. I can work on that outline if I have a better idea what the ultimate goal is.

There is also some tension between a presentation of DIY infrared investigation tools and the promotion of products sold in the Public Lab Store. It is completely appropriate to point to Public Lab's commercial products, but when how-to guides for Public Lab products are mixed with an introduction to infrared plant heath analysis the credibility of the information might be compromised.  

The section called "Experiments" has a really long list of research notes and wiki pages. Only a couple of these describe something that was an experiment. I think you have a long term goal of infusing the Public Lab community with a better understanding of what makes a study scientific or rigorous, so we should probably save the term experiment for things that are experiments. The research notes listed include a wide array of observations, descriptions, measurements, and various combinations of these things. These investigations can add to our understanding without requiring the careful structure and control of experiments. It's probably good to encourage an appreciation for the increased power we have to learn things when we control all but a few carefully selected variables and then measure those variables that we did not control. We can learn things when we don't do that, but then it's not an experiment.

Chris

[Liz Barry]

Hi Chris, 

I'd say this is wiki gardening +. 

:)

Generally and overall, we're overdue for updating wiki pages with the progress made in by many people's many efforts. This is the basic gardening process -- combing through notes, updating the overview text on the main wiki pages about what the current state of development is, and what the next challenges are. 

 

Also enough applications are happening / have happened that it's also time to list the activities that people have carried out. They are great "getting started" activities for new people to try out. 

I started this list in the new grid called Experiments. I see the point you are trying to distinguish about "wide array of observations, descriptions, measurements, and various combinations of these things" not being experiments that are set up with controls. I agree and am not disputing this. 

So, i almost can hear people thinking, why am I still using the word Experiment?

It's partially pragmatic and partially aspirational -- meant to encourage us to repeat and refine the activities into experiments. So because the ones we're "seeding" the grid with don't meet that format, it clearly highlights where we can revise or post followups which are formatted more like experiments, and help each other in that reformatting/reposting process. Also, Gretchen and Co. are writing guides for setting up experiments, and that's most of her work directly with offline communities.

About the kits, our intent is for the starter kits to scaffold and support investigation. It's why we make them and use the docs for explaining how to investigate. 

Sincerelymost, 

Liz

--

Liz Barry
director of community development
@publiclab

publiclab.org

+1-336-269-1539

Love our work? Become a Public Lab Sustaining Member today!

[Chris Fastie]

If the goal is to "encourage us to repeat and refine the activities into experiments," then the structure of the list and its introduction should be modified. We might want to call it a list of activities and make sure that everyone understands that particular things are required to make some of them more like experiments.

I can take a look at the things in the list and start to put them in categories (e.g., lesson plans, getting started guides, example applications, interesting observations, structured investigations, field experiments).

Chris

[Jeffrey Warren]

Reporting in from travels, I like the name "activities" as well but I can see the need/appropriateness for both.

I responded to an earlier thread with an idea for a "status" column which could indicate if it's a proposal, a draft, if it's seeking specific kinds of input, etc etc. Regardless of how we display it, well have to make it easier for people to sort to see ones that are being adapted or authored, vs ones that are more ready for reproduction. Tabs or something?

--

[Liz Barry]

+1 "status column" indicating: proposal, a draft, if it's seeking specific kinds of input, etc etc

+1 "category" (or some other name) indicating: lesson plans, getting started guides, example applications, interesting observations, structured investigations, field experiments

I'm +1-ing columns in the table so we can keep this in one table -- the graphic presentation has to be concise or we've lost before even starting. 

--

Liz Barry
director of community development
@publiclab

publiclab.org

+1-336-269-1539

Love our work? Become a Public Lab Sustaining Member today!

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Jeffrey Warren <jywa...@gmail.com> wrote:

Reporting in from travels, I like the name "activities" as well but I can see the need/appropriateness for both.

I responded to an earlier thread with an idea for a "status" column which could indicate if it's a proposal, a draft, if it's seeking specific kinds of input, etc etc. Regardless of how we display it, well have to make it easier for people to sort to see ones that are being adapted or authored, vs ones that are more ready for reproduction. Tabs or something?

