Hi @rposert!
I also used the same fulcrum in the new refinement job (162, 169, 93), and in the volume cross-section images output during the refinement, the fulcrum seems to be positioned where I would expect it to be.
The threshold of 0.01 for dynamic masking was determined by trial-and-error. The original job was run in the local refinement version where “static” masking wasn’t implemented, and even if chosen as a parameter would be ignored by the local refinement job (also discussed in this thread). The rationale for using such a low threshold for dynamic masking was that my region of interest was very flexible with respect to the “core” that the NU refinement was predominantly aligning to, meaning the blobby density of my ROI would only be “visible” at low threshold. The default dynamic masking parameters, were shrinking the input mask dramatically in the first couple iterations because a significant portion of the ROI was below the default 0.2 (or was it 0.1?) threshold. With 0.01, the input mask was being dilated every iteration in the regions there were largely ordered, but the final refinement mask didn’t extend too far beyond the inital input, and also gave me the best results among the values I tried.
Here’s what the refinement masks from the final iterations look like:
Legacy job:
New job where I tried to replicate:
It seems, with the same dynamic masking parameters, the “new” mask looks much wider than the old one.
Perhaps, using the “old” final refinement mask as a static mask in the new job will yield a comparable result? I will give this a try and let you know.