Page 1 of 1
JPEG auto-sizing in web browser...
Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 1:13 am
by Antw1
When previewing images in a web browser MRI display fine (256x256), US are good (640x480), CR are HUUUUGE (2256x2876) !!
That extreme close-up is startling...
How hard would it be to have the images automatically resized to something reasonnable like 500x500 ?
This would be really neat, since we often convert our images to JPEG to email them to colleagues for second opinions.
Please give it a thought.
Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 4:33 am
by pacsone
This may be one of the drawbacks for displaying converted JPG files on a browser, versus viewing the raw images from a stand-alone viewer. Since the conversion/processing is done on the server, which has no idea what kind of display hardware (video card, video memory or color depth) is available on the PC where the browser is located.
Using a fixed image size (e.g., 500x500 pixels) probably will not make all users happy, since some users may prefer to view the original images if they have a large display/monitor.
A stand-alone viewer or maybe a Java applet viewer is better suited for image presentation/processing functionalities, since they're running on the local PC and can take better advantage of the display hardware.
Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 6:15 am
by Antw1
I see.
But still, even on our 5 MP grayscale LCD these jpeg are about 4 times the size of the actual window !
The screen is 20.8 in. diagonal. So it would like looking at 2 1/2 ft. diagonal picture !
If you choose the Online Image Processing you add a second behemoth of same dimensions next to it, which will not resize.
It's an awful lot of scrolling for having just a cursory look at an image before downloading it eventually.
It is hard for me to fathom who may want to look at a billboard with a magnifying lens...
So please keep this in mind, in case you come across a fix.
Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 7:48 am
by Jonathan
I can imagine people who do want to do so... for instance in our institute where we are using PET/CT images to contour tumours for radiotherapy treatment. It is nice to see whether there is a small methastasis some where.
IMHO Pacsone is a dicom storage server and therfore the view capabilties should not be the main issue. Use a sepperate dicom viewer for that after (temporarily) downloading the image(set) to the system with the viewer. I don't think image processing should be done on the server, there are better more capable systems for that with better calculation power and more memmory. A server is for storing information you would like to retrieve and a workstation is for editing/modifying/viewing these retrieved images.
Jonathan
Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 12:45 pm
by Antw1
Again, previewing full size the image is to just have a better look at the radiograph, before deciding wether or not downloading it and viewing. Certainly not to make a diagnosis.
And as it is, with a 17 in. diagonal display, you only se about 1/8th of an image at a time, which is really not that useful, for a preview.
And I agree that an oncologist may want to zoom in very closely on an image, but only with adequate diagnostic display and software...
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 7:50 am
by Guest
It is a painful experience in previewing large image such as mammograms in our case. However, like most PACS servers, pacsone is a storage management system. It's somehow inappropriate for it to do image manipulation to satisfy all viewing requirements.
For your case, you can use a Java applet solution provided by pacsone or the third party to solve your problem.
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 2:07 pm
by Antw1
I understand that PacsOne is not a diagnostic imaging software...
My point is, we often send images to colleagues for a second opinion. In which case we're faced with two options: either we burn a CD which contains an imaging software (eFilmLite) and mail it, or we email a JPEG which will be viewed at best with the Windows Imaging tool.
The first case is fine, as long as time is not a constraint, except we realized a lot of people are not confortable with an advanced imaging software, not to mention they often use inadequate computers. A common complaint is the images take a long time to load. Yes, there is still, even in this country, a LOT of smart people that are not that computer litterate! Browsing the web is Ok, using Photoshop is not Ok...
The second option is equivalent to viewing images through PacsOne. So why bother spending the time converting a DICOM image to email it when people can simply log onto a 'Guest' account with a 'Phony' password where they, at least, will be provided with basic specific tools for medical images (invert, enhance, ...). That is unless they have to scroll all the way down to discover these tools, and all the way to the right to click on the button (when the label is so way out of sight you don't even remember which button you need to click...).
Finally, there is plenty of web pages displaying large JPEG which auto-size to a best fit, so it doesn't seem to me as such an arduous task (but, of course, I have no idea on how to do that...). Even ImageMagick as a topic about displaying large JPEGs.
So again, my only critic (constructive, I hope) about PacsOne, is the way large JPEGs are handled in a web browser. Other than that, truely, that software is a two thumbs up!!
Viewer
Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2004 7:14 am
by diegog
Some one test MyFreePACS with Pacsone server?
While Pacsone in much better PACS server, MyFreePACS have a nice viewer that include MPR and does not have any problem displaing large images such a MG (digital mammography) and CR.