On Aug 9, 2016 3:49 PM, "Chris Fastie" <cfa...@gmail.com> wrote:

If the goal is to "encourage us to repeat and refine the activities into experiments," then the structure of the list and its introduction should be modified. We might want to call it a list of activities and make sure that everyone understands that particular things are required to make some of them more like experiments.

I can take a look at the things in the list and start to put them in categories (e.g., lesson plans, getting started guides, example applications, interesting observations, structured investigations, field experiments).

Chris

--

Post to this group at plots-i...@googlegroups.com

 
Public Lab mailing lists (http://publiclab.org/lists) are great for discussion, but to get attribution, open source your work, and make it easy for others to find and cite your contributions, please publish your work at http://publiclab.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "plots-infrared" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to plots-infrared+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[George M. Gallant, Jr.]

I suspect it is an "activity" to someone with Chris's level of expertise but and experiment for someone like me. Who is your intended audience? If it is people getting started or teachers trying to interest a group of students, I would keep the word "experiment".

George

--
Post to this group at plots-i...@googlegroups.com
 
Public Lab mailing lists (http://publiclab.org/lists) are great for discussion, but to get attribution, open source your work, and make it easy for others to find and cite your contributions, please publish your work at http://publiclab.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "plots-infrared" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to plots-infrare...@googlegroups.com.

[Chris Fastie]

George is right that many people use the word experiment to mean something other than a structured scientific test. It is often used to mean "trying something new," like the "American Experiment." To help people appreciate that science has some very well thought out techniques for learning stuff, we should model good behavior and use scientific terms as scientists do. To encourage people to use Public Lab tools effectively we should make a clear distinction between "trying different things" and thinking carefully about what variables should be controlled and what variables should be measured in order to learn what we want to learn.

Trying new things and doing experiments have different consequences. If my 14 year old son experimented with drugs, I would be rather proud of him. If he tries drugs, I would first remind him that it is illegal. If my 14 year old daughter experimented with sex, I would encourage her to publish the results in a peer reviewed journal. If she tries sex, I would remind her of the things she learned in health class and that she and her brother are only 14 years old for crying out loud. (Full disclosure, I don't actually have 14 year old children.)

Let's do what we can to improve the public understanding that scientists do things in particular ways for a reason.

Chris

[Gretchen Gehrke]

Hi Folks, 

I'm new to this particular list and am just now catching up on this conversation. I agree with Chris that in order for something to be an experiment, it has to have a clearly planned experimental design including constants, variables, a hypothesis etc. I think the table should be labeled as "activities" and we can order them according to different categories, like those Chris mentioned (e.g. field test, observation, etc), and I'd like us to distinguish between experiments that test an instrument, versus experiments that utilize an instrument to test something. 

Does anyone want to work together on developing a rubric for categorizing activities? Here's a google doc we can use to get started: 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mqcJP2D00U49ppSFc3IVBpGEGm0Nv-DXwXt8AsBdkQc/edit?usp=sharing 

Maybe we could also sort through some research notes that are emblematic of the different activity categories? 

Best, 

Gretchen

[Jeffrey Warren]

I'd also like to think about (looking ahead to how this'll be displayed, probably using tags):

duration (time commitment) i.e.  [duration:5h]

status: [status:in-progress], [status:draft], [status:...] and some guidelines on a wiki page for what each means and when to use them

What we're talking about here could be denoted with:

[activity:experiment], [activity:field-test], etc? 

maybe [difficulty:easy], [difficulty:hard] as well, though that's subjective. 

Once we have a tag based labeling system we can create some interfaces to more easily mark different activities without having to think of them as tags per se -- and we can get the new wiki page grids to display these values as well as potentially allow folks to "sort by difficulty" or "sort by status". 

Jeff

--
Post to this group at plots-infrared@googlegroups.com

 
Public Lab mailing lists (http://publiclab.org/lists) are great for discussion, but to get attribution, open source your work, and make it easy for others to find and cite your contributions, please publish your work at http://publiclab.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "plots-infrared" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to plots-infrared+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Liz Barry]

Hey all, 

the categories being developed here are looking good: 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mqcJP2D00U49ppSFc3IVBpGEGm0Nv-DXwXt8AsBdkQc/edit

So, i'm working on the grid structure and notice we already used "status" as a column to hold the # of times an experiment has been replicated. I"m gonna change that header to "replications" and use "status" to indicate completeness as discussed earlier in this thread. 

