[Insight-developers] [GDCM] ITK Origin and coordinate system

[Lorensen, William E (GE, Research)]

itkImage keeps the direction cosines as meta data, but does not use them in transforms between image space and physical space. OrientedImage uses the direction cosines. Both images uses spacing and origin. The reason for two images types is performance. There is a performance penalty in using the direction cosines.

Bill 

-----Original Message-----
From: insight-developers-bounces+lorensen=crd.ge.com at itk.org
[mailto:insight-developers-bounces+lorensen=crd.ge.com at itk.org]On Behalf
Of Gordon Kindlmann
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 7:24 AM
To: Peter Cech
Cc: Bill Lorensen; insight-developers at itk.org
Subject: Re: [Insight-developers] [GDCM] ITK Origin and coordinate
system


hello,

Sorry to be a total pest, but can someone help me understand the  
relationship between

1) itkImage
2) itkOrientedImage
3) The nice mathematical description that Luis previously gave:
>
>        Point = M * S * Index + Origin
>

Peter, can you help me understand what you mean by "local image  
coordinates"?  It is the same as the "Index" that appears in Luis's  
description?

Gordon

On Jan 18, 2006, at 2:13 AM, Peter Cech wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 23:14:13 -0500, Bill Lorensen wrote:
>> In your experiment you must use an itkOrientedImage, not an  
>> itkImage. Is
>> that what you used?
>
> Exactly. My data volumes are not axis-aligned and itkOrientedImage  
> gives
> much better spatial relation between anatomical structures (in global
> coordinates).
>
> itkImage assumes not only volume to be axis-aligned, but local frame
> actually matches global ITK frame. Recent decision to fix global ITK
> frame as LPS breaks this assumption.
>
> We clearly need different treatment of origin in itkImage and
> itkOrientedImage. What about having two representations of origin: in
> global ITK coordinates and in local image coordinates? Local origin
> would be permuted and axis-flipped to match itkImage orientation (for
> axis-aligned images, it's the same as applying direction cosines to
> origin, for the rest permutation+flipping would retain behavior from
> before direction cosines were introduced).
>
> How do you like the idea?
>
> Regards,
> Peter
>
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> At 08:13 PM 1/17/2006, Peter Cech wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 18:06:02 -0500, Bill Lorensen wrote:
>>>> In an experiment I did a few months back, I had 6 MR scans done  
>>>> of the
>>> same
>>>> object in each of the 6 orthogonal directions. I read them in  
>>>> using the
>>>> current GDCMImageIO  (which transforms the origin using the  
>>>> direction
>>>> cosines). All of the volumes roughly lined up without any  
>>>> additional
>>>> transformations.
>>>>
>>>> If I did not apply the direction cosines, the datasets were all  
>>>> shifted.
>>>
>>> I got several MRI scans of head, the same scanning sequence, but  
>>> taken
>>> at various times over last half-year. My experience is exactly  
>>> opposite
>>> to yours. With directional cosines applied to origin, there  
>>> alignment
>>> was very poor (cca. 10cm shift, both in I-S and A-P direction).  
>>> Today I
>>> tried without directional cosines applied to origin and they aligned
>>> much better, maximum shift was around 5cm and only in S-I direction.
>>>
>>>> Go figure,
>>>
>>> Yes, go figure...
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Peter
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Insight-developers mailing list
>>> Insight-developers at itk.org
>>> http://www.itk.org/mailman/listinfo/insight-developers
> _______________________________________________
> Insight-developers mailing list
> Insight-developers at itk.org
> http://www.itk.org/mailman/listinfo/insight-developers

_______________________________________________
Insight-developers mailing list
Insight-developers at itk.org
http://www.itk.org/mailman/listinfo/insight-developers