[IGSTK-Developers] Image file format

[Kevin Cleary]

Hi guys

I agree with Luis on this one - I like to stick with DICOM because it is
also traceable from the header - meaning I can tell on what scanner and
where it came from

Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: igstk-developers-bounces+cleary=georgetown.edu at public.kitware.com
[mailto:igstk-developers-bounces+cleary=georgetown.edu at public.kitware.com]
On Behalf Of Luis Ibanez
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 3:32 PM
To: Andinet Enquobahrie
Cc: 'IGSTK-developers'
Subject: Re: [IGSTK-Developers] Image file format


Hi Andinet, Julien,

Adding fileformats different from DICOM will compromise the
safety level of IGSTK.

Having gdcm in ITK we can save any image in DICOM format.

You can convert your MetaImage file in to DICOM by using
the examples in Insight/Examples/IO.  Then load that DICOM
file into your IGSTK application.


I would suggest that we stick to supporting *only DICOM*
as the only format that is safe enough for being used in
the surgery room.


The MetaImage format has the recent addition of anatomical
information and orientation, but those entries are optional.

MetaImage doesn't carry information about PatientName, or patient
ID, which makes it extremely dangerous in a clinical environment.

It would be too easy to load the image of the wrong patient,
and an IGSTK application would not have a way of raising a flag.


Also, in its current state it is too easy to modify a MetaImage
headers with an editor and to corrupt a file.


Please remember that the conveniences that you may want
to have while you are developing prototypes for research,
are the same risky operations that can harm a patient during
an actual surgical intervention.  IGSTK is not supposed to
behave like Matlab.



    My 2 Cents,


      Luis



-------------------------
Andinet Enquobahrie wrote:
> Julien Jomier wrote:
> 
>> Andinet,
>>
>> The liver MR has been converted to isotropic voxels and saved as 
>> MetaImage. Looking at the igstkMRImageReader class, this one derives 
>> from DICOM image reader, so right now I don't know how to read an MR 
>> volume using MetaImage.
>> Should I create an igstkMetaImageMRImageReader class?
> 
> 
> Julien,
> 
> As we chatted on IM and agreed,  I think igstkMetaImageReader class 
> templated by image type would be fine unless the other developers think 
> of a different approach.
> 
> -Andinet
> 
>>
>> The ultrasound images are in the spatialobject file format right now. 
>> I can try to convert them to metaImage or just read them directly 
>> since IGSTK seems to support several file formats.
>>
>> Let me know,
>>
>> Julien
>>
>> Andinet Enquobahrie wrote:
>>
>>> Julien,
>>>
>>> The image reader classes are designed in such a way that we can also 
>>> support non-DICOM images. The Dicom image reader class is derived 
>>> from the "ImageReader" superclass which you can use to derive a 
>>> MetaImageReader class.  Are your Ultrasound images in MetaImage forma?
>>>
>>> -Andinet
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Andinet
>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> Are we going to support only DICOM for image reading?
>>>> I've a MetaImage file that I want to read in (from the original 
>>>> dicom but preprocessed). I can convert it to DICOM but I'd rather 
>>>> read it in directly.
>>>>
>>>> thanks for the input,
>>>>
>>>> Julien
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> IGSTK-Developers mailing list
>>>> IGSTK-Developers at public.kitware.com
>>>> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/igstk-developers
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IGSTK-Developers mailing list
> IGSTK-Developers at public.kitware.com
> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/igstk-developers
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
IGSTK-Developers mailing list
IGSTK-Developers at public.kitware.com
http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/igstk-developers