|
Am Freitag, 1. Januar 2021, 09:34:58 CET schrieb Sonali Warunjikar: > On Fri, Jan 01, 2021 at 08:28:21AM +0100, Karsten Hilbert wrote: > > > Yes, it's now closer to a real X ray. The Dr still sees some problems, > > > but > > > I think it will need some experiments with exposure, brightness and > > > contrast. > > > > Typically, there's presets for those but as a doctor one always plays > > with them such settings during the diagnostics process. > > > > So, I suppose finding suitable defaults is useful but then > > one should strive to convert the data to a more conventional > > format, say, some DICOM variant and feed that to Orthanc for > > storage and to Ginkgo CADx / Aeskulap / your-favourite-viewer > > for image display. They offer controls for adjusting exposure, > > brightness, and contrast. > > > > I can ascertain one _needs_ to adjust those dynamically :-) > > What I am told is, the defaults of the proprietary software are pretty > good and often don't need much adjustment. But with the images we are > getting now we tried in gimp and exposure, brightness, contrast could be > adjusted to get satisfactory view. Probably those settings should be > applied to the image up front (say using ImageMagick or otherwise) - > besides the viewer will have those options. > > I am not finding a case for taking pains to convert it to DICOM as long as > I get all the controls over a png - for example with gimp. Some advance > use cases in other walks of radio imaging benefit (3D, playing a sequence > of images etc) but for general dentistry not sure whether we need those.
The use case for converting to DICOM could be :
1.) standard based "image" storage and sharing 2.) image manipulation with standard (any) DICOM viewer out there
Tools like this make the conversion process easy
https://support.dcmtk.org/docs-dcmrt/img2dcm.html
or this
|