Hi all, Here is my poster :) Best, Sebastian Hambura Software Engineer Robert Prevedel Group Cell Biology and Biophysics EMBL Heidelberg Meyerhofstraße 1 69117 Heidelberg, Germany Am 12.11.2025 um 17:48 schrieb Robert Prevedel via Software:
Hi Pierre,
thanks for accommodating - to quickly answer some points:
-) Maybe call it ‘package’ instead of environment?
-) for the last comment reg. establishing BLS as standard: Maybe better to just say “we enable reproducable and standardized ways to store, process and visualize BLS data."
I’ll disregard your comment about that "there’s no need to use Brim for Brillouin imaging as everything that can be done with Brim can be done with HDF5_BLS (but not the other way around).” Hopefully we can move past this tug-of-war at some point? It is really frustrating and will certainly not help the paper and larger goal that we both have in mind.
Best, Robert -- Dr. Robert Prevedel Group Leader and Senior Scientist Cell Biology and Biophysics Unit European Molecular Biology Laboratory Meyerhofstr. 1 69117 Heidelberg, Germany
Phone: +49 6221 387-8722 Email: robert.prevedel@embl.de http://www.prevedel.embl.de
On 12.11.2025, at 17:25, Pierre Bouvet via Software <software@biobrillouin.org> wrote:
Hi @ll
- Logo: I changed the logo to have “Data” in the title. Here are the SVG file I used with the 3 variations for Brim and Brimview (the text in the file on the drive appeared crooked on my computer). - “HDF5_BLS project” vs “HDF5_BLS”: I think it’s important to differentiate the module that deals with the format from the project. The project aims at unifying the processing of data and can be discussed/worked on whereas the format is a fixed solution I propose that can serve as the basis for the aim of unifying the community. In the context of this poster, I believe it’s important to keep the distinction. If you don’t like “project” I could use “framework”, “environment” or “solution” instead, I’m open to any other suggestions - BrimX: I’ve added a reference to BrimX in the text box, but the title has to be “HDF5_BLS” since this is the name of the Python module. - "relevant metadata”: added - last sentence of FAQ: removed. I initially added that sentence to try and underline a potential benefit of Brim over HDF5_BLS. Currently, I have a few Gb of Brillouin images stored in HDF5 files so from a purely technical point of view, there’s no need to use Brim for Brillouin imaging as everything that can be done with Brim can be done with HDF5_BLS (but not the other way around). Where Brim shines (I think) is in the idea of having a dedicated way of storing hyper spectral images and in the ability of opening them directly as hyper spectral images on a dedicated interface, something that I think doesn’t exist yet (or at least I haven’t found it). This I think benefits mostly the end users that are not familiar with BLS rather than us who already have hundreds (if not thousands) of scripts able to deal with BLS data and the knowledge to rapidly assess what went wrong on occasional outliers. - “establishing BLS as standard”: I agree, the formulation is too strong. What do you think of “we move towards validating the potential of BLS as a new standard for the quantification of mechanical properties” -> the goal is to contrast with the introductory frame where I underline the differences between measures we report (although not directly) in the consensus paper.
Best,
Pierre
/Pierre Bouvet, PhD/ /Post-doctoral Fellow/ /Medical University Vienna/ /Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology/ /Wahringer Straße 13, 1090 Wien, //Austria/
<collaboration-logo.svg> <Poster_v3.pdf>
On 12/11/25, at 15:26, Robert Prevedel <prevedel@embl.de> wrote:
_______________________________________________ Software mailing list -- software@biobrillouin.org To unsubscribe send an email to software-leave@biobrillouin.org
_______________________________________________ Software mailing list --software@biobrillouin.org To unsubscribe send an email tosoftware-leave@biobrillouin.org