From Cyril.Mory at philips.com Wed Apr 10 05:59:49 2013 From: Cyril.Mory at philips.com (MORY, CYRIL) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 09:59:49 +0000 Subject: [Rtk-users] SART vs FDK Message-ID: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74C3F@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Hi, I'm wondering whether the reconstruction results I get with SART and FDK are normal or not. I've performed reconstructions of a moving Shepp and Logan phantom, using 308 projections equidistributed on a 360? circular trajectory. The phantom is fully contained in the FOV. I've used the default projection and back projection operators for both SART (30 iterations of SART instead of the default 5) and FDK. And there are very noticeable differences outside the FOV, especially at the edges of the projection cone, where SART produces high errors while FDK doesn't. Is this a normal behavior ? I'm using these reconstructions to initialize an iterative algorithm, and my real data is truncated, so I'd prefer to use SART than FDK. These high errors outside the FOV make me hesitate, though. SART : [cid:image002.jpg at 01CE35E2.1DE522C0] FDK : [cid:image004.jpg at 01CE35E2.1DE522C0] Regards, ========================================== Cyril Mory PhD student at Philips Medisys and CREATIS Groupement Hospitalier Est H?pital Cardiologique Louis Pradel Laboratoire CREATIS - B?t. B13 CNRS UMR5220, INSERM U1044, INSA-Lyon, Univ. Lyon 1 28, Avenue du Doyen LEPINE 69677 Bron cedex FRANCE Office : +33 4 72 35 74 12 Cell : +33 6 69 46 73 79 ________________________________ The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 92933 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 74939 bytes Desc: image004.jpg URL: From simon.rit at creatis.insa-lyon.fr Wed Apr 10 08:54:03 2013 From: simon.rit at creatis.insa-lyon.fr (Simon Rit) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:54:03 +0200 Subject: [Rtk-users] SART vs FDK In-Reply-To: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74C87@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> References: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74C87@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Message-ID: Hi, This is a difficult question and I don't know the answer. I think what you observe is the famous edge artifact of SART reconstructions. My feeling is that that one can not trust values outside the FOV in any algorithm. I would mask the FOV if I were you, whatever the algorithm. On real data, I know it costs a bit of time but only a test with each initialization will give you an answer. BTW, do you know any publication on ROI reconstruction+TV ? Simon PS : I'm investigating the maling list issue, I'll let you know when I get an answer. On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:59 PM, MORY, CYRIL wrote: > Hi Simon, Hi Marc, > > > > I?ve tried to send this mail to the mailing list, but it contains images, > so a manual approval from the list?s manager is required. > > And last time I talked with Simon, he couldn?t find the interface to > approve or reject the emails. So I forward it. > > > Regards, > > Cyril > > > > *De :* MORY, CYRIL > *Envoy? :* mercredi 10 avril 2013 11:54 > *? :* rtk-users at openrtk.org > *Objet :* SART vs FDK > > > > Hi, > > > > I?m wondering whether the reconstruction results I get with SART and FDK > are normal or not. I?ve performed reconstructions of a moving Shepp and > Logan phantom, using 308 projections equidistributed on a 360? circular > trajectory. The phantom is fully contained in the FOV. I?ve used the > default projection and back projection operators for both SART (30 > iterations of SART instead of the default 5) and FDK. And there are very > noticeable differences outside the FOV, especially at the edges of the > projection cone, where SART produces high errors while FDK doesn?t. > > > > Is this a normal behavior ? I?m using these reconstructions to initialize > an iterative algorithm, and my real data is truncated, so I?d prefer to use > SART than FDK. These high errors outside the FOV make me hesitate, though. > > > > SART : > > > > FDK : > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > ========================================== > > Cyril Mory > > PhD student at Philips Medisys and CREATIS > > > > Groupement Hospitalier Est > > H?pital Cardiologique Louis Pradel > > Laboratoire CREATIS - B?t. B13 > > CNRS UMR5220, INSERM U1044, INSA-Lyon, Univ. Lyon 1 > > 28, Avenue du Doyen LEPINE > > 69677 Bron cedex FRANCE > > > > Office : +33 4 72 35 74 12 > > Cell : +33 6 69 46 73 79 > > > > ------------------------------ > The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally > protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the > addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby > notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this > message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the > intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy > all copies of the original message. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 92933 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 74939 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Cyril.Mory at philips.com Wed Apr 10 10:09:48 2013 From: Cyril.Mory at philips.com (MORY, CYRIL) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:09:48 +0000 Subject: [Rtk-users] SART vs FDK In-Reply-To: References: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74C87@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Message-ID: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74D68@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Thanks for your answer. I'll crop the FDK and SART volumes to the FOV and see if initializing my algorithm this way yields better results. Regarding ROI + TV, I don't know the literature on the topic, but it turns out it's quite abundant : a simple google search yields many results (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3055906/, http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9155/54/9/014) Regards, Cyril De : simon.rit at gmail.com [mailto:simon.rit at gmail.com] De la part de Simon Rit Envoy? : mercredi 10 avril 2013 14:54 ? : MORY, CYRIL Cc : vilaoliva at creatis.insa-lyon.fr; rtk-users at openrtk.org Objet : Re: SART vs FDK Hi, This is a difficult question and I don't know the answer. I think what you observe is the famous edge artifact of SART reconstructions. My feeling is that that one can not trust values outside the FOV in any algorithm. I would mask the FOV if I were you, whatever the algorithm. On real data, I know it costs a bit of time but only a test with each initialization will give you an answer. BTW, do you know any publication on ROI reconstruction+TV ? Simon PS : I'm investigating the maling list issue, I'll let you know when I get an answer. On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:59 PM, MORY, CYRIL > wrote: Hi Simon, Hi Marc, I've tried to send this mail to the mailing list, but it contains images, so a manual approval from the list's manager is required. And last time I talked with Simon, he couldn't find the interface to approve or reject the emails. So I forward it. Regards, Cyril De : MORY, CYRIL Envoy? : mercredi 10 avril 2013 11:54 ? : rtk-users at openrtk.org Objet : SART vs FDK Hi, I'm wondering whether the reconstruction results I get with SART and FDK are normal or not. I've performed reconstructions of a moving Shepp and Logan phantom, using 308 projections equidistributed on a 360? circular trajectory. The phantom is fully contained in the FOV. I've used the default projection and back projection operators for both SART (30 iterations of SART instead of the default 5) and FDK. And there are very noticeable differences outside the FOV, especially at the edges of the projection cone, where SART produces high errors while FDK doesn't. Is this a normal behavior ? I'm using these reconstructions to initialize an iterative algorithm, and my real data is truncated, so I'd prefer to use SART than FDK. These high errors outside the FOV make me hesitate, though. SART : [cid:image001.jpg at 01CE3604.D3EA4D80] FDK : [cid:image002.jpg at 01CE3604.D3EA4D80] Regards, ========================================== Cyril Mory PhD student at Philips Medisys and CREATIS Groupement Hospitalier Est H?pital Cardiologique Louis Pradel Laboratoire CREATIS - B?t. B13 CNRS UMR5220, INSERM U1044, INSA-Lyon, Univ. Lyon 1 28, Avenue du Doyen LEPINE 69677 Bron cedex FRANCE Office : +33 4 72 35 74 12 Cell : +33 6 69 46 73 79 ________________________________ The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 92933 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 74939 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From simon.rit at creatis.insa-lyon.fr Wed Apr 10 10:53:20 2013 From: simon.rit at creatis.insa-lyon.fr (Simon Rit) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 16:53:20 +0200 Subject: [Rtk-users] SART vs FDK In-Reply-To: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74D68@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> References: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74C87@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74D68@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Message-ID: Thanks for the references. I'll check them and I'll let you know if I detect a specific technique that should be used. Don't hesitate if you have other questions, Simon On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 4:09 PM, MORY, CYRIL wrote: > Thanks for your answer. I?ll crop the FDK and SART volumes to the FOV > and see if initializing my algorithm this way yields better results.**** > > Regarding ROI + TV, I don?t know the literature on the topic, but it turns > out it?s quite abundant : a simple google search yields many results ( > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3055906/, > http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9155/54/9/014) **** > > ** ** > > Regards,**** > > Cyril**** > > *De :* simon.rit at gmail.com [mailto:simon.rit at gmail.com] *De la part de*Simon Rit > *Envoy? :* mercredi 10 avril 2013 14:54 > *? :* MORY, CYRIL > *Cc :* vilaoliva at creatis.insa-lyon.fr; rtk-users at openrtk.org > *Objet :* Re: SART vs FDK**** > > ** ** > > Hi, > This is a difficult question and I don't know the answer. I think what you > observe is the famous edge artifact of SART reconstructions. My feeling is > that that one can not trust values outside the FOV in any algorithm. I > would mask the FOV if I were you, whatever the algorithm. On real data, I > know it costs a bit of time but only a test with each initialization will > give you an answer.**** > > BTW, do you know any publication on ROI reconstruction+TV ?**** > > Simon**** > > ** ** > > PS : I'm investigating the maling list issue, I'll let you know when I get > an answer.**** > > ** ** > > On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:59 PM, MORY, CYRIL > wrote:**** > > Hi Simon, Hi Marc,**** > > **** > > I?ve tried to send this mail to the mailing list, but it contains images, > so a manual approval from the list?s manager is required. **** > > And last time I talked with Simon, he couldn?t find the interface to > approve or reject the emails. So I forward it.**** > > > Regards,**** > > Cyril **** > > **** > > *De :* MORY, CYRIL > *Envoy? :* mercredi 10 avril 2013 11:54 > *? :* rtk-users at openrtk.org > *Objet :* SART vs FDK**** > > **** > > Hi,**** > > **** > > I?m wondering whether the reconstruction results I get with SART and FDK > are normal or not. I?ve performed reconstructions of a moving Shepp and > Logan phantom, using 308 projections equidistributed on a 360? circular > trajectory. The phantom is fully contained in the FOV. I?ve used the > default projection and back projection operators for both SART (30 > iterations of SART instead of the default 5) and FDK. And there are very > noticeable differences outside the FOV, especially at the edges of the > projection cone, where SART produces high errors while FDK doesn?t. **** > > **** > > Is this a normal behavior ? I?m using these reconstructions to initialize > an iterative algorithm, and my real data is truncated, so I?d prefer to use > SART than FDK. These high errors outside the FOV make me hesitate, though. > **** > > **** > > SART :**** > > **** > > **** > > FDK : **** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > Regards,**** > > **** > > **** > > ==========================================**** > > Cyril Mory**** > > PhD student at Philips Medisys and CREATIS**** > > **** > > Groupement Hospitalier Est**** > > H?pital Cardiologique Louis Pradel**** > > Laboratoire CREATIS - B?t. B13**** > > CNRS UMR5220, INSERM U1044, INSA-Lyon, Univ. Lyon 1**** > > 28, Avenue du Doyen LEPINE**** > > 69677 Bron cedex FRANCE**** > > **** > > Office : +33 4 72 35 74 12**** > > Cell : +33 6 69 46 73 79**** > > **** > > ** ** > ------------------------------ > > The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally > protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the > addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby > notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this > message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the > intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy > all copies of the original message.**** > > ** ** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 92933 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 74939 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pierre.ldff at gmail.com Tue Apr 23 03:48:46 2013 From: pierre.ldff at gmail.com (Pierre Le Duff) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:48:46 +0200 Subject: [Rtk-users] Open gate file. Message-ID: Hello all, I would like to know if rtk can open GATE simulation file ? Thanks, Pierre -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marc.vila-oliva at creatis.insa-lyon.fr Tue Apr 23 04:26:41 2013 From: marc.vila-oliva at creatis.insa-lyon.fr (Marc Vila Oliva) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:26:41 +0200 Subject: [Rtk-users] Open gate file. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1366705602.2950.1.camel@mvila-laptop> Hello Pierre, On Tue, 2013-04-23 at 09:48 +0200, Pierre Le Duff wrote: > Hello all, > > I would like to know if rtk can open GATE simulation file ? Sorry, but for the moment this possibility does not exist under RTK. If it is possible to know what do you want to do exactly? Cheers, Marc > > > > Thanks, > > Pierre > > _______________________________________________ > Rtk-users mailing list > Rtk-users at openrtk.org > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rtk-users From Cyril.Mory at philips.com Wed Apr 10 05:59:49 2013 From: Cyril.Mory at philips.com (MORY, CYRIL) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 09:59:49 +0000 Subject: [Rtk-users] SART vs FDK Message-ID: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74C3F@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Hi, I'm wondering whether the reconstruction results I get with SART and FDK are normal or not. I've performed reconstructions of a moving Shepp and Logan phantom, using 308 projections equidistributed on a 360? circular trajectory. The phantom is fully contained in the FOV. I've used the default projection and back projection operators for both SART (30 iterations of SART instead of the default 5) and FDK. And there are very noticeable differences outside the FOV, especially at the edges of the projection cone, where SART produces high errors while FDK doesn't. Is this a normal behavior ? I'm using these reconstructions to initialize an iterative algorithm, and my real data is truncated, so I'd prefer to use SART than FDK. These high errors outside the FOV make me hesitate, though. SART : [cid:image002.jpg at 01CE35E2.1DE522C0] FDK : [cid:image004.jpg at 01CE35E2.1DE522C0] Regards, ========================================== Cyril Mory PhD student at Philips Medisys and CREATIS Groupement Hospitalier Est H?pital Cardiologique Louis Pradel Laboratoire CREATIS - B?t. B13 CNRS UMR5220, INSERM U1044, INSA-Lyon, Univ. Lyon 1 28, Avenue du Doyen LEPINE 69677 Bron cedex FRANCE Office : +33 4 72 35 74 12 Cell : +33 6 69 46 73 79 ________________________________ The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 92933 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 74939 bytes Desc: image004.jpg URL: From simon.rit at creatis.insa-lyon.fr Wed Apr 10 08:54:03 2013 From: simon.rit at creatis.insa-lyon.fr (Simon Rit) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:54:03 +0200 Subject: [Rtk-users] SART vs FDK In-Reply-To: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74C87@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> References: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74C87@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Message-ID: Hi, This is a difficult question and I don't know the answer. I think what you observe is the famous edge artifact of SART reconstructions. My feeling is that that one can not trust values outside the FOV in any algorithm. I would mask the FOV if I were you, whatever the algorithm. On real data, I know it costs a bit of time but only a test with each initialization will give you an answer. BTW, do you know any publication on ROI reconstruction+TV ? Simon PS : I'm investigating the maling list issue, I'll let you know when I get an answer. On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:59 PM, MORY, CYRIL wrote: > Hi Simon, Hi Marc, > > > > I?ve tried to send this mail to the mailing list, but it contains images, > so a manual approval from the list?s manager is required. > > And last time I talked with Simon, he couldn?t find the interface to > approve or reject the emails. So I forward it. > > > Regards, > > Cyril > > > > *De :* MORY, CYRIL > *Envoy? :* mercredi 10 avril 2013 11:54 > *? :* rtk-users at openrtk.org > *Objet :* SART vs FDK > > > > Hi, > > > > I?m wondering whether the reconstruction results I get with SART and FDK > are normal or not. I?ve performed reconstructions of a moving Shepp and > Logan phantom, using 308 projections equidistributed on a 360? circular > trajectory. The phantom is fully contained in the FOV. I?ve used the > default projection and back projection operators for both SART (30 > iterations of SART instead of the default 5) and FDK. And there are very > noticeable differences outside the FOV, especially at the edges of the > projection cone, where SART produces high errors while FDK doesn?t. > > > > Is this a normal behavior ? I?m using these reconstructions to initialize > an iterative algorithm, and my real data is truncated, so I?d prefer to use > SART than FDK. These high errors outside the FOV make me hesitate, though. > > > > SART : > > > > FDK : > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > ========================================== > > Cyril Mory > > PhD student at Philips Medisys and CREATIS > > > > Groupement Hospitalier Est > > H?pital Cardiologique Louis Pradel > > Laboratoire CREATIS - B?t. B13 > > CNRS UMR5220, INSERM U1044, INSA-Lyon, Univ. Lyon 1 > > 28, Avenue du Doyen LEPINE > > 69677 Bron cedex FRANCE > > > > Office : +33 4 72 35 74 12 > > Cell : +33 6 69 46 73 79 > > > > ------------------------------ > The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally > protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the > addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby > notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this > message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the > intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy > all copies of the original message. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 92933 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 74939 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Cyril.Mory at philips.com Wed Apr 10 10:09:48 2013 From: Cyril.Mory at philips.com (MORY, CYRIL) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:09:48 +0000 Subject: [Rtk-users] SART vs FDK In-Reply-To: References: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74C87@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Message-ID: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74D68@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Thanks for your answer. I'll crop the FDK and SART volumes to the FOV and see if initializing my algorithm this way yields better results. Regarding ROI + TV, I don't know the literature on the topic, but it turns out it's quite abundant : a simple google search yields many results (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3055906/, http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9155/54/9/014) Regards, Cyril De : simon.rit at gmail.com [mailto:simon.rit at gmail.com] De la part de Simon Rit Envoy? : mercredi 10 avril 2013 14:54 ? : MORY, CYRIL Cc : vilaoliva at creatis.insa-lyon.fr; rtk-users at openrtk.org Objet : Re: SART vs FDK Hi, This is a difficult question and I don't know the answer. I think what you observe is the famous edge artifact of SART reconstructions. My feeling is that that one can not trust values outside the FOV in any algorithm. I would mask the FOV if I were you, whatever the algorithm. On real data, I know it costs a bit of time but only a test with each initialization will give you an answer. BTW, do you know any publication on ROI reconstruction+TV ? Simon PS : I'm investigating the maling list issue, I'll let you know when I get an answer. On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:59 PM, MORY, CYRIL > wrote: Hi Simon, Hi Marc, I've tried to send this mail to the mailing list, but it contains images, so a manual approval from the list's manager is required. And last time I talked with Simon, he couldn't find the interface to approve or reject the emails. So I forward it. Regards, Cyril De : MORY, CYRIL Envoy? : mercredi 10 avril 2013 11:54 ? : rtk-users at openrtk.org Objet : SART vs FDK Hi, I'm wondering whether the reconstruction results I get with SART and FDK are normal or not. I've performed reconstructions of a moving Shepp and Logan phantom, using 308 projections equidistributed on a 360? circular trajectory. The phantom is fully contained in the FOV. I've used the default projection and back projection operators for both SART (30 iterations of SART instead of the default 5) and FDK. And there are very noticeable differences outside the FOV, especially at the edges of the projection cone, where SART produces high errors while FDK doesn't. Is this a normal behavior ? I'm using these reconstructions to initialize an iterative algorithm, and my real data is truncated, so I'd prefer to use SART than FDK. These high errors outside the FOV make me hesitate, though. SART : [cid:image001.jpg at 01CE3604.D3EA4D80] FDK : [cid:image002.jpg at 01CE3604.D3EA4D80] Regards, ========================================== Cyril Mory PhD student at Philips Medisys and CREATIS Groupement Hospitalier Est H?pital Cardiologique Louis Pradel Laboratoire CREATIS - B?t. B13 CNRS UMR5220, INSERM U1044, INSA-Lyon, Univ. Lyon 1 28, Avenue du Doyen LEPINE 69677 Bron cedex FRANCE Office : +33 4 72 35 74 12 Cell : +33 6 69 46 73 79 ________________________________ The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 92933 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 74939 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From simon.rit at creatis.insa-lyon.fr Wed Apr 10 10:53:20 2013 From: simon.rit at creatis.insa-lyon.fr (Simon Rit) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 16:53:20 +0200 Subject: [Rtk-users] SART vs FDK In-Reply-To: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74D68@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> References: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74C87@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74D68@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Message-ID: Thanks for the references. I'll check them and I'll let you know if I detect a specific technique that should be used. Don't hesitate if you have other questions, Simon On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 4:09 PM, MORY, CYRIL wrote: > Thanks for your answer. I?ll crop the FDK and SART volumes to the FOV > and see if initializing my algorithm this way yields better results.**** > > Regarding ROI + TV, I don?t know the literature on the topic, but it turns > out it?s quite abundant : a simple google search yields many results ( > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3055906/, > http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9155/54/9/014) **** > > ** ** > > Regards,**** > > Cyril**** > > *De :* simon.rit at gmail.com [mailto:simon.rit at gmail.com] *De la part de*Simon Rit > *Envoy? :* mercredi 10 avril 2013 14:54 > *? :* MORY, CYRIL > *Cc :* vilaoliva at creatis.insa-lyon.fr; rtk-users at openrtk.org > *Objet :* Re: SART vs FDK**** > > ** ** > > Hi, > This is a difficult question and I don't know the answer. I think what you > observe is the famous edge artifact of SART reconstructions. My feeling is > that that one can not trust values outside the FOV in any algorithm. I > would mask the FOV if I were you, whatever the algorithm. On real data, I > know it costs a bit of time but only a test with each initialization will > give you an answer.**** > > BTW, do you know any publication on ROI reconstruction+TV ?**** > > Simon**** > > ** ** > > PS : I'm investigating the maling list issue, I'll let you know when I get > an answer.**** > > ** ** > > On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:59 PM, MORY, CYRIL > wrote:**** > > Hi Simon, Hi Marc,**** > > **** > > I?ve tried to send this mail to the mailing list, but it contains images, > so a manual approval from the list?s manager is required. **** > > And last time I talked with Simon, he couldn?t find the interface to > approve or reject the emails. So I forward it.**** > > > Regards,**** > > Cyril **** > > **** > > *De :* MORY, CYRIL > *Envoy? :* mercredi 10 avril 2013 11:54 > *? :* rtk-users at openrtk.org > *Objet :* SART vs FDK**** > > **** > > Hi,**** > > **** > > I?m wondering whether the reconstruction results I get with SART and FDK > are normal or not. I?ve performed reconstructions of a moving Shepp and > Logan phantom, using 308 projections equidistributed on a 360? circular > trajectory. The phantom is fully contained in the FOV. I?ve used the > default projection and back projection operators for both SART (30 > iterations of SART instead of the default 5) and FDK. And there are very > noticeable differences outside the FOV, especially at the edges of the > projection cone, where SART produces high errors while FDK doesn?t. **** > > **** > > Is this a normal behavior ? I?m using these reconstructions to initialize > an iterative algorithm, and my real data is truncated, so I?d prefer to use > SART than FDK. These high errors outside the FOV make me hesitate, though. > **** > > **** > > SART :**** > > **** > > **** > > FDK : **** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > Regards,**** > > **** > > **** > > ==========================================**** > > Cyril Mory**** > > PhD student at Philips Medisys and CREATIS**** > > **** > > Groupement Hospitalier Est**** > > H?pital Cardiologique Louis Pradel**** > > Laboratoire CREATIS - B?t. B13**** > > CNRS UMR5220, INSERM U1044, INSA-Lyon, Univ. Lyon 1**** > > 28, Avenue du Doyen LEPINE**** > > 69677 Bron cedex FRANCE**** > > **** > > Office : +33 4 72 35 74 12**** > > Cell : +33 6 69 46 73 79**** > > **** > > ** ** > ------------------------------ > > The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally > protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the > addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby > notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this > message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the > intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy > all copies of the original message.**** > > ** ** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 92933 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 74939 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pierre.ldff at gmail.com Tue Apr 23 03:48:46 2013 From: pierre.ldff at gmail.com (Pierre Le Duff) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:48:46 +0200 Subject: [Rtk-users] Open gate file. Message-ID: Hello all, I would like to know if rtk can open GATE simulation file ? Thanks, Pierre -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marc.vila-oliva at creatis.insa-lyon.fr Tue Apr 23 04:26:41 2013 From: marc.vila-oliva at creatis.insa-lyon.fr (Marc Vila Oliva) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:26:41 +0200 Subject: [Rtk-users] Open gate file. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1366705602.2950.1.camel@mvila-laptop> Hello Pierre, On Tue, 2013-04-23 at 09:48 +0200, Pierre Le Duff wrote: > Hello all, > > I would like to know if rtk can open GATE simulation file ? Sorry, but for the moment this possibility does not exist under RTK. If it is possible to know what do you want to do exactly? Cheers, Marc > > > > Thanks, > > Pierre > > _______________________________________________ > Rtk-users mailing list > Rtk-users at openrtk.org > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rtk-users From Cyril.Mory at philips.com Wed Apr 10 05:59:49 2013 From: Cyril.Mory at philips.com (MORY, CYRIL) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 09:59:49 +0000 Subject: [Rtk-users] SART vs FDK Message-ID: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74C3F@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Hi, I'm wondering whether the reconstruction results I get with SART and FDK are normal or not. I've performed reconstructions of a moving Shepp and Logan phantom, using 308 projections equidistributed on a 360? circular trajectory. The phantom is fully contained in the FOV. I've used the default projection and back projection operators for both SART (30 iterations of SART instead of the default 5) and FDK. And there are very noticeable differences outside the FOV, especially at the edges of the projection cone, where SART produces high errors while FDK doesn't. Is this a normal behavior ? I'm using these reconstructions to initialize an iterative algorithm, and my real data is truncated, so I'd prefer to use SART than FDK. These high errors outside the FOV make me hesitate, though. SART : [cid:image002.jpg at 01CE35E2.1DE522C0] FDK : [cid:image004.jpg at 01CE35E2.1DE522C0] Regards, ========================================== Cyril Mory PhD student at Philips Medisys and CREATIS Groupement Hospitalier Est H?pital Cardiologique Louis Pradel Laboratoire CREATIS - B?t. B13 CNRS UMR5220, INSERM U1044, INSA-Lyon, Univ. Lyon 1 28, Avenue du Doyen LEPINE 69677 Bron cedex FRANCE Office : +33 4 72 35 74 12 Cell : +33 6 69 46 73 79 ________________________________ The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 92933 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 74939 bytes Desc: image004.jpg URL: From simon.rit at creatis.insa-lyon.fr Wed Apr 10 08:54:03 2013 From: simon.rit at creatis.insa-lyon.fr (Simon Rit) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:54:03 +0200 Subject: [Rtk-users] SART vs FDK In-Reply-To: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74C87@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> References: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74C87@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Message-ID: Hi, This is a difficult question and I don't know the answer. I think what you observe is the famous edge artifact of SART reconstructions. My feeling is that that one can not trust values outside the FOV in any algorithm. I would mask the FOV if I were you, whatever the algorithm. On real data, I know it costs a bit of time but only a test with each initialization will give you an answer. BTW, do you know any publication on ROI reconstruction+TV ? Simon PS : I'm investigating the maling list issue, I'll let you know when I get an answer. On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:59 PM, MORY, CYRIL wrote: > Hi Simon, Hi Marc, > > > > I?ve tried to send this mail to the mailing list, but it contains images, > so a manual approval from the list?s manager is required. > > And last time I talked with Simon, he couldn?t find the interface to > approve or reject the emails. So I forward it. > > > Regards, > > Cyril > > > > *De :* MORY, CYRIL > *Envoy? :* mercredi 10 avril 2013 11:54 > *? :* rtk-users at openrtk.org > *Objet :* SART vs FDK > > > > Hi, > > > > I?m wondering whether the reconstruction results I get with SART and FDK > are normal or not. I?ve performed reconstructions of a moving Shepp and > Logan phantom, using 308 projections equidistributed on a 360? circular > trajectory. The phantom is fully contained in the FOV. I?ve used the > default projection and back projection operators for both SART (30 > iterations of SART instead of the default 5) and FDK. And there are very > noticeable differences outside the FOV, especially at the edges of the > projection cone, where SART produces high errors while FDK doesn?t. > > > > Is this a normal behavior ? I?m using these reconstructions to initialize > an iterative algorithm, and my real data is truncated, so I?d prefer to use > SART than FDK. These high errors outside the FOV make me hesitate, though. > > > > SART : > > > > FDK : > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > ========================================== > > Cyril Mory > > PhD student at Philips Medisys and CREATIS > > > > Groupement Hospitalier Est > > H?pital Cardiologique Louis Pradel > > Laboratoire CREATIS - B?t. B13 > > CNRS UMR5220, INSERM U1044, INSA-Lyon, Univ. Lyon 1 > > 28, Avenue du Doyen LEPINE > > 69677 Bron cedex FRANCE > > > > Office : +33 4 72 35 74 12 > > Cell : +33 6 69 46 73 79 > > > > ------------------------------ > The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally > protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the > addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby > notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this > message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the > intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy > all copies of the original message. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 92933 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 74939 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Cyril.Mory at philips.com Wed Apr 10 10:09:48 2013 From: Cyril.Mory at philips.com (MORY, CYRIL) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:09:48 +0000 Subject: [Rtk-users] SART vs FDK In-Reply-To: References: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74C87@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Message-ID: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74D68@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Thanks for your answer. I'll crop the FDK and SART volumes to the FOV and see if initializing my algorithm this way yields better results. Regarding ROI + TV, I don't know the literature on the topic, but it turns out it's quite abundant : a simple google search yields many results (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3055906/, http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9155/54/9/014) Regards, Cyril De : simon.rit at gmail.com [mailto:simon.rit at gmail.com] De la part de Simon Rit Envoy? : mercredi 10 avril 2013 14:54 ? : MORY, CYRIL Cc : vilaoliva at creatis.insa-lyon.fr; rtk-users at openrtk.org Objet : Re: SART vs FDK Hi, This is a difficult question and I don't know the answer. I think what you observe is the famous edge artifact of SART reconstructions. My feeling is that that one can not trust values outside the FOV in any algorithm. I would mask the FOV if I were you, whatever the algorithm. On real data, I know it costs a bit of time but only a test with each initialization will give you an answer. BTW, do you know any publication on ROI reconstruction+TV ? Simon PS : I'm investigating the maling list issue, I'll let you know when I get an answer. On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:59 PM, MORY, CYRIL > wrote: Hi Simon, Hi Marc, I've tried to send this mail to the mailing list, but it contains images, so a manual approval from the list's manager is required. And last time I talked with Simon, he couldn't find the interface to approve or reject the emails. So I forward it. Regards, Cyril De : MORY, CYRIL Envoy? : mercredi 10 avril 2013 11:54 ? : rtk-users at openrtk.org Objet : SART vs FDK Hi, I'm wondering whether the reconstruction results I get with SART and FDK are normal or not. I've performed reconstructions of a moving Shepp and Logan phantom, using 308 projections equidistributed on a 360? circular trajectory. The phantom is fully contained in the FOV. I've used the default projection and back projection operators for both SART (30 iterations of SART instead of the default 5) and FDK. And there are very noticeable differences outside the FOV, especially at the edges of the projection cone, where SART produces high errors while FDK doesn't. Is this a normal behavior ? I'm using these reconstructions to initialize an iterative algorithm, and my real data is truncated, so I'd prefer to use SART than FDK. These high errors outside the FOV make me hesitate, though. SART : [cid:image001.jpg at 01CE3604.D3EA4D80] FDK : [cid:image002.jpg at 01CE3604.D3EA4D80] Regards, ========================================== Cyril Mory PhD student at Philips Medisys and CREATIS Groupement Hospitalier Est H?pital Cardiologique Louis Pradel Laboratoire CREATIS - B?t. B13 CNRS UMR5220, INSERM U1044, INSA-Lyon, Univ. Lyon 1 28, Avenue du Doyen LEPINE 69677 Bron cedex FRANCE Office : +33 4 72 35 74 12 Cell : +33 6 69 46 73 79 ________________________________ The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 92933 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 74939 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From simon.rit at creatis.insa-lyon.fr Wed Apr 10 10:53:20 2013 From: simon.rit at creatis.insa-lyon.fr (Simon Rit) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 16:53:20 +0200 Subject: [Rtk-users] SART vs FDK In-Reply-To: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74D68@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> References: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74C87@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74D68@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Message-ID: Thanks for the references. I'll check them and I'll let you know if I detect a specific technique that should be used. Don't hesitate if you have other questions, Simon On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 4:09 PM, MORY, CYRIL wrote: > Thanks for your answer. I?ll crop the FDK and SART volumes to the FOV > and see if initializing my algorithm this way yields better results.**** > > Regarding ROI + TV, I don?t know the literature on the topic, but it turns > out it?s quite abundant : a simple google search yields many results ( > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3055906/, > http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9155/54/9/014) **** > > ** ** > > Regards,**** > > Cyril**** > > *De :* simon.rit at gmail.com [mailto:simon.rit at gmail.com] *De la part de*Simon Rit > *Envoy? :* mercredi 10 avril 2013 14:54 > *? :* MORY, CYRIL > *Cc :* vilaoliva at creatis.insa-lyon.fr; rtk-users at openrtk.org > *Objet :* Re: SART vs FDK**** > > ** ** > > Hi, > This is a difficult question and I don't know the answer. I think what you > observe is the famous edge artifact of SART reconstructions. My feeling is > that that one can not trust values outside the FOV in any algorithm. I > would mask the FOV if I were you, whatever the algorithm. On real data, I > know it costs a bit of time but only a test with each initialization will > give you an answer.**** > > BTW, do you know any publication on ROI reconstruction+TV ?**** > > Simon**** > > ** ** > > PS : I'm investigating the maling list issue, I'll let you know when I get > an answer.**** > > ** ** > > On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:59 PM, MORY, CYRIL > wrote:**** > > Hi Simon, Hi Marc,**** > > **** > > I?ve tried to send this mail to the mailing list, but it contains images, > so a manual approval from the list?s manager is required. **** > > And last time I talked with Simon, he couldn?t find the interface to > approve or reject the emails. So I forward it.**** > > > Regards,**** > > Cyril **** > > **** > > *De :* MORY, CYRIL > *Envoy? :* mercredi 10 avril 2013 11:54 > *? :* rtk-users at openrtk.org > *Objet :* SART vs FDK**** > > **** > > Hi,**** > > **** > > I?m wondering whether the reconstruction results I get with SART and FDK > are normal or not. I?ve performed reconstructions of a moving Shepp and > Logan phantom, using 308 projections equidistributed on a 360? circular > trajectory. The phantom is fully contained in the FOV. I?ve used the > default projection and back projection operators for both SART (30 > iterations of SART instead of the default 5) and FDK. And there are very > noticeable differences outside the FOV, especially at the edges of the > projection cone, where SART produces high errors while FDK doesn?t. **** > > **** > > Is this a normal behavior ? I?m using these reconstructions to initialize > an iterative algorithm, and my real data is truncated, so I?d prefer to use > SART than FDK. These high errors outside the FOV make me hesitate, though. > **** > > **** > > SART :**** > > **** > > **** > > FDK : **** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > Regards,**** > > **** > > **** > > ==========================================**** > > Cyril Mory**** > > PhD student at Philips Medisys and CREATIS**** > > **** > > Groupement Hospitalier Est**** > > H?pital Cardiologique Louis Pradel**** > > Laboratoire CREATIS - B?t. B13**** > > CNRS UMR5220, INSERM U1044, INSA-Lyon, Univ. Lyon 1**** > > 28, Avenue du Doyen LEPINE**** > > 69677 Bron cedex FRANCE**** > > **** > > Office : +33 4 72 35 74 12**** > > Cell : +33 6 69 46 73 79**** > > **** > > ** ** > ------------------------------ > > The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally > protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the > addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby > notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this > message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the > intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy > all copies of the original message.**** > > ** ** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 92933 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 74939 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pierre.ldff at gmail.com Tue Apr 23 03:48:46 2013 From: pierre.ldff at gmail.com (Pierre Le Duff) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:48:46 +0200 Subject: [Rtk-users] Open gate file. Message-ID: Hello all, I would like to know if rtk can open GATE simulation file ? Thanks, Pierre -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marc.vila-oliva at creatis.insa-lyon.fr Tue Apr 23 04:26:41 2013 From: marc.vila-oliva at creatis.insa-lyon.fr (Marc Vila Oliva) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:26:41 +0200 Subject: [Rtk-users] Open gate file. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1366705602.2950.1.camel@mvila-laptop> Hello Pierre, On Tue, 2013-04-23 at 09:48 +0200, Pierre Le Duff wrote: > Hello all, > > I would like to know if rtk can open GATE simulation file ? Sorry, but for the moment this possibility does not exist under RTK. If it is possible to know what do you want to do exactly? Cheers, Marc > > > > Thanks, > > Pierre > > _______________________________________________ > Rtk-users mailing list > Rtk-users at openrtk.org > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rtk-users From Cyril.Mory at philips.com Wed Apr 10 05:59:49 2013 From: Cyril.Mory at philips.com (MORY, CYRIL) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 09:59:49 +0000 Subject: [Rtk-users] SART vs FDK Message-ID: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74C3F@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Hi, I'm wondering whether the reconstruction results I get with SART and FDK are normal or not. I've performed reconstructions of a moving Shepp and Logan phantom, using 308 projections equidistributed on a 360? circular trajectory. The phantom is fully contained in the FOV. I've used the default projection and back projection operators for both SART (30 iterations of SART instead of the default 5) and FDK. And there are very noticeable differences outside the FOV, especially at the edges of the projection cone, where SART produces high errors while FDK doesn't. Is this a normal behavior ? I'm using these reconstructions to initialize an iterative algorithm, and my real data is truncated, so I'd prefer to use SART than FDK. These high errors outside the FOV make me hesitate, though. SART : [cid:image002.jpg at 01CE35E2.1DE522C0] FDK : [cid:image004.jpg at 01CE35E2.1DE522C0] Regards, ========================================== Cyril Mory PhD student at Philips Medisys and CREATIS Groupement Hospitalier Est H?pital Cardiologique Louis Pradel Laboratoire CREATIS - B?t. B13 CNRS UMR5220, INSERM U1044, INSA-Lyon, Univ. Lyon 1 28, Avenue du Doyen LEPINE 69677 Bron cedex FRANCE Office : +33 4 72 35 74 12 Cell : +33 6 69 46 73 79 ________________________________ The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 92933 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 74939 bytes Desc: image004.jpg URL: From simon.rit at creatis.insa-lyon.fr Wed Apr 10 08:54:03 2013 From: simon.rit at creatis.insa-lyon.fr (Simon Rit) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:54:03 +0200 Subject: [Rtk-users] SART vs FDK In-Reply-To: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74C87@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> References: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74C87@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Message-ID: Hi, This is a difficult question and I don't know the answer. I think what you observe is the famous edge artifact of SART reconstructions. My feeling is that that one can not trust values outside the FOV in any algorithm. I would mask the FOV if I were you, whatever the algorithm. On real data, I know it costs a bit of time but only a test with each initialization will give you an answer. BTW, do you know any publication on ROI reconstruction+TV ? Simon PS : I'm investigating the maling list issue, I'll let you know when I get an answer. On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:59 PM, MORY, CYRIL wrote: > Hi Simon, Hi Marc, > > > > I?ve tried to send this mail to the mailing list, but it contains images, > so a manual approval from the list?s manager is required. > > And last time I talked with Simon, he couldn?t find the interface to > approve or reject the emails. So I forward it. > > > Regards, > > Cyril > > > > *De :* MORY, CYRIL > *Envoy? :* mercredi 10 avril 2013 11:54 > *? :* rtk-users at openrtk.org > *Objet :* SART vs FDK > > > > Hi, > > > > I?m wondering whether the reconstruction results I get with SART and FDK > are normal or not. I?ve performed reconstructions of a moving Shepp and > Logan phantom, using 308 projections equidistributed on a 360? circular > trajectory. The phantom is fully contained in the FOV. I?ve used the > default projection and back projection operators for both SART (30 > iterations of SART instead of the default 5) and FDK. And there are very > noticeable differences outside the FOV, especially at the edges of the > projection cone, where SART produces high errors while FDK doesn?t. > > > > Is this a normal behavior ? I?m using these reconstructions to initialize > an iterative algorithm, and my real data is truncated, so I?d prefer to use > SART than FDK. These high errors outside the FOV make me hesitate, though. > > > > SART : > > > > FDK : > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > ========================================== > > Cyril Mory > > PhD student at Philips Medisys and CREATIS > > > > Groupement Hospitalier Est > > H?pital Cardiologique Louis Pradel > > Laboratoire CREATIS - B?t. B13 > > CNRS UMR5220, INSERM U1044, INSA-Lyon, Univ. Lyon 1 > > 28, Avenue du Doyen LEPINE > > 69677 Bron cedex FRANCE > > > > Office : +33 4 72 35 74 12 > > Cell : +33 6 69 46 73 79 > > > > ------------------------------ > The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally > protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the > addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby > notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this > message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the > intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy > all copies of the original message. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 92933 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 74939 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Cyril.Mory at philips.com Wed Apr 10 10:09:48 2013 From: Cyril.Mory at philips.com (MORY, CYRIL) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:09:48 +0000 Subject: [Rtk-users] SART vs FDK In-Reply-To: References: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74C87@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Message-ID: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74D68@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Thanks for your answer. I'll crop the FDK and SART volumes to the FOV and see if initializing my algorithm this way yields better results. Regarding ROI + TV, I don't know the literature on the topic, but it turns out it's quite abundant : a simple google search yields many results (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3055906/, http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9155/54/9/014) Regards, Cyril De : simon.rit at gmail.com [mailto:simon.rit at gmail.com] De la part de Simon Rit Envoy? : mercredi 10 avril 2013 14:54 ? : MORY, CYRIL Cc : vilaoliva at creatis.insa-lyon.fr; rtk-users at openrtk.org Objet : Re: SART vs FDK Hi, This is a difficult question and I don't know the answer. I think what you observe is the famous edge artifact of SART reconstructions. My feeling is that that one can not trust values outside the FOV in any algorithm. I would mask the FOV if I were you, whatever the algorithm. On real data, I know it costs a bit of time but only a test with each initialization will give you an answer. BTW, do you know any publication on ROI reconstruction+TV ? Simon PS : I'm investigating the maling list issue, I'll let you know when I get an answer. On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:59 PM, MORY, CYRIL > wrote: Hi Simon, Hi Marc, I've tried to send this mail to the mailing list, but it contains images, so a manual approval from the list's manager is required. And last time I talked with Simon, he couldn't find the interface to approve or reject the emails. So I forward it. Regards, Cyril De : MORY, CYRIL Envoy? : mercredi 10 avril 2013 11:54 ? : rtk-users at openrtk.org Objet : SART vs FDK Hi, I'm wondering whether the reconstruction results I get with SART and FDK are normal or not. I've performed reconstructions of a moving Shepp and Logan phantom, using 308 projections equidistributed on a 360? circular trajectory. The phantom is fully contained in the FOV. I've used the default projection and back projection operators for both SART (30 iterations of SART instead of the default 5) and FDK. And there are very noticeable differences outside the FOV, especially at the edges of the projection cone, where SART produces high errors while FDK doesn't. Is this a normal behavior ? I'm using these reconstructions to initialize an iterative algorithm, and my real data is truncated, so I'd prefer to use SART than FDK. These high errors outside the FOV make me hesitate, though. SART : [cid:image001.jpg at 01CE3604.D3EA4D80] FDK : [cid:image002.jpg at 01CE3604.D3EA4D80] Regards, ========================================== Cyril Mory PhD student at Philips Medisys and CREATIS Groupement Hospitalier Est H?pital Cardiologique Louis Pradel Laboratoire CREATIS - B?t. B13 CNRS UMR5220, INSERM U1044, INSA-Lyon, Univ. Lyon 1 28, Avenue du Doyen LEPINE 69677 Bron cedex FRANCE Office : +33 4 72 35 74 12 Cell : +33 6 69 46 73 79 ________________________________ The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 92933 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 74939 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From simon.rit at creatis.insa-lyon.fr Wed Apr 10 10:53:20 2013 From: simon.rit at creatis.insa-lyon.fr (Simon Rit) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 16:53:20 +0200 Subject: [Rtk-users] SART vs FDK In-Reply-To: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74D68@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> References: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74C87@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74D68@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Message-ID: Thanks for the references. I'll check them and I'll let you know if I detect a specific technique that should be used. Don't hesitate if you have other questions, Simon On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 4:09 PM, MORY, CYRIL wrote: > Thanks for your answer. I?ll crop the FDK and SART volumes to the FOV > and see if initializing my algorithm this way yields better results.**** > > Regarding ROI + TV, I don?t know the literature on the topic, but it turns > out it?s quite abundant : a simple google search yields many results ( > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3055906/, > http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9155/54/9/014) **** > > ** ** > > Regards,**** > > Cyril**** > > *De :* simon.rit at gmail.com [mailto:simon.rit at gmail.com] *De la part de*Simon Rit > *Envoy? :* mercredi 10 avril 2013 14:54 > *? :* MORY, CYRIL > *Cc :* vilaoliva at creatis.insa-lyon.fr; rtk-users at openrtk.org > *Objet :* Re: SART vs FDK**** > > ** ** > > Hi, > This is a difficult question and I don't know the answer. I think what you > observe is the famous edge artifact of SART reconstructions. My feeling is > that that one can not trust values outside the FOV in any algorithm. I > would mask the FOV if I were you, whatever the algorithm. On real data, I > know it costs a bit of time but only a test with each initialization will > give you an answer.