J. Kissel

Even though we no longer suspect there's anything wrong with the ETMX test mass after discharging on Tuesday and Wednesday (aLOGs with convincing refuting evidence to come from Sheila and Thomas; see claims of suspicion in LHO aLOG 38476), I've gathered some digital red camera images from the camera archive, 
     /ligo/data/camera/archive/2017/09/01/
         H1 ETMX (h1cam25)_2017-09-01-22-04-39.tiff (or without the linux handling of badly used characters 'H1 ETMX (h1cam25)_2017-09-01-22-04-39.tiff')
     /ligo/data/camera/archive/2017/08/29/
         H1 ETMX (h1cam25)_2017-08-29-02-02-08.tiff ('H1 ETMX (h1cam25)_2017-08-29-02-02-08.tiff')

imported them into matlab (I'm still using the workstation's default version 8.0.0.783 [R2012b]), 
    [dcreadout_0829,~] = imread([imageDir{1} 'H1 ETMX (h1cam25)_2017-08-29-02-02-08.tiff']);
    [dcreadout_0901,~] = imread([imageDir{2} 'H1 ETMX (h1cam25)_2017-09-01-22-04-39.tiff']);

and subtracted the images, 
    difference_ETMX = (dcreadout_0829 - dcreadout_0901);

and plotted them, e.g. 
    figure(1);
    imagesc(dcreadout_0829);
    colormap(gray);

just to see if there were any major changes in point scatters because of the TMDS use.

There is no major change in point scatters as a result of the use of the TMDS system on ETMX.