Purpose | Category | Author | Time | Difficulty | Status | Goal

I changed the section name from Experiments to Activities, and added in the line about how the activities can be refined into experiments. 

## Activities

This is a list of community-generated guides for specific applications using your spectrometry setup (either a starter kit or a modded design). Some may be more reproduced -- or reproducible -- than others. Try them out to build your skills, and help improve them by leaving comments. Together, we can repeat and refine the activities into experiments.

I'm gonna make a pass across the top level pages and bring this convo to the main list. 

--

+1 336-269-1539

@lizbarry

On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Jeffrey Warren <je...@publiclab.org> wrote:

I'd also like to think about (looking ahead to how this'll be displayed, probably using tags):

duration (time commitment) i.e.  [duration:5h]

status: [status:in-progress], [status:draft], [status:...] and some guidelines on a wiki page for what each means and when to use them

What we're talking about here could be denoted with:

[activity:experiment], [activity:field-test], etc? 

maybe [difficulty:easy], [difficulty:hard] as well, though that's subjective. 

Once we have a tag based labeling system we can create some interfaces to more easily mark different activities without having to think of them as tags per se -- and we can get the new wiki page grids to display these values as well as potentially allow folks to "sort by difficulty" or "sort by status". 

Jeff

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 9:15 PM, Gretchen Gehrke <gehrke....@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Folks, 

I'm new to this particular list and am just now catching up on this conversation. I agree with Chris that in order for something to be an experiment, it has to have a clearly planned experimental design including constants, variables, a hypothesis etc. I think the table should be labeled as "activities" and we can order them according to different categories, like those Chris mentioned (e.g. field test, observation, etc), and I'd like us to distinguish between experiments that test an instrument, versus experiments that utilize an instrument to test something. 

Does anyone want to work together on developing a rubric for categorizing activities? Here's a google doc we can use to get started: 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mqcJP2D00U49ppSFc3IVBpGEGm0Nv-DXwXt8AsBdkQc/edit?usp=sharing 

Maybe we could also sort through some research notes that are emblematic of the different activity categories? 

Best, 

Gretchen

On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 3:09:45 PM UTC-4, Chris Fastie wrote:

George is right that many people use the word experiment to mean something other than a structured scientific test. It is often used to mean "trying something new," like the "American Experiment." To help people appreciate that science has some very well thought out techniques for learning stuff, we should model good behavior and use scientific terms as scientists do. To encourage people to use Public Lab tools effectively we should make a clear distinction between "trying different things" and thinking carefully about what variables should be controlled and what variables should be measured in order to learn what we want to learn.

Trying new things and doing experiments have different consequences. If my 14 year old son experimented with drugs, I would be rather proud of him. If he tries drugs, I would first remind him that it is illegal. If my 14 year old daughter experimented with sex, I would encourage her to publish the results in a peer reviewed journal. If she tries sex, I would remind her of the things she learned in health class and that she and her brother are only 14 years old for crying out loud. (Full disclosure, I don't actually have 14 year old children.)

Let's do what we can to improve the public understanding that scientists do things in particular ways for a reason.

Chris

--
Post to this group at plots-i...@googlegroups.com

 
Public Lab mailing lists (http://publiclab.org/lists) are great for discussion, but to get attribution, open source your work, and make it easy for others to find and cite your contributions, please publish your work at http://publiclab.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "plots-infrared" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to plots-infrared+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Jeffrey Warren]

Hi, all -- circling back here -- Chris F answered this question that came in this morning, and I realized I wasn't sure if it should be tagged as `question:multispectral-imaging` matching https://publiclab.org/wiki/multispectral-imaging; 

Currently the FAQ on that page is tagged with simply "questioninfragram".

I'm happy to ask this question on Liz's blog post if that's more appropriate?

https://publiclab.org/notes/liz/09-27-2016/what-goes-into-choosing-a-topic-name