**** > > BTW, do you know any publication on ROI reconstruction+TV ?**** > > Simon**** > > ** ** > > PS : I'm investigating the maling list issue, I'll let you know when I get > an answer.**** > > ** ** > > On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:59 PM, MORY, CYRIL > wrote:**** > > Hi Simon, Hi Marc,**** > > **** > > I?ve tried to send this mail to the mailing list, but it contains images, > so a manual approval from the list?s manager is required. **** > > And last time I talked with Simon, he couldn?t find the interface to > approve or reject the emails. So I forward it.**** > > > Regards,**** > > Cyril **** > > **** > > *De :* MORY, CYRIL > *Envoy? :* mercredi 10 avril 2013 11:54 > *? :* rtk-users at openrtk.org > *Objet :* SART vs FDK**** > > **** > > Hi,**** > > **** > > I?m wondering whether the reconstruction results I get with SART and FDK > are normal or not. I?ve performed reconstructions of a moving Shepp and > Logan phantom, using 308 projections equidistributed on a 360? circular > trajectory. The phantom is fully contained in the FOV. I?ve used the > default projection and back projection operators for both SART (30 > iterations of SART instead of the default 5) and FDK. And there are very > noticeable differences outside the FOV, especially at the edges of the > projection cone, where SART produces high errors while FDK doesn?t. **** > > **** > > Is this a normal behavior ? I?m using these reconstructions to initialize > an iterative algorithm, and my real data is truncated, so I?d prefer to use > SART than FDK. These high errors outside the FOV make me hesitate, though. > **** > > **** > > SART :**** > > **** > > **** > > FDK : **** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > Regards,**** > > **** > > **** > > ==========================================**** > > Cyril Mory**** > > PhD student at Philips Medisys and CREATIS**** > > **** > > Groupement Hospitalier Est**** > > H?pital Cardiologique Louis Pradel**** > > Laboratoire CREATIS - B?t. B13**** > > CNRS UMR5220, INSERM U1044, INSA-Lyon, Univ. Lyon 1**** > > 28, Avenue du Doyen LEPINE**** > > 69677 Bron cedex FRANCE**** > > **** > > Office : +33 4 72 35 74 12**** > > Cell : +33 6 69 46 73 79**** > > **** > > ** ** > ------------------------------ > > The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally > protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the > addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby > notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this > message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the > intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy > all copies of the original message.**** > > ** ** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 92933 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 74939 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pierre.ldff at gmail.com Tue Apr 23 03:48:46 2013 From: pierre.ldff at gmail.com (Pierre Le Duff) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:48:46 +0200 Subject: [Rtk-users] Open gate file. Message-ID: Hello all, I would like to know if rtk can open GATE simulation file ? Thanks, Pierre -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marc.vila-oliva at creatis.insa-lyon.fr Tue Apr 23 04:26:41 2013 From: marc.vila-oliva at creatis.insa-lyon.fr (Marc Vila Oliva) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:26:41 +0200 Subject: [Rtk-users] Open gate file. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1366705602.2950.1.camel@mvila-laptop> Hello Pierre, On Tue, 2013-04-23 at 09:48 +0200, Pierre Le Duff wrote: > Hello all, > > I would like to know if rtk can open GATE simulation file ? Sorry, but for the moment this possibility does not exist under RTK. If it is possible to know what do you want to do exactly? Cheers, Marc > > > > Thanks, > > Pierre > > _______________________________________________ > Rtk-users mailing list > Rtk-users at openrtk.org > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rtk-users From Cyril.Mory at philips.com Wed Apr 10 05:59:49 2013 From: Cyril.Mory at philips.com (MORY, CYRIL) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 09:59:49 +0000 Subject: [Rtk-users] SART vs FDK Message-ID: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74C3F@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Hi, I'm wondering whether the reconstruction results I get with SART and FDK are normal or not. I've performed reconstructions of a moving Shepp and Logan phantom, using 308 projections equidistributed on a 360? circular trajectory. The phantom is fully contained in the FOV. I've used the default projection and back projection operators for both SART (30 iterations of SART instead of the default 5) and FDK. And there are very noticeable differences outside the FOV, especially at the edges of the projection cone, where SART produces high errors while FDK doesn't. Is this a normal behavior ? I'm using these reconstructions to initialize an iterative algorithm, and my real data is truncated, so I'd prefer to use SART than FDK. These high errors outside the FOV make me hesitate, though. SART : [cid:image002.jpg at 01CE35E2.1DE522C0] FDK : [cid:image004.jpg at 01CE35E2.1DE522C0] Regards, ========================================== Cyril Mory PhD student at Philips Medisys and CREATIS Groupement Hospitalier Est H?pital Cardiologique Louis Pradel Laboratoire CREATIS - B?t. B13 CNRS UMR5220, INSERM U1044, INSA-Lyon, Univ. Lyon 1 28, Avenue du Doyen LEPINE 69677 Bron cedex FRANCE Office : +33 4 72 35 74 12 Cell : +33 6 69 46 73 79 ________________________________ The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 92933 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 74939 bytes Desc: image004.jpg URL: From simon.rit at creatis.insa-lyon.fr Wed Apr 10 08:54:03 2013 From: simon.rit at creatis.insa-lyon.fr (Simon Rit) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:54:03 +0200 Subject: [Rtk-users] SART vs FDK In-Reply-To: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74C87@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> References: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74C87@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Message-ID: Hi, This is a difficult question and I don't know the answer. I think what you observe is the famous edge artifact of SART reconstructions. My feeling is that that one can not trust values outside the FOV in any algorithm. I would mask the FOV if I were you, whatever the algorithm. On real data, I know it costs a bit of time but only a test with each initialization will give you an answer. BTW, do you know any publication on ROI reconstruction+TV ? Simon PS : I'm investigating the maling list issue, I'll let you know when I get an answer. On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:59 PM, MORY, CYRIL wrote: > Hi Simon, Hi Marc, > > > > I?ve tried to send this mail to the mailing list, but it contains images, > so a manual approval from the list?s manager is required. > > And last time I talked with Simon, he couldn?t find the interface to > approve or reject the emails. So I forward it. > > > Regards, > > Cyril > > > > *De :* MORY, CYRIL > *Envoy? :* mercredi 10 avril 2013 11:54 > *? :* rtk-users at openrtk.org > *Objet :* SART vs FDK > > > > Hi, > > > > I?m wondering whether the reconstruction results I get with SART and FDK > are normal or not. I?ve performed reconstructions of a moving Shepp and > Logan phantom, using 308 projections equidistributed on a 360? circular > trajectory. The phantom is fully contained in the FOV. I?ve used the > default projection and back projection operators for both SART (30 > iterations of SART instead of the default 5) and FDK. And there are very > noticeable differences outside the FOV, especially at the edges of the > projection cone, where SART produces high errors while FDK doesn?t. > > > > Is this a normal behavior ? I?m using these reconstructions to initialize > an iterative algorithm, and my real data is truncated, so I?d prefer to use > SART than FDK. These high errors outside the FOV make me hesitate, though. > > > > SART : > > > > FDK : > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > ========================================== > > Cyril Mory > > PhD student at Philips Medisys and CREATIS > > > > Groupement Hospitalier Est > > H?pital Cardiologique Louis Pradel > > Laboratoire CREATIS - B?t. B13 > > CNRS UMR5220, INSERM U1044, INSA-Lyon, Univ. Lyon 1 > > 28, Avenue du Doyen LEPINE > > 69677 Bron cedex FRANCE > > > > Office : +33 4 72 35 74 12 > > Cell : +33 6 69 46 73 79 > > > > ------------------------------ > The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally > protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the > addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby > notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this > message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the > intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy > all copies of the original message. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 92933 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 74939 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Cyril.Mory at philips.com Wed Apr 10 10:09:48 2013 From: Cyril.Mory at philips.com (MORY, CYRIL) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:09:48 +0000 Subject: [Rtk-users] SART vs FDK In-Reply-To: References: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74C87@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Message-ID: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74D68@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Thanks for your answer. I'll crop the FDK and SART volumes to the FOV and see if initializing my algorithm this way yields better results. Regarding ROI + TV, I don't know the literature on the topic, but it turns out it's quite abundant : a simple google search yields many results (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3055906/, http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9155/54/9/014) Regards, Cyril De : simon.rit at gmail.com [mailto:simon.rit at gmail.com] De la part de Simon Rit Envoy? : mercredi 10 avril 2013 14:54 ? : MORY, CYRIL Cc : vilaoliva at creatis.insa-lyon.fr; rtk-users at openrtk.org Objet : Re: SART vs FDK Hi, This is a difficult question and I don't know the answer. I think what you observe is the famous edge artifact of SART reconstructions. My feeling is that that one can not trust values outside the FOV in any algorithm. I would mask the FOV if I were you, whatever the algorithm. On real data, I know it costs a bit of time but only a test with each initialization will give you an answer. BTW, do you know any publication on ROI reconstruction+TV ? Simon PS : I'm investigating the maling list issue, I'll let you know when I get an answer. On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:59 PM, MORY, CYRIL > wrote: Hi Simon, Hi Marc, I've tried to send this mail to the mailing list, but it contains images, so a manual approval from the list's manager is required. And last time I talked with Simon, he couldn't find the interface to approve or reject the emails. So I forward it. Regards, Cyril De : MORY, CYRIL Envoy? : mercredi 10 avril 2013 11:54 ? : rtk-users at openrtk.org Objet : SART vs FDK Hi, I'm wondering whether the reconstruction results I get with SART and FDK are normal or not. I've performed reconstructions of a moving Shepp and Logan phantom, using 308 projections equidistributed on a 360? circular trajectory. The phantom is fully contained in the FOV. I've used the default projection and back projection operators for both SART (30 iterations of SART instead of the default 5) and FDK. And there are very noticeable differences outside the FOV, especially at the edges of the projection cone, where SART produces high errors while FDK doesn't. Is this a normal behavior ? I'm using these reconstructions to initialize an iterative algorithm, and my real data is truncated, so I'd prefer to use SART than FDK. These high errors outside the FOV make me hesitate, though. SART : [cid:image001.jpg at 01CE3604.D3EA4D80] FDK : [cid:image002.jpg at 01CE3604.D3EA4D80] Regards, ========================================== Cyril Mory PhD student at Philips Medisys and CREATIS Groupement Hospitalier Est H?pital Cardiologique Louis Pradel Laboratoire CREATIS - B?t. B13 CNRS UMR5220, INSERM U1044, INSA-Lyon, Univ. Lyon 1 28, Avenue du Doyen LEPINE 69677 Bron cedex FRANCE Office : +33 4 72 35 74 12 Cell : +33 6 69 46 73 79 ________________________________ The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 92933 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 74939 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From simon.rit at creatis.insa-lyon.fr Wed Apr 10 10:53:20 2013 From: simon.rit at creatis.insa-lyon.fr (Simon Rit) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 16:53:20 +0200 Subject: [Rtk-users] SART vs FDK In-Reply-To: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74D68@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> References: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74C87@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74D68@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Message-ID: Thanks for the references. I'll check them and I'll let you know if I detect a specific technique that should be used. Don't hesitate if you have other questions, Simon On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 4:09 PM, MORY, CYRIL wrote: > Thanks for your answer. I?ll crop the FDK and SART volumes to the FOV > and see if initializing my algorithm this way yields better results.**** > > Regarding ROI + TV, I don?t know the literature on the topic, but it turns > out it?s quite abundant : a simple google search yields many results ( > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3055906/, > http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9155/54/9/014) **** > > ** ** > > Regards,**** > > Cyril**** > > *De :* simon.rit at gmail.com [mailto:simon.rit at gmail.com] *De la part de*Simon Rit > *Envoy? :* mercredi 10 avril 2013 14:54 > *? :* MORY, CYRIL > *Cc :* vilaoliva at creatis.insa-lyon.fr; rtk-users at openrtk.org > *Objet :* Re: SART vs FDK**** > > ** ** > > Hi, > This is a difficult question and I don't know the answer. I think what you > observe is the famous edge artifact of SART reconstructions. My feeling is > that that one can not trust values outside the FOV in any algorithm. I > would mask the FOV if I were you, whatever the algorithm. On real data, I > know it costs a bit of time but only a test with each initialization will > give you an answer.**** > > BTW, do you know any publication on ROI reconstruction+TV ?**** > > Simon**** > > ** ** > > PS : I'm investigating the maling list issue, I'll let you know when I get > an answer.**** > > ** ** > > On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:59 PM, MORY, CYRIL > wrote:**** > > Hi Simon, Hi Marc,**** > > **** > > I?ve tried to send this mail to the mailing list, but it contains images, > so a manual approval from the list?s manager is required. **** > > And last time I talked with Simon, he couldn?t find the interface to > approve or reject the emails. So I forward it.**** > > > Regards,**** > > Cyril **** > > **** > > *De :* MORY, CYRIL > *Envoy? :* mercredi 10 avril 2013 11:54 > *? :* rtk-users at openrtk.org > *Objet :* SART vs FDK**** > > **** > > Hi,**** > > **** > > I?m wondering whether the reconstruction results I get with SART and FDK > are normal or not. I?ve performed reconstructions of a moving Shepp and > Logan phantom, using 308 projections equidistributed on a 360? circular > trajectory. The phantom is fully contained in the FOV. I?ve used the > default projection and back projection operators for both SART (30 > iterations of SART instead of the default 5) and FDK. And there are very > noticeable differences outside the FOV, especially at the edges of the > projection cone, where SART produces high errors while FDK doesn?t. **** > > **** > > Is this a normal behavior ? I?m using these reconstructions to initialize > an iterative algorithm, and my real data is truncated, so I?d prefer to use > SART than FDK. These high errors outside the FOV make me hesitate, though. > **** > > **** > > SART :**** > > **** > > **** > > FDK : **** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > Regards,**** > > **** > > **** > > ==========================================**** > > Cyril Mory**** > > PhD student at Philips Medisys and CREATIS**** > > **** > > Groupement Hospitalier Est**** > > H?pital Cardiologique Louis Pradel**** > > Laboratoire CREATIS - B?t. B13**** > > CNRS UMR5220, INSERM U1044, INSA-Lyon, Univ. Lyon 1**** > > 28, Avenue du Doyen LEPINE**** > > 69677 Bron cedex FRANCE**** > > **** > > Office : +33 4 72 35 74 12**** > > Cell : +33 6 69 46 73 79**** > > **** > > ** ** > ------------------------------ > > The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally > protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the > addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby > notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this > message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the > intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy > all copies of the original message.**** > > ** ** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 92933 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 74939 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pierre.ldff at gmail.com Tue Apr 23 03:48:46 2013 From: pierre.ldff at gmail.com (Pierre Le Duff) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:48:46 +0200 Subject: [Rtk-users] Open gate file. Message-ID: Hello all, I would like to know if rtk can open GATE simulation file ? Thanks, Pierre -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marc.vila-oliva at creatis.insa-lyon.fr Tue Apr 23 04:26:41 2013 From: marc.vila-oliva at creatis.insa-lyon.fr (Marc Vila Oliva) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:26:41 +0200 Subject: [Rtk-users] Open gate file. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1366705602.2950.1.camel@mvila-laptop> Hello Pierre, On Tue, 2013-04-23 at 09:48 +0200, Pierre Le Duff wrote: > Hello all, > > I would like to know if rtk can open GATE simulation file ? Sorry, but for the moment this possibility does not exist under RTK. If it is possible to know what do you want to do exactly? Cheers, Marc > > > > Thanks, > > Pierre > > _______________________________________________ > Rtk-users mailing list > Rtk-users at openrtk.org > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rtk-users From Cyril.Mory at philips.com Wed Apr 10 05:59:49 2013 From: Cyril.Mory at philips.com (MORY, CYRIL) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 09:59:49 +0000 Subject: [Rtk-users] SART vs FDK Message-ID: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74C3F@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Hi, I'm wondering whether the reconstruction results I get with SART and FDK are normal or not. I've performed reconstructions of a moving Shepp and Logan phantom, using 308 projections equidistributed on a 360? circular trajectory. The phantom is fully contained in the FOV. I've used the default projection and back projection operators for both SART (30 iterations of SART instead of the default 5) and FDK. And there are very noticeable differences outside the FOV, especially at the edges of the projection cone, where SART produces high errors while FDK doesn't. Is this a normal behavior ? I'm using these reconstructions to initialize an iterative algorithm, and my real data is truncated, so I'd prefer to use SART than FDK. These high errors outside the FOV make me hesitate, though. SART : [cid:image002.jpg at 01CE35E2.1DE522C0] FDK : [cid:image004.jpg at 01CE35E2.1DE522C0] Regards, ========================================== Cyril Mory PhD student at Philips Medisys and CREATIS Groupement Hospitalier Est H?pital Cardiologique Louis Pradel Laboratoire CREATIS - B?t. B13 CNRS UMR5220, INSERM U1044, INSA-Lyon, Univ. Lyon 1 28, Avenue du Doyen LEPINE 69677 Bron cedex FRANCE Office : +33 4 72 35 74 12 Cell : +33 6 69 46 73 79 ________________________________ The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 92933 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 74939 bytes Desc: image004.jpg URL: From simon.rit at creatis.insa-lyon.fr Wed Apr 10 08:54:03 2013 From: simon.rit at creatis.insa-lyon.fr (Simon Rit) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:54:03 +0200 Subject: [Rtk-users] SART vs FDK In-Reply-To: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74C87@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> References: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74C87@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Message-ID: Hi, This is a difficult question and I don't know the answer. I think what you observe is the famous edge artifact of SART reconstructions. My feeling is that that one can not trust values outside the FOV in any algorithm. I would mask the FOV if I were you, whatever the algorithm. On real data, I know it costs a bit of time but only a test with each initialization will give you an answer. BTW, do you know any publication on ROI reconstruction+TV ? Simon PS : I'm investigating the maling list issue, I'll let you know when I get an answer. On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:59 PM, MORY, CYRIL wrote: > Hi Simon, Hi Marc, > > > > I?ve tried to send this mail to the mailing list, but it contains images, > so a manual approval from the list?s manager is required. > > And last time I talked with Simon, he couldn?t find the interface to > approve or reject the emails. So I forward it. > > > Regards, > > Cyril > > > > *De :* MORY, CYRIL > *Envoy? :* mercredi 10 avril 2013 11:54 > *? :* rtk-users at openrtk.org > *Objet :* SART vs FDK > > > > Hi, > > > > I?m wondering whether the reconstruction results I get with SART and FDK > are normal or not. I?ve performed reconstructions of a moving Shepp and > Logan phantom, using 308 projections equidistributed on a 360? circular > trajectory. The phantom is fully contained in the FOV. I?ve used the > default projection and back projection operators for both SART (30 > iterations of SART instead of the default 5) and FDK. And there are very > noticeable differences outside the FOV, especially at the edges of the > projection cone, where SART produces high errors while FDK doesn?t. > > > > Is this a normal behavior ? I?m using these reconstructions to initialize > an iterative algorithm, and my real data is truncated, so I?d prefer to use > SART than FDK. These high errors outside the FOV make me hesitate, though. > > > > SART : > > > > FDK : > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > ========================================== > > Cyril Mory > > PhD student at Philips Medisys and CREATIS > > > > Groupement Hospitalier Est > > H?pital Cardiologique Louis Pradel > > Laboratoire CREATIS - B?t. B13 > > CNRS UMR5220, INSERM U1044, INSA-Lyon, Univ. Lyon 1 > > 28, Avenue du Doyen LEPINE > > 69677 Bron cedex FRANCE > > > > Office : +33 4 72 35 74 12 > > Cell : +33 6 69 46 73 79 > > > > ------------------------------ > The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally > protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the > addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby > notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this > message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the > intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy > all copies of the original message. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 92933 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 74939 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Cyril.Mory at philips.com Wed Apr 10 10:09:48 2013 From: Cyril.Mory at philips.com (MORY, CYRIL) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:09:48 +0000 Subject: [Rtk-users] SART vs FDK In-Reply-To: References: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74C87@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Message-ID: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74D68@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Thanks for your answer. I'll crop the FDK and SART volumes to the FOV and see if initializing my algorithm this way yields better results. Regarding ROI + TV, I don't know the literature on the topic, but it turns out it's quite abundant : a simple google search yields many results (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3055906/, http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9155/54/9/014) Regards, Cyril De : simon.rit at gmail.com [mailto:simon.rit at gmail.com] De la part de Simon Rit Envoy? : mercredi 10 avril 2013 14:54 ? : MORY, CYRIL Cc : vilaoliva at creatis.insa-lyon.fr; rtk-users at openrtk.org Objet : Re: SART vs FDK Hi, This is a difficult question and I don't know the answer. I think what you observe is the famous edge artifact of SART reconstructions. My feeling is that that one can not trust values outside the FOV in any algorithm. I would mask the FOV if I were you, whatever the algorithm. On real data, I know it costs a bit of time but only a test with each initialization will give you an answer. BTW, do you know any publication on ROI reconstruction+TV ? Simon PS : I'm investigating the maling list issue, I'll let you know when I get an answer. On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:59 PM, MORY, CYRIL > wrote: Hi Simon, Hi Marc, I've tried to send this mail to the mailing list, but it contains images, so a manual approval from the list's manager is required. And last time I talked with Simon, he couldn't find the interface to approve or reject the emails. So I forward it. Regards, Cyril De : MORY, CYRIL Envoy? : mercredi 10 avril 2013 11:54 ? : rtk-users at openrtk.org Objet : SART vs FDK Hi, I'm wondering whether the reconstruction results I get with SART and FDK are normal or not. I've performed reconstructions of a moving Shepp and Logan phantom, using 308 projections equidistributed on a 360? circular trajectory. The phantom is fully contained in the FOV. I've used the default projection and back projection operators for both SART (30 iterations of SART instead of the default 5) and FDK. And there are very noticeable differences outside the FOV, especially at the edges of the projection cone, where SART produces high errors while FDK doesn't. Is this a normal behavior ? I'm using these reconstructions to initialize an iterative algorithm, and my real data is truncated, so I'd prefer to use SART than FDK. These high errors outside the FOV make me hesitate, though. SART : [cid:image001.jpg at 01CE3604.D3EA4D80] FDK : [cid:image002.jpg at 01CE3604.D3EA4D80] Regards, ========================================== Cyril Mory PhD student at Philips Medisys and CREATIS Groupement Hospitalier Est H?pital Cardiologique Louis Pradel Laboratoire CREATIS - B?t. B13 CNRS UMR5220, INSERM U1044, INSA-Lyon, Univ. Lyon 1 28, Avenue du Doyen LEPINE 69677 Bron cedex FRANCE Office : +33 4 72 35 74 12 Cell : +33 6 69 46 73 79 ________________________________ The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 92933 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 74939 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From simon.rit at creatis.insa-lyon.fr Wed Apr 10 10:53:20 2013 From: simon.rit at creatis.insa-lyon.fr (Simon Rit) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 16:53:20 +0200 Subject: [Rtk-users] SART vs FDK In-Reply-To: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74D68@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> References: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74C87@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74D68@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Message-ID: Thanks for the references. I'll check them and I'll let you know if I detect a specific technique that should be used. Don't hesitate if you have other questions, Simon On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 4:09 PM, MORY, CYRIL wrote: > Thanks for your answer. I?ll crop the FDK and SART volumes to the FOV > and see if initializing my algorithm this way yields better results.**** > > Regarding ROI + TV, I don?t know the literature on the topic, but it turns > out it?s quite abundant : a simple google search yields many results ( > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3055906/, > http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9155/54/9/014) **** > > ** ** > > Regards,**** > > Cyril**** > > *De :* simon.rit at gmail.com [mailto:simon.rit at gmail.com] *De la part de*Simon Rit > *Envoy? :* mercredi 10 avril 2013 14:54 > *? :* MORY, CYRIL > *Cc :* vilaoliva at creatis.insa-lyon.fr; rtk-users at openrtk.org > *Objet :* Re: SART vs FDK**** > > ** ** > > Hi, > This is a difficult question and I don't know the answer. I think what you > observe is the famous edge artifact of SART reconstructions. My feeling is > that that one can not trust values outside the FOV in any algorithm. I > would mask the FOV if I were you, whatever the algorithm. On real data, I > know it costs a bit of time but only a test with each initialization will > give you an answer.**** > > BTW, do you know any publication on ROI reconstruction+TV ?**** > > Simon**** > > ** ** > > PS : I'm investigating the maling list issue, I'll let you know when I get > an answer.**** > > ** ** > > On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:59 PM, MORY, CYRIL > wrote:**** > > Hi Simon, Hi Marc,**** > > **** > > I?ve tried to send this mail to the mailing list, but it contains images, > so a manual approval from the list?s manager is required. **** > > And last time I talked with Simon, he couldn?t find the interface to > approve or reject the emails. So I forward it.**** > > > Regards,**** > > Cyril **** > > **** > > *De :* MORY, CYRIL > *Envoy? :* mercredi 10 avril 2013 11:54 > *? :* rtk-users at openrtk.org > *Objet :* SART vs FDK**** > > **** > > Hi,**** > > **** > > I?m wondering whether the reconstruction results I get with SART and FDK > are normal or not. I?ve performed reconstructions of a moving Shepp and > Logan phantom, using 308 projections equidistributed on a 360? circular > trajectory. The phantom is fully contained in the FOV. I?ve used the > default projection and back projection operators for both SART (30 > iterations of SART instead of the default 5) and FDK. And there are very > noticeable differences outside the FOV, especially at the edges of the > projection cone, where SART produces high errors while FDK doesn?t. **** > > **** > > Is this a normal behavior ? I?m using these reconstructions to initialize > an iterative algorithm, and my real data is truncated, so I?d prefer to use > SART than FDK. These high errors outside the FOV make me hesitate, though. > **** > > **** > > SART :**** > > **** > > **** > > FDK : **** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > Regards,**** > > **** > > **** > > ==========================================**** > > Cyril Mory**** > > PhD student at Philips Medisys and CREATIS**** > > **** > > Groupement Hospitalier Est**** > > H?pital Cardiologique Louis Pradel**** > > Laboratoire CREATIS - B?t. B13**** > > CNRS UMR5220, INSERM U1044, INSA-Lyon, Univ. Lyon 1**** > > 28, Avenue du Doyen LEPINE**** > > 69677 Bron cedex FRANCE**** > > **** > > Office : +33 4 72 35 74 12**** > > Cell : +33 6 69 46 73 79**** > > **** > > ** ** > ------------------------------ > > The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally > protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the > addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby > notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this > message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the > intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy > all copies of the original message.**** > > ** ** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 92933 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 74939 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pierre.ldff at gmail.com Tue Apr 23 03:48:46 2013 From: pierre.ldff at gmail.com (Pierre Le Duff) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:48:46 +0200 Subject: [Rtk-users] Open gate file. Message-ID: Hello all, I would like to know if rtk can open GATE simulation file ? Thanks, Pierre -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marc.vila-oliva at creatis.insa-lyon.fr Tue Apr 23 04:26:41 2013 From: marc.vila-oliva at creatis.insa-lyon.fr (Marc Vila Oliva) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:26:41 +0200 Subject: [Rtk-users] Open gate file. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1366705602.2950.1.camel@mvila-laptop> Hello Pierre, On Tue, 2013-04-23 at 09:48 +0200, Pierre Le Duff wrote: > Hello all, > > I would like to know if rtk can open GATE simulation file ? Sorry, but for the moment this possibility does not exist under RTK. If it is possible to know what do you want to do exactly? Cheers, Marc > > > > Thanks, > > Pierre > > _______________________________________________ > Rtk-users mailing list > Rtk-users at openrtk.org > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rtk-users From Cyril.Mory at philips.com Wed Apr 10 05:59:49 2013 From: Cyril.Mory at philips.com (MORY, CYRIL) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 09:59:49 +0000 Subject: [Rtk-users] SART vs FDK Message-ID: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74C3F@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Hi, I'm wondering whether the reconstruction results I get with SART and FDK are normal or not. I've performed reconstructions of a moving Shepp and Logan phantom, using 308 projections equidistributed on a 360? circular trajectory. The phantom is fully contained in the FOV. I've used the default projection and back projection operators for both SART (30 iterations of SART instead of the default 5) and FDK. And there are very noticeable differences outside the FOV, especially at the edges of the projection cone, where SART produces high errors while FDK doesn't. Is this a normal behavior ? I'm using these reconstructions to initialize an iterative algorithm, and my real data is truncated, so I'd prefer to use SART than FDK. These high errors outside the FOV make me hesitate, though. SART : [cid:image002.jpg at 01CE35E2.1DE522C0] FDK : [cid:image004.jpg at 01CE35E2.1DE522C0] Regards, ========================================== Cyril Mory PhD student at Philips Medisys and CREATIS Groupement Hospitalier Est H?pital Cardiologique Louis Pradel Laboratoire CREATIS - B?t. B13 CNRS UMR5220, INSERM U1044, INSA-Lyon, Univ. Lyon 1 28, Avenue du Doyen LEPINE 69677 Bron cedex FRANCE Office : +33 4 72 35 74 12 Cell : +33 6 69 46 73 79 ________________________________ The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 92933 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 74939 bytes Desc: image004.jpg URL: From simon.rit at creatis.insa-lyon.fr Wed Apr 10 08:54:03 2013 From: simon.rit at creatis.insa-lyon.fr (Simon Rit) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:54:03 +0200 Subject: [Rtk-users] SART vs FDK In-Reply-To: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74C87@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> References: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74C87@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Message-ID: Hi, This is a difficult question and I don't know the answer. I think what you observe is the famous edge artifact of SART reconstructions. My feeling is that that one can not trust values outside the FOV in any algorithm. I would mask the FOV if I were you, whatever the algorithm. On real data, I know it costs a bit of time but only a test with each initialization will give you an answer. BTW, do you know any publication on ROI reconstruction+TV ? Simon PS : I'm investigating the maling list issue, I'll let you know when I get an answer. On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:59 PM, MORY, CYRIL wrote: > Hi Simon, Hi Marc, > > > > I?ve tried to send this mail to the mailing list, but it contains images, > so a manual approval from the list?s manager is required. > > And last time I talked with Simon, he couldn?t find the interface to > approve or reject the emails. So I forward it. > > > Regards, > > Cyril > > > > *De :* MORY, CYRIL > *Envoy? :* mercredi 10 avril 2013 11:54 > *? :* rtk-users at openrtk.org > *Objet :* SART vs FDK > > > > Hi, > > > > I?m wondering whether the reconstruction results I get with SART and FDK > are normal or not. I?ve performed reconstructions of a moving Shepp and > Logan phantom, using 308 projections equidistributed on a 360? circular > trajectory. The phantom is fully contained in the FOV. I?ve used the > default projection and back projection operators for both SART (30 > iterations of SART instead of the default 5) and FDK. And there are very > noticeable differences outside the FOV, especially at the edges of the > projection cone, where SART produces high errors while FDK doesn?t. > > > > Is this a normal behavior ? I?m using these reconstructions to initialize > an iterative algorithm, and my real data is truncated, so I?d prefer to use > SART than FDK. These high errors outside the FOV make me hesitate, though. > > > > SART : > > > > FDK : > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > ========================================== > > Cyril Mory > > PhD student at Philips Medisys and CREATIS > > > > Groupement Hospitalier Est > > H?pital Cardiologique Louis Pradel > > Laboratoire CREATIS - B?t. B13 > > CNRS UMR5220, INSERM U1044, INSA-Lyon, Univ. Lyon 1 > > 28, Avenue du Doyen LEPINE > > 69677 Bron cedex FRANCE > > > > Office : +33 4 72 35 74 12 > > Cell : +33 6 69 46 73 79 > > > > ------------------------------ > The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally > protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the > addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby > notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this > message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the > intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy > all copies of the original message. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 92933 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 74939 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Cyril.Mory at philips.com Wed Apr 10 10:09:48 2013 From: Cyril.Mory at philips.com (MORY, CYRIL) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:09:48 +0000 Subject: [Rtk-users] SART vs FDK In-Reply-To: References: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74C87@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Message-ID: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74D68@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Thanks for your answer. I'll crop the FDK and SART volumes to the FOV and see if initializing my algorithm this way yields better results. Regarding ROI + TV, I don't know the literature on the topic, but it turns out it's quite abundant : a simple google search yields many results (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3055906/, http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9155/54/9/014) Regards, Cyril De : simon.rit at gmail.com [mailto:simon.rit at gmail.com] De la part de Simon Rit Envoy? : mercredi 10 avril 2013 14:54 ? : MORY, CYRIL Cc : vilaoliva at creatis.insa-lyon.fr; rtk-users at openrtk.org Objet : Re: SART vs FDK Hi, This is a difficult question and I don't know the answer. I think what you observe is the famous edge artifact of SART reconstructions. My feeling is that that one can not trust values outside the FOV in any algorithm. I would mask the FOV if I were you, whatever the algorithm. On real data, I know it costs a bit of time but only a test with each initialization will give you an answer. BTW, do you know any publication on ROI reconstruction+TV ? Simon PS : I'm investigating the maling list issue, I'll let you know when I get an answer. On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:59 PM, MORY, CYRIL > wrote: Hi Simon, Hi Marc, I've tried to send this mail to the mailing list, but it contains images, so a manual approval from the list's manager is required. And last time I talked with Simon, he couldn't find the interface to approve or reject the emails. So I forward it. Regards, Cyril De : MORY, CYRIL Envoy? : mercredi 10 avril 2013 11:54 ? : rtk-users at openrtk.org Objet : SART vs FDK Hi, I'm wondering whether the reconstruction results I get with SART and FDK are normal or not. I've performed reconstructions of a moving Shepp and Logan phantom, using 308 projections equidistributed on a 360? circular trajectory. The phantom is fully contained in the FOV. I've used the default projection and back projection operators for both SART (30 iterations of SART instead of the default 5) and FDK. And there are very noticeable differences outside the FOV, especially at the edges of the projection cone, where SART produces high errors while FDK doesn't. Is this a normal behavior ? I'm using these reconstructions to initialize an iterative algorithm, and my real data is truncated, so I'd prefer to use SART than FDK. These high errors outside the FOV make me hesitate, though. SART : [cid:image001.jpg at 01CE3604.D3EA4D80] FDK : [cid:image002.jpg at 01CE3604.D3EA4D80] Regards, ========================================== Cyril Mory PhD student at Philips Medisys and CREATIS Groupement Hospitalier Est H?pital Cardiologique Louis Pradel Laboratoire CREATIS - B?t. B13 CNRS UMR5220, INSERM U1044, INSA-Lyon, Univ. Lyon 1 28, Avenue du Doyen LEPINE 69677 Bron cedex FRANCE Office : +33 4 72 35 74 12 Cell : +33 6 69 46 73 79 ________________________________ The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 92933 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 74939 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From simon.rit at creatis.insa-lyon.fr Wed Apr 10 10:53:20 2013 From: simon.rit at creatis.insa-lyon.fr (Simon Rit) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 16:53:20 +0200 Subject: [Rtk-users] SART vs FDK In-Reply-To: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74D68@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> References: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74C87@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74D68@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Message-ID: Thanks for the references. I'll check them and I'll let you know if I detect a specific technique that should be used. Don't hesitate if you have other questions, Simon On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 4:09 PM, MORY, CYRIL wrote: > Thanks for your answer. I?ll crop the FDK and SART volumes to the FOV > and see if initializing my algorithm this way yields better results.**** > > Regarding ROI + TV, I don?t know the literature on the topic, but it turns > out it?s quite abundant : a simple google search yields many results ( > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3055906/, > http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9155/54/9/014) **** > > ** ** > > Regards,**** > > Cyril**** > > *De :* simon.rit at gmail.com [mailto:simon.rit at gmail.com] *De la part de*Simon Rit > *Envoy? :* mercredi 10 avril 2013 14:54 > *? :* MORY, CYRIL > *Cc :* vilaoliva at creatis.insa-lyon.fr; rtk-users at openrtk.org > *Objet :* Re: SART vs FDK**** > > ** ** > > Hi, > This is a difficult question and I don't know the answer. I think what you > observe is the famous edge artifact of SART reconstructions. My feeling is > that that one can not trust values outside the FOV in any algorithm. I > would mask the FOV if I were you, whatever the algorithm. On real data, I > know it costs a bit of time but only a test with each initialization will > give you an answer.**** > > BTW, do you know any publication on ROI reconstruction+TV ?**** > > Simon**** > > ** ** > > PS : I'm investigating the maling list issue, I'll let you know when I get > an answer.**** > > ** ** > > On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:59 PM, MORY, CYRIL > wrote:**** > > Hi Simon, Hi Marc,**** > > **** > > I?ve tried to send this mail to the mailing list, but it contains images, > so a manual approval from the list?s manager is required. **** > > And last time I talked with Simon, he couldn?t find the interface to > approve or reject the emails. So I forward it.**** > > > Regards,**** > > Cyril **** > > **** > > *De :* MORY, CYRIL > *Envoy? :* mercredi 10 avril 2013 11:54 > *? :* rtk-users at openrtk.org > *Objet :* SART vs FDK**** > > **** > > Hi,**** > > **** > > I?m wondering whether the reconstruction results I get with SART and FDK > are normal or not. I?ve performed reconstructions of a moving Shepp and > Logan phantom, using 308 projections equidistributed on a 360? circular > trajectory. The phantom is fully contained in the FOV. I?ve used the > default projection and back projection operators for both SART (30 > iterations of SART instead of the default 5) and FDK. And there are very > noticeable differences outside the FOV, especially at the edges of the > projection cone, where SART produces high errors while FDK doesn?t. **** > > **** > > Is this a normal behavior ? I?m using these reconstructions to initialize > an iterative algorithm, and my real data is truncated, so I?d prefer to use > SART than FDK. These high errors outside the FOV make me hesitate, though. > **** > > **** > > SART :**** > > **** > > **** > > FDK : **** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > Regards,**** > > **** > > **** > > ==========================================**** > > Cyril Mory**** > > PhD student at Philips Medisys and CREATIS**** > > **** > > Groupement Hospitalier Est**** > > H?pital Cardiologique Louis Pradel**** > > Laboratoire CREATIS - B?t. B13**** > > CNRS UMR5220, INSERM U1044, INSA-Lyon, Univ. Lyon 1**** > > 28, Avenue du Doyen LEPINE**** > > 69677 Bron cedex FRANCE**** > > **** > > Office : +33 4 72 35 74 12**** > > Cell : +33 6 69 46 73 79**** > > **** > > ** ** > ------------------------------ > > The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally > protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the > addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby > notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this > message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the > intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy > all copies of the original message.**** > > ** ** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 92933 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 74939 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pierre.ldff at gmail.com Tue Apr 23 03:48:46 2013 From: pierre.ldff at gmail.com (Pierre Le Duff) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:48:46 +0200 Subject: [Rtk-users] Open gate file. Message-ID: Hello all, I would like to know if rtk can open GATE simulation file ? Thanks, Pierre -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marc.vila-oliva at creatis.insa-lyon.fr Tue Apr 23 04:26:41 2013 From: marc.vila-oliva at creatis.insa-lyon.fr (Marc Vila Oliva) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:26:41 +0200 Subject: [Rtk-users] Open gate file. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1366705602.2950.1.camel@mvila-laptop> Hello Pierre, On Tue, 2013-04-23 at 09:48 +0200, Pierre Le Duff wrote: > Hello all, > > I would like to know if rtk can open GATE simulation file ? Sorry, but for the moment this possibility does not exist under RTK. If it is possible to know what do you want to do exactly? Cheers, Marc > > > > Thanks, > > Pierre > > _______________________________________________ > Rtk-users mailing list > Rtk-users at openrtk.org > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rtk-users From Cyril.Mory at philips.com Wed Apr 10 05:59:49 2013 From: Cyril.Mory at philips.com (MORY, CYRIL) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 09:59:49 +0000 Subject: [Rtk-users] SART vs FDK Message-ID: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74C3F@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Hi, I'm wondering whether the reconstruction results I get with SART and FDK are normal or not. I've performed reconstructions of a moving Shepp and Logan phantom, using 308 projections equidistributed on a 360? circular trajectory. The phantom is fully contained in the FOV. I've used the default projection and back projection operators for both SART (30 iterations of SART instead of the default 5) and FDK. And there are very noticeable differences outside the FOV, especially at the edges of the projection cone, where SART produces high errors while FDK doesn't. Is this a normal behavior ? I'm using these reconstructions to initialize an iterative algorithm, and my real data is truncated, so I'd prefer to use SART than FDK. These high errors outside the FOV make me hesitate, though. SART : [cid:image002.jpg at 01CE35E2.1DE522C0] FDK : [cid:image004.jpg at 01CE35E2.1DE522C0] Regards, ========================================== Cyril Mory PhD student at Philips Medisys and CREATIS Groupement Hospitalier Est H?pital Cardiologique Louis Pradel Laboratoire CREATIS - B?t. B13 CNRS UMR5220, INSERM U1044, INSA-Lyon, Univ. Lyon 1 28, Avenue du Doyen LEPINE 69677 Bron cedex FRANCE Office : +33 4 72 35 74 12 Cell : +33 6 69 46 73 79 ________________________________ The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 92933 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 74939 bytes Desc: image004.jpg URL: From simon.rit at creatis.insa-lyon.fr Wed Apr 10 08:54:03 2013 From: simon.rit at creatis.insa-lyon.fr (Simon Rit) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:54:03 +0200 Subject: [Rtk-users] SART vs FDK In-Reply-To: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74C87@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> References: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74C87@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Message-ID: Hi, This is a difficult question and I don't know the answer. I think what you observe is the famous edge artifact of SART reconstructions. My feeling is that that one can not trust values outside the FOV in any algorithm. I would mask the FOV if I were you, whatever the algorithm. On real data, I know it costs a bit of time but only a test with each initialization will give you an answer. BTW, do you know any publication on ROI reconstruction+TV ? Simon PS : I'm investigating the maling list issue, I'll let you know when I get an answer. On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:59 PM, MORY, CYRIL wrote: > Hi Simon, Hi Marc, > > > > I?ve tried to send this mail to the mailing list, but it contains images, > so a manual approval from the list?s manager is required. > > And last time I talked with Simon, he couldn?t find the interface to > approve or reject the emails. So I forward it. > > > Regards, > > Cyril > > > > *De :* MORY, CYRIL > *Envoy? :* mercredi 10 avril 2013 11:54 > *? :* rtk-users at openrtk.org > *Objet :* SART vs FDK > > > > Hi, > > > > I?m wondering whether the reconstruction results I get with SART and FDK > are normal or not. I?ve performed reconstructions of a moving Shepp and > Logan phantom, using 308 projections equidistributed on a 360? circular > trajectory. The phantom is fully contained in the FOV. I?ve used the > default projection and back projection operators for both SART (30 > iterations of SART instead of the default 5) and FDK. And there are very > noticeable differences outside the FOV, especially at the edges of the > projection cone, where SART produces high errors while FDK doesn?t. > > > > Is this a normal behavior ? I?m using these reconstructions to initialize > an iterative algorithm, and my real data is truncated, so I?d prefer to use > SART than FDK. These high errors outside the FOV make me hesitate, though. > > > > SART : > > > > FDK : > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > ========================================== > > Cyril Mory > > PhD student at Philips Medisys and CREATIS > > > > Groupement Hospitalier Est > > H?pital Cardiologique Louis Pradel > > Laboratoire CREATIS - B?t. B13 > > CNRS UMR5220, INSERM U1044, INSA-Lyon, Univ. Lyon 1 > > 28, Avenue du Doyen LEPINE > > 69677 Bron cedex FRANCE > > > > Office : +33 4 72 35 74 12 > > Cell : +33 6 69 46 73 79 > > > > ------------------------------ > The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally > protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the > addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby > notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this > message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the > intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy > all copies of the original message. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 92933 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 74939 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Cyril.Mory at philips.com Wed Apr 10 10:09:48 2013 From: Cyril.Mory at philips.com (MORY, CYRIL) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:09:48 +0000 Subject: [Rtk-users] SART vs FDK In-Reply-To: References: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74C87@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Message-ID: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74D68@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Thanks for your answer. I'll crop the FDK and SART volumes to the FOV and see if initializing my algorithm this way yields better results. Regarding ROI + TV, I don't know the literature on the topic, but it turns out it's quite abundant : a simple google search yields many results (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3055906/, http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9155/54/9/014) Regards, Cyril De : simon.rit at gmail.com [mailto:simon.rit at gmail.com] De la part de Simon Rit Envoy? : mercredi 10 avril 2013 14:54 ? : MORY, CYRIL Cc : vilaoliva at creatis.insa-lyon.fr; rtk-users at openrtk.org Objet : Re: SART vs FDK Hi, This is a difficult question and I don't know the answer. I think what you observe is the famous edge artifact of SART reconstructions. My feeling is that that one can not trust values outside the FOV in any algorithm. I would mask the FOV if I were you, whatever the algorithm. On real data, I know it costs a bit of time but only a test with each initialization will give you an answer. BTW, do you know any publication on ROI reconstruction+TV ? Simon PS : I'm investigating the maling list issue, I'll let you know when I get an answer. On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:59 PM, MORY, CYRIL > wrote: Hi Simon, Hi Marc, I've tried to send this mail to the mailing list, but it contains images, so a manual approval from the list's manager is required. And last time I talked with Simon, he couldn't find the interface to approve or reject the emails. So I forward it. Regards, Cyril De : MORY, CYRIL Envoy? : mercredi 10 avril 2013 11:54 ? : rtk-users at openrtk.org Objet : SART vs FDK Hi, I'm wondering whether the reconstruction results I get with SART and FDK are normal or not. I've performed reconstructions of a moving Shepp and Logan phantom, using 308 projections equidistributed on a 360? circular trajectory. The phantom is fully contained in the FOV. I've used the default projection and back projection operators for both SART (30 iterations of SART instead of the default 5) and FDK. And there are very noticeable differences outside the FOV, especially at the edges of the projection cone, where SART produces high errors while FDK doesn't. Is this a normal behavior ? I'm using these reconstructions to initialize an iterative algorithm, and my real data is truncated, so I'd prefer to use SART than FDK. These high errors outside the FOV make me hesitate, though. SART : [cid:image001.jpg at 01CE3604.D3EA4D80] FDK : [cid:image002.jpg at 01CE3604.D3EA4D80] Regards, ========================================== Cyril Mory PhD student at Philips Medisys and CREATIS Groupement Hospitalier Est H?pital Cardiologique Louis Pradel Laboratoire CREATIS - B?t. B13 CNRS UMR5220, INSERM U1044, INSA-Lyon, Univ. Lyon 1 28, Avenue du Doyen LEPINE 69677 Bron cedex FRANCE Office : +33 4 72 35 74 12 Cell : +33 6 69 46 73 79 ________________________________ The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 92933 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 74939 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From simon.rit at creatis.insa-lyon.fr Wed Apr 10 10:53:20 2013 From: simon.rit at creatis.insa-lyon.fr (Simon Rit) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 16:53:20 +0200 Subject: [Rtk-users] SART vs FDK In-Reply-To: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74D68@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> References: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74C87@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74D68@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Message-ID: Thanks for the references. I'll check them and I'll let you know if I detect a specific technique that should be used. Don't hesitate if you have other questions, Simon On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 4:09 PM, MORY, CYRIL wrote: > Thanks for your answer. I?ll crop the FDK and SART volumes to the FOV > and see if initializing my algorithm this way yields better results.**** > > Regarding ROI + TV, I don?t know the literature on the topic, but it turns > out it?s quite abundant : a simple google search yields many results ( > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3055906/, > http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9155/54/9/014) **** > > ** ** > > Regards,**** > > Cyril**** > > *De :* simon.rit at gmail.com [mailto:simon.rit at gmail.com] *De la part de*Simon Rit > *Envoy? :* mercredi 10 avril 2013 14:54 > *? :* MORY, CYRIL > *Cc :* vilaoliva at creatis.insa-lyon.fr; rtk-users at openrtk.org > *Objet :* Re: SART vs FDK**** > > ** ** > > Hi, > This is a difficult question and I don't know the answer. I think what you > observe is the famous edge artifact of SART reconstructions. My feeling is > that that one can not trust values outside the FOV in any algorithm. I > would mask the FOV if I were you, whatever the algorithm. On real data, I > know it costs a bit of time but only a test with each initialization will > give you an answer.**** > > BTW, do you know any publication on ROI reconstruction+TV ?**** > > Simon**** > > ** ** > > PS : I'm investigating the maling list issue, I'll let you know when I get > an answer.**** > > ** ** > > On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:59 PM, MORY, CYRIL > wrote:**** > > Hi Simon, Hi Marc,**** > > **** > > I?ve tried to send this mail to the mailing list, but it contains images, > so a manual approval from the list?s manager is required. **** > > And last time I talked with Simon, he couldn?t find the interface to > approve or reject the emails. So I forward it.**** > > > Regards,**** > > Cyril **** > > **** > > *De :* MORY, CYRIL > *Envoy? :* mercredi 10 avril 2013 11:54 > *? :* rtk-users at openrtk.org > *Objet :* SART vs FDK**** > > **** > > Hi,**** > > **** > > I?m wondering whether the reconstruction results I get with SART and FDK > are normal or not. I?ve performed reconstructions of a moving Shepp and > Logan phantom, using 308 projections equidistributed on a 360? circular > trajectory. The phantom is fully contained in the FOV. I?ve used the > default projection and back projection operators for both SART (30 > iterations of SART instead of the default 5) and FDK. And there are very > noticeable differences outside the FOV, especially at the edges of the > projection cone, where SART produces high errors while FDK doesn?t. **** > > **** > > Is this a normal behavior ? I?m using these reconstructions to initialize > an iterative algorithm, and my real data is truncated, so I?d prefer to use > SART than FDK. These high errors outside the FOV make me hesitate, though. > **** > > **** > > SART :**** > > **** > > **** > > FDK : **** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > Regards,**** > > **** > > **** > > ==========================================**** > > Cyril Mory**** > > PhD student at Philips Medisys and CREATIS**** > > **** > > Groupement Hospitalier Est**** > > H?pital Cardiologique Louis Pradel**** > > Laboratoire CREATIS - B?t. B13**** > > CNRS UMR5220, INSERM U1044, INSA-Lyon, Univ. Lyon 1**** > > 28, Avenue du Doyen LEPINE**** > > 69677 Bron cedex FRANCE**** > > **** > > Office : +33 4 72 35 74 12**** > > Cell : +33 6 69 46 73 79**** > > **** > > ** ** > ------------------------------ > > The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally > protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the > addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby > notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this > message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the > intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy > all copies of the original message.**** > > ** ** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 92933 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 74939 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pierre.ldff at gmail.com Tue Apr 23 03:48:46 2013 From: pierre.ldff at gmail.com (Pierre Le Duff) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:48:46 +0200 Subject: [Rtk-users] Open gate file. Message-ID: Hello all, I would like to know if rtk can open GATE simulation file ? Thanks, Pierre -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marc.vila-oliva at creatis.insa-lyon.fr Tue Apr 23 04:26:41 2013 From: marc.vila-oliva at creatis.insa-lyon.fr (Marc Vila Oliva) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:26:41 +0200 Subject: [Rtk-users] Open gate file. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1366705602.2950.1.camel@mvila-laptop> Hello Pierre, On Tue, 2013-04-23 at 09:48 +0200, Pierre Le Duff wrote: > Hello all, > > I would like to know if rtk can open GATE simulation file ? Sorry, but for the moment this possibility does not exist under RTK. If it is possible to know what do you want to do exactly? Cheers, Marc > > > > Thanks, > > Pierre > > _______________________________________________ > Rtk-users mailing list > Rtk-users at openrtk.org > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rtk-users From Cyril.Mory at philips.com Wed Apr 10 05:59:49 2013 From: Cyril.Mory at philips.com (MORY, CYRIL) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 09:59:49 +0000 Subject: [Rtk-users] SART vs FDK Message-ID: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74C3F@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Hi, I'm wondering whether the reconstruction results I get with SART and FDK are normal or not. I've performed reconstructions of a moving Shepp and Logan phantom, using 308 projections equidistributed on a 360? circular trajectory. The phantom is fully contained in the FOV. I've used the default projection and back projection operators for both SART (30 iterations of SART instead of the default 5) and FDK. And there are very noticeable differences outside the FOV, especially at the edges of the projection cone, where SART produces high errors while FDK doesn't. Is this a normal behavior ? I'm using these reconstructions to initialize an iterative algorithm, and my real data is truncated, so I'd prefer to use SART than FDK. These high errors outside the FOV make me hesitate, though. SART : [cid:image002.jpg at 01CE35E2.1DE522C0] FDK : [cid:image004.jpg at 01CE35E2.1DE522C0] Regards, ========================================== Cyril Mory PhD student at Philips Medisys and CREATIS Groupement Hospitalier Est H?pital Cardiologique Louis Pradel Laboratoire CREATIS - B?t. B13 CNRS UMR5220, INSERM U1044, INSA-Lyon, Univ. Lyon 1 28, Avenue du Doyen LEPINE 69677 Bron cedex FRANCE Office : +33 4 72 35 74 12 Cell : +33 6 69 46 73 79 ________________________________ The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 92933 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 74939 bytes Desc: image004.jpg URL: From simon.rit at creatis.insa-lyon.fr Wed Apr 10 08:54:03 2013 From: simon.rit at creatis.insa-lyon.fr (Simon Rit) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:54:03 +0200 Subject: [Rtk-users] SART vs FDK In-Reply-To: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74C87@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> References: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74C87@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Message-ID: Hi, This is a difficult question and I don't know the answer. I think what you observe is the famous edge artifact of SART reconstructions. My feeling is that that one can not trust values outside the FOV in any algorithm. I would mask the FOV if I were you, whatever the algorithm. On real data, I know it costs a bit of time but only a test with each initialization will give you an answer. BTW, do you know any publication on ROI reconstruction+TV ? Simon PS : I'm investigating the maling list issue, I'll let you know when I get an answer. On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:59 PM, MORY, CYRIL wrote: > Hi Simon, Hi Marc, > > > > I?ve tried to send this mail to the mailing list, but it contains images, > so a manual approval from the list?s manager is required. > > And last time I talked with Simon, he couldn?t find the interface to > approve or reject the emails. So I forward it. > > > Regards, > > Cyril > > > > *De :* MORY, CYRIL > *Envoy? :* mercredi 10 avril 2013 11:54 > *? :* rtk-users at openrtk.org > *Objet :* SART vs FDK > > > > Hi, > > > > I?m wondering whether the reconstruction results I get with SART and FDK > are normal or not. I?ve performed reconstructions of a moving Shepp and > Logan phantom, using 308 projections equidistributed on a 360? circular > trajectory. The phantom is fully contained in the FOV. I?ve used the > default projection and back projection operators for both SART (30 > iterations of SART instead of the default 5) and FDK. And there are very > noticeable differences outside the FOV, especially at the edges of the > projection cone, where SART produces high errors while FDK doesn?t. > > > > Is this a normal behavior ? I?m using these reconstructions to initialize > an iterative algorithm, and my real data is truncated, so I?d prefer to use > SART than FDK. These high errors outside the FOV make me hesitate, though. > > > > SART : > > > > FDK : > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > ========================================== > > Cyril Mory > > PhD student at Philips Medisys and CREATIS > > > > Groupement Hospitalier Est > > H?pital Cardiologique Louis Pradel > > Laboratoire CREATIS - B?t. B13 > > CNRS UMR5220, INSERM U1044, INSA-Lyon, Univ. Lyon 1 > > 28, Avenue du Doyen LEPINE > > 69677 Bron cedex FRANCE > > > > Office : +33 4 72 35 74 12 > > Cell : +33 6 69 46 73 79 > > > > ------------------------------ > The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally > protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the > addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby > notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this > message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the > intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy > all copies of the original message. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 92933 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 74939 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Cyril.Mory at philips.com Wed Apr 10 10:09:48 2013 From: Cyril.Mory at philips.com (MORY, CYRIL) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:09:48 +0000 Subject: [Rtk-users] SART vs FDK In-Reply-To: References: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74C87@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Message-ID: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74D68@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Thanks for your answer. I'll crop the FDK and SART volumes to the FOV and see if initializing my algorithm this way yields better results. Regarding ROI + TV, I don't know the literature on the topic, but it turns out it's quite abundant : a simple google search yields many results (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3055906/, http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9155/54/9/014) Regards, Cyril De : simon.rit at gmail.com [mailto:simon.rit at gmail.com] De la part de Simon Rit Envoy? : mercredi 10 avril 2013 14:54 ? : MORY, CYRIL Cc : vilaoliva at creatis.insa-lyon.fr; rtk-users at openrtk.org Objet : Re: SART vs FDK Hi, This is a difficult question and I don't know the answer. I think what you observe is the famous edge artifact of SART reconstructions. My feeling is that that one can not trust values outside the FOV in any algorithm. I would mask the FOV if I were you, whatever the algorithm. On real data, I know it costs a bit of time but only a test with each initialization will give you an answer. BTW, do you know any publication on ROI reconstruction+TV ? Simon PS : I'm investigating the maling list issue, I'll let you know when I get an answer. On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:59 PM, MORY, CYRIL > wrote: Hi Simon, Hi Marc, I've tried to send this mail to the mailing list, but it contains images, so a manual approval from the list's manager is required. And last time I talked with Simon, he couldn't find the interface to approve or reject the emails. So I forward it. Regards, Cyril De : MORY, CYRIL Envoy? : mercredi 10 avril 2013 11:54 ? : rtk-users at openrtk.org Objet : SART vs FDK Hi, I'm wondering whether the reconstruction results I get with SART and FDK are normal or not. I've performed reconstructions of a moving Shepp and Logan phantom, using 308 projections equidistributed on a 360? circular trajectory. The phantom is fully contained in the FOV. I've used the default projection and back projection operators for both SART (30 iterations of SART instead of the default 5) and FDK. And there are very noticeable differences outside the FOV, especially at the edges of the projection cone, where SART produces high errors while FDK doesn't. Is this a normal behavior ? I'm using these reconstructions to initialize an iterative algorithm, and my real data is truncated, so I'd prefer to use SART than FDK. These high errors outside the FOV make me hesitate, though. SART : [cid:image001.jpg at 01CE3604.D3EA4D80] FDK : [cid:image002.jpg at 01CE3604.D3EA4D80] Regards, ========================================== Cyril Mory PhD student at Philips Medisys and CREATIS Groupement Hospitalier Est H?pital Cardiologique Louis Pradel Laboratoire CREATIS - B?t. B13 CNRS UMR5220, INSERM U1044, INSA-Lyon, Univ. Lyon 1 28, Avenue du Doyen LEPINE 69677 Bron cedex FRANCE Office : +33 4 72 35 74 12 Cell : +33 6 69 46 73 79 ________________________________ The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 92933 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 74939 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From simon.rit at creatis.insa-lyon.fr Wed Apr 10 10:53:20 2013 From: simon.rit at creatis.insa-lyon.fr (Simon Rit) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 16:53:20 +0200 Subject: [Rtk-users] SART vs FDK In-Reply-To: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74D68@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> References: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74C87@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74D68@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Message-ID: Thanks for the references. I'll check them and I'll let you know if I detect a specific technique that should be used. Don't hesitate if you have other questions, Simon On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 4:09 PM, MORY, CYRIL wrote: > Thanks for your answer. I?ll crop the FDK and SART volumes to the FOV > and see if initializing my algorithm this way yields better results.**** > > Regarding ROI + TV, I don?t know the literature on the topic, but it turns > out it?s quite abundant : a simple google search yields many results ( > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3055906/, > http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9155/54/9/014) **** > > ** ** > > Regards,**** > > Cyril**** > > *De :* simon.rit at gmail.com [mailto:simon.rit at gmail.com] *De la part de*Simon Rit > *Envoy? :* mercredi 10 avril 2013 14:54 > *? :* MORY, CYRIL > *Cc :* vilaoliva at creatis.insa-lyon.fr; rtk-users at openrtk.org > *Objet :* Re: SART vs FDK**** > > ** ** > > Hi, > This is a difficult question and I don't know the answer. I think what you > observe is the famous edge artifact of SART reconstructions. My feeling is > that that one can not trust values outside the FOV in any algorithm. I > would mask the FOV if I were you, whatever the algorithm. On real data, I > know it costs a bit of time but only a test with each initialization will > give you an answer.**** > > BTW, do you know any publication on ROI reconstruction+TV ?**** > > Simon**** > > ** ** > > PS : I'm investigating the maling list issue, I'll let you know when I get > an answer.**** > > ** ** > > On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:59 PM, MORY, CYRIL > wrote:**** > > Hi Simon, Hi Marc,**** > > **** > > I?ve tried to send this mail to the mailing list, but it contains images, > so a manual approval from the list?s manager is required. **** > > And last time I talked with Simon, he couldn?t find the interface to > approve or reject the emails. So I forward it.**** > > > Regards,**** > > Cyril **** > > **** > > *De :* MORY, CYRIL > *Envoy? :* mercredi 10 avril 2013 11:54 > *? :* rtk-users at openrtk.org > *Objet :* SART vs FDK**** > > **** > > Hi,**** > > **** > > I?m wondering whether the reconstruction results I get with SART and FDK > are normal or not. I?ve performed reconstructions of a moving Shepp and > Logan phantom, using 308 projections equidistributed on a 360? circular > trajectory. The phantom is fully contained in the FOV. I?ve used the > default projection and back projection operators for both SART (30 > iterations of SART instead of the default 5) and FDK. And there are very > noticeable differences outside the FOV, especially at the edges of the > projection cone, where SART produces high errors while FDK doesn?t. **** > > **** > > Is this a normal behavior ? I?m using these reconstructions to initialize > an iterative algorithm, and my real data is truncated, so I?d prefer to use > SART than FDK. These high errors outside the FOV make me hesitate, though. > **** > > **** > > SART :**** > > **** > > **** > > FDK : **** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > Regards,**** > > **** > > **** > > ==========================================**** > > Cyril Mory**** > > PhD student at Philips Medisys and CREATIS**** > > **** > > Groupement Hospitalier Est**** > > H?pital Cardiologique Louis Pradel**** > > Laboratoire CREATIS - B?t. B13**** > > CNRS UMR5220, INSERM U1044, INSA-Lyon, Univ. Lyon 1**** > > 28, Avenue du Doyen LEPINE**** > > 69677 Bron cedex FRANCE**** > > **** > > Office : +33 4 72 35 74 12**** > > Cell : +33 6 69 46 73 79**** > > **** > > ** ** > ------------------------------ > > The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally > protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the > addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby > notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this > message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the > intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy > all copies of the original message.**** > > ** ** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 92933 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 74939 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pierre.ldff at gmail.com Tue Apr 23 03:48:46 2013 From: pierre.ldff at gmail.com (Pierre Le Duff) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:48:46 +0200 Subject: [Rtk-users] Open gate file. Message-ID: Hello all, I would like to know if rtk can open GATE simulation file ? Thanks, Pierre -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marc.vila-oliva at creatis.insa-lyon.fr Tue Apr 23 04:26:41 2013 From: marc.vila-oliva at creatis.insa-lyon.fr (Marc Vila Oliva) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:26:41 +0200 Subject: [Rtk-users] Open gate file. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1366705602.2950.1.camel@mvila-laptop> Hello Pierre, On Tue, 2013-04-23 at 09:48 +0200, Pierre Le Duff wrote: > Hello all, > > I would like to know if rtk can open GATE simulation file ? Sorry, but for the moment this possibility does not exist under RTK. If it is possible to know what do you want to do exactly? Cheers, Marc > > > > Thanks, > > Pierre > > _______________________________________________ > Rtk-users mailing list > Rtk-users at openrtk.org > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rtk-users From Cyril.Mory at philips.com Wed Apr 10 05:59:49 2013 From: Cyril.Mory at philips.com (MORY, CYRIL) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 09:59:49 +0000 Subject: [Rtk-users] SART vs FDK Message-ID: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74C3F@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Hi, I'm wondering whether the reconstruction results I get with SART and FDK are normal or not. I've performed reconstructions of a moving Shepp and Logan phantom, using 308 projections equidistributed on a 360? circular trajectory. The phantom is fully contained in the FOV. I've used the default projection and back projection operators for both SART (30 iterations of SART instead of the default 5) and FDK. And there are very noticeable differences outside the FOV, especially at the edges of the projection cone, where SART produces high errors while FDK doesn't. Is this a normal behavior ? I'm using these reconstructions to initialize an iterative algorithm, and my real data is truncated, so I'd prefer to use SART than FDK. These high errors outside the FOV make me hesitate, though. SART : [cid:image002.jpg at 01CE35E2.1DE522C0] FDK : [cid:image004.jpg at 01CE35E2.1DE522C0] Regards, ========================================== Cyril Mory PhD student at Philips Medisys and CREATIS Groupement Hospitalier Est H?pital Cardiologique Louis Pradel Laboratoire CREATIS - B?t. B13 CNRS UMR5220, INSERM U1044, INSA-Lyon, Univ. Lyon 1 28, Avenue du Doyen LEPINE 69677 Bron cedex FRANCE Office : +33 4 72 35 74 12 Cell : +33 6 69 46 73 79 ________________________________ The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 92933 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 74939 bytes Desc: image004.jpg URL: From simon.rit at creatis.insa-lyon.fr Wed Apr 10 08:54:03 2013 From: simon.rit at creatis.insa-lyon.fr (Simon Rit) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:54:03 +0200 Subject: [Rtk-users] SART vs FDK In-Reply-To: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74C87@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> References: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74C87@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Message-ID: Hi, This is a difficult question and I don't know the answer. I think what you observe is the famous edge artifact of SART reconstructions. My feeling is that that one can not trust values outside the FOV in any algorithm. I would mask the FOV if I were you, whatever the algorithm. On real data, I know it costs a bit of time but only a test with each initialization will give you an answer. BTW, do you know any publication on ROI reconstruction+TV ? Simon PS : I'm investigating the maling list issue, I'll let you know when I get an answer. On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:59 PM, MORY, CYRIL wrote: > Hi Simon, Hi Marc, > > > > I?ve tried to send this mail to the mailing list, but it contains images, > so a manual approval from the list?s manager is required. > > And last time I talked with Simon, he couldn?t find the interface to > approve or reject the emails. So I forward it. > > > Regards, > > Cyril > > > > *De :* MORY, CYRIL > *Envoy? :* mercredi 10 avril 2013 11:54 > *? :* rtk-users at openrtk.org > *Objet :* SART vs FDK > > > > Hi, > > > > I?m wondering whether the reconstruction results I get with SART and FDK > are normal or not. I?ve performed reconstructions of a moving Shepp and > Logan phantom, using 308 projections equidistributed on a 360? circular > trajectory. The phantom is fully contained in the FOV. I?ve used the > default projection and back projection operators for both SART (30 > iterations of SART instead of the default 5) and FDK. And there are very > noticeable differences outside the FOV, especially at the edges of the > projection cone, where SART produces high errors while FDK doesn?t. > > > > Is this a normal behavior ? I?m using these reconstructions to initialize > an iterative algorithm, and my real data is truncated, so I?d prefer to use > SART than FDK. These high errors outside the FOV make me hesitate, though. > > > > SART : > > > > FDK : > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > ========================================== > > Cyril Mory > > PhD student at Philips Medisys and CREATIS > > > > Groupement Hospitalier Est > > H?pital Cardiologique Louis Pradel > > Laboratoire CREATIS - B?t. B13 > > CNRS UMR5220, INSERM U1044, INSA-Lyon, Univ. Lyon 1 > > 28, Avenue du Doyen LEPINE > > 69677 Bron cedex FRANCE > > > > Office : +33 4 72 35 74 12 > > Cell : +33 6 69 46 73 79 > > > > ------------------------------ > The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally > protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the > addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby > notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this > message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the > intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy > all copies of the original message. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 92933 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 74939 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Cyril.Mory at philips.com Wed Apr 10 10:09:48 2013 From: Cyril.Mory at philips.com (MORY, CYRIL) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:09:48 +0000 Subject: [Rtk-users] SART vs FDK In-Reply-To: References: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74C87@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Message-ID: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74D68@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Thanks for your answer. I'll crop the FDK and SART volumes to the FOV and see if initializing my algorithm this way yields better results. Regarding ROI + TV, I don't know the literature on the topic, but it turns out it's quite abundant : a simple google search yields many results (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3055906/, http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9155/54/9/014) Regards, Cyril De : simon.rit at gmail.com [mailto:simon.rit at gmail.com] De la part de Simon Rit Envoy? : mercredi 10 avril 2013 14:54 ? : MORY, CYRIL Cc : vilaoliva at creatis.insa-lyon.fr; rtk-users at openrtk.org Objet : Re: SART vs FDK Hi, This is a difficult question and I don't know the answer. I think what you observe is the famous edge artifact of SART reconstructions. My feeling is that that one can not trust values outside the FOV in any algorithm. I would mask the FOV if I were you, whatever the algorithm. On real data, I know it costs a bit of time but only a test with each initialization will give you an answer. BTW, do you know any publication on ROI reconstruction+TV ? Simon PS : I'm investigating the maling list issue, I'll let you know when I get an answer. On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:59 PM, MORY, CYRIL > wrote: Hi Simon, Hi Marc, I've tried to send this mail to the mailing list, but it contains images, so a manual approval from the list's manager is required. And last time I talked with Simon, he couldn't find the interface to approve or reject the emails. So I forward it. Regards, Cyril De : MORY, CYRIL Envoy? : mercredi 10 avril 2013 11:54 ? : rtk-users at openrtk.org Objet : SART vs FDK Hi, I'm wondering whether the reconstruction results I get with SART and FDK are normal or not. I've performed reconstructions of a moving Shepp and Logan phantom, using 308 projections equidistributed on a 360? circular trajectory. The phantom is fully contained in the FOV. I've used the default projection and back projection operators for both SART (30 iterations of SART instead of the default 5) and FDK. And there are very noticeable differences outside the FOV, especially at the edges of the projection cone, where SART produces high errors while FDK doesn't. Is this a normal behavior ? I'm using these reconstructions to initialize an iterative algorithm, and my real data is truncated, so I'd prefer to use SART than FDK. These high errors outside the FOV make me hesitate, though. SART : [cid:image001.jpg at 01CE3604.D3EA4D80] FDK : [cid:image002.jpg at 01CE3604.D3EA4D80] Regards, ========================================== Cyril Mory PhD student at Philips Medisys and CREATIS Groupement Hospitalier Est H?pital Cardiologique Louis Pradel Laboratoire CREATIS - B?t. B13 CNRS UMR5220, INSERM U1044, INSA-Lyon, Univ. Lyon 1 28, Avenue du Doyen LEPINE 69677 Bron cedex FRANCE Office : +33 4 72 35 74 12 Cell : +33 6 69 46 73 79 ________________________________ The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 92933 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 74939 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From simon.rit at creatis.insa-lyon.fr Wed Apr 10 10:53:20 2013 From: simon.rit at creatis.insa-lyon.fr (Simon Rit) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 16:53:20 +0200 Subject: [Rtk-users] SART vs FDK In-Reply-To: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74D68@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> References: <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74C87@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <3B67D2F1029933428E0E93E2C2F1801334F74D68@011-DB3MPN1-043.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> Message-ID: Thanks for the references. I'll check them and I'll let you know if I detect a specific technique that should be used. Don't hesitate if you have other questions, Simon On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 4:09 PM, MORY, CYRIL wrote: > Thanks for your answer. I?ll crop the FDK and SART volumes to the FOV > and see if initializing my algorithm this way yields better results.**** > > Regarding ROI + TV, I don?t know the literature on the topic, but it turns > out it?s quite abundant : a simple google search yields many results ( > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3055906/, > http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9155/54/9/014) **** > > ** ** > > Regards,**** > > Cyril**** > > *De :* simon.rit at gmail.com [mailto:simon.rit at gmail.com] *De la part de*Simon Rit > *Envoy? :* mercredi 10 avril 2013 14:54 > *? :* MORY, CYRIL > *Cc :* vilaoliva at creatis.insa-lyon.fr; rtk-users at openrtk.org > *Objet :* Re: SART vs FDK**** > > ** ** > > Hi, > This is a difficult question and I don't know the answer. I think what you > observe is the famous edge artifact of SART reconstructions. My feeling is > that that one can not trust values outside the FOV in any algorithm. I > would mask the FOV if I were you, whatever the algorithm. On real data, I > know it costs a bit of time but only a test with each initialization will > give you an answer.**** > > BTW, do you know any publication on ROI reconstruction+TV ?**** > > Simon**** > > ** ** > > PS : I'm investigating the maling list issue, I'll let you know when I get > an answer.**** > > ** ** > > On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:59 PM, MORY, CYRIL > wrote:**** > > Hi Simon, Hi Marc,**** > > **** > > I?ve tried to send this mail to the mailing list, but it contains images, > so a manual approval from the list?s manager is required. **** > > And last time I talked with Simon, he couldn?t find the interface to > approve or reject the emails. So I forward it.**** > > > Regards,**** > > Cyril **** > > **** > > *De :* MORY, CYRIL > *Envoy? :* mercredi 10 avril 2013 11:54 > *? :* rtk-users at openrtk.org > *Objet :* SART vs FDK**** > > **** > > Hi,**** > > **** > > I?m wondering whether the reconstruction results I get with SART and FDK > are normal or not. I?ve performed reconstructions of a moving Shepp and > Logan phantom, using 308 projections equidistributed on a 360? circular > trajectory. The phantom is fully contained in the FOV. I?ve used the > default projection and back projection operators for both SART (30 > iterations of SART instead of the default 5) and FDK. And there are very > noticeable differences outside the FOV, especially at the edges of the > projection cone, where SART produces high errors while FDK doesn?t. **** > > **** > > Is this a normal behavior ? I?m using these reconstructions to initialize > an iterative algorithm, and my real data is truncated, so I?d prefer to use > SART than FDK. These high errors outside the FOV make me hesitate, though. > **** > > **** > > SART :**** > > **** > > **** > > FDK : **** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > Regards,**** > > **** > > **** > > ==========================================**** > > Cyril Mory**** > