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