Re: dicomscope 3.6.0 / debian package
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Andreas Tille <tillea@rki.de> wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jan 2009, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
...
>> Any other "DICOM viewer" I have seen out-there are at best buggy (in
>> debian distrib). dicomscope is the only viewer that actually
>> implements the DICOM standard (esp. Presentation State). I was getting
>> annoyed seeing packages claiming being to be "DICOM viewer", so I
>> decided to work on dicomscope to provide a pretty darn good
>> alternative to expensive vendors specific system (PACS).
>
> Did you made up your mind about kradview? At least it is actively
> developed.
> I started with the packaging after I came back from Malaga where I met
> upstream, but have stalled the work (for a reason I do not remember -
> probably because I moved gnumed-server on top of my todo list and come
> back if nobody else steps in).
Just for the French people on this list, don't you like the sound of
this package name :)
Short answer: if this not based on David Clunie / OFFIS or GDCM then I
can pretty much guarantee this is buggy. I opened their dict and found
out they do not support properly private tags. Briefly looking at the
code, they only support a very limited subset of the DICOM standard
(rle, jpeg and explicit)
If I find some time, I'll setup a page referencing all the bugs from
kradview, but it really looks like yet another 'gdcmviewer' like
program, just a very simple Pixel Data loader. The page looks like a
personal page, where is the src code (+revision tool) ? where is the
bug tracker ? where is the wiki ?
I maintain a page of nightmarish DICOM file image at (also called
DICOM hall of shame):
http://apps.sourceforge.net/mediawiki/gdcm/index.php?title=gdcm:Supported
And a tarball of DICOM file to test the conformance of a viewer at:
http://apps.sourceforge.net/mediawiki/gdcm/index.php?title=General_questions#What_is_gdcmConformanceTests_.3F
the first one (hall of shame) is hard to support, I agree, but if they
fail on most of gdcmConformanceTests then the viewer if pretty much
useless.
Most people think DICOM is just a file format for image, but that
means they discard: Curve, Overlay, VOI LUT (not to mention non-image
type DICOM file)... which completely modify interpretation of the
image, pretty dangerous for medical images, right ?
Sorry to sound so negative/arrogant, but that's the truth.
--
Mathieu
Reply to: