Hi Volkmar,
Thanks very much for responding. However, we just looked at that, and
this doesn't appear to be the problem. We submitted a mask that is mostly
0's and 1.0s (some values ~0.6 around some edges). But, there are large
regions in which the mask clearly has 1.0s, and which are clearly excluded
in the analysis (i.e., in the mask.img). These also correspond to the usual
susceptibility-prone areas.
Are there other things that you or anyone on the list can think of that
might account for this?
Anxiously awaiting an answer!
David K
|