## 5 Results
The top image shows a discontinuity in two of the three dips at two thirds of the full length: the recrystallization was somehow distorted. Nothing happens on the bottom image where the single crystal is the same for the whole length. The central image shows the distribution of the dips at the height of the dendrite, showing the presence of several localized dips related to the spurious single crystal areas misaligned with respect to the bulk. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline Sampling Area & Dip Position & Dip Gaussian & Reflection & Relative \(\theta\) & Reflection & Relative \(\theta\) \\ and Dip Reference & (Å) & Width (\(\sigma\)) & Lattice Plane & Tilt (hyp. 1) & **Little Plane** & **(hyp. 2)** \\ \hline spot free \#1 & 3.762 \(\pm\) 0.002 & 0.072 \(\pm\) 0.005 & d\({}_{111}\) & 64 & & \\ \hline spot free \#2 & 2.933 \(\pm\) 0.002 & 0.081 \(\pm\) 0.004 & d\({}_{111}\) & 45 & d\({}_{200}\) & 54 \\ \hline spot free \#3 & 2.788 \(\pm\) 0.003 & 0.080 \(\pm\) 0.007 & d\({}_{111}\) & 42 & d\({}_{200}\) & 50 \\ \hline spot free \#4 & 2.517 \(\pm\) 0.004 & 0.07 \(\pm\) 0.02 & d\({}_{200}\) & 44 & d\({}_{220}\) & 80 \\ \hline dendritic branch \#1 & 3.594 \(\pm\) 0.002 & 0.091 \(\pm\) 0.004 & d\({}_{111}\) & 59 & d\({}_{200}\) & 59 \\ \hline dendritic branch \#2 & 3.15 \(\pm\) 0.01 & 0.10 \(\pm\) 0.01 & d\({}_{111}\) & 49 & d\({}_{200}\) & 61 \\ \hline dendritic branch \#3 & 2.863 \(\pm\) 0.001 & 0.085 \(\pm\) 0.002 & d\({}_{111}\) & 43 & d\({}_{200}\) & 52 \\ \hline dendritic branch \#4 & 2.547 \(\pm\) 0.002 & 0.072 \(\pm\) 0.004 & d\({}_{200}\) & 45 & d\({}_{220}\) & 85 \\ \hline end cap \#1 & 3.757 \(\pm\) 0.001 & 0.083 \(\pm\) 0.002 & d\({}_{111}\) & 64 & & \\ \hline end cap \#2 & 3.471 \(\pm\) 0.001 & 0.069 \(\pm\) 0.003 & d\({}_{111}\) & 56 & d\({}_{200}\) & 74 \\ \hline end cap \#3 & 3.237 \(\pm\) 0.001 & 0.071 \(\pm\) 0.003 & d\({}_{111}\) & 51 & d\({}_{200}\) & 64 \\ \hline end cap \#4 & 2.972 \(\pm\) 0.001 & 0.092 \(\pm\) 0.003 & d\({}_{111}\) & 45 & d\({}_{200}\) & 55 \\ \hline end cap \#5 & 2.797 \(\pm\) 0.003 & 0.075 \(\pm\) 0.008 & d\({}_{111}\) & 42 & d\({}_{200}\) & 51 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Results of the fitting negative Gaussian peak fitting of the dips shown in Figure 2. The reported values are the wavelength, the dip width and the possible relative plane families originating the scattering, including the scattering angle values as obtained by the Bragg law taking into account the ideal pure Cu lattice parameter, 3.6147(2) Å. In order to try to visualize on a 3D image the differently recrystallized areas, especially concerning the branched dendritic structure, we selected two specific wavelengths in which the radiographies showed the dendrite was (partially or completely) well visible, aiming to perform two monochromatic tomographies. The selected wavelengths are \(\lambda\) = 3.60 A and \(\lambda\) = 3.75 A showing, respectively, a clear image of the dendrite on the right side and the final end of the dendrite on the left side (see Figure 1B,C). The monochromatic tomography reconstructions at the two selected wavelengths both exhibited the presence of the branched dendritic structure with a slight difference in their spatial localization as if the high contrast of the dendrite taken on the two tomographies were slightly misaligned. A 3D view of the tomography reconstruction showing the high contrast areas attributed to single crystals are shown in Figure 4. The volume of the rod is visualized using the _volume rendering module_ of 3D Slicer [20,21] that on one hand is guaranteed to maintain the same contrast as the projection but allows on the other hand selection of specific areas of the grey tones scale (dynamic range) to make them transparent. The volume of the single crystal branch was enhanced by segmentation module exploiting the thresholding algorithm to select the specific high contrast volume and in order to fill some gaps in the model, the growing function was also used.