While helping to set up PicassoPy for lacros2 I encountered several channels not yet recognized by the channel flags of PicassoPy, mainly:
"FR-total-353 nm" --> Rotational Raman channel for 355 nm."FR-460 nm" --> The florescence channel- and the second
"FR-total-532 nm" channel in lacros2, ei, the one with heigh intensity.
In order to encourage further development of modules like florescence and rotational Raman, these channels flags should be implemented alongside a way of separating them in the config files.
Additionally, the naming scheme of the rotational Raman channels should be made more consistent. Currently the flag for the rotational Raman channel for 1064 nm (FR-total-1058 nm) is named flag_1058_total_FR while the one for the 532 nm channel (FR-total-530 nm) is named flag_532_rr_FR. Removing the rr option form the channel type and instead using the actual wavelength to separate the channels would be more consistent with the naming scheme for the rest of the channels.
While helping to set up PicassoPy for lacros2 I encountered several channels not yet recognized by the channel flags of PicassoPy, mainly:
"FR-total-353 nm"--> Rotational Raman channel for 355 nm."FR-460 nm"--> The florescence channel"FR-total-532 nm"channel in lacros2, ei, the one with heigh intensity.In order to encourage further development of modules like florescence and rotational Raman, these channels flags should be implemented alongside a way of separating them in the config files.
Additionally, the naming scheme of the rotational Raman channels should be made more consistent. Currently the flag for the rotational Raman channel for 1064 nm (
FR-total-1058 nm) is namedflag_1058_total_FRwhile the one for the 532 nm channel (FR-total-530 nm) is namedflag_532_rr_FR. Removing therroption form the channel type and instead using the actual wavelength to separate the channels would be more consistent with the naming scheme for the rest of the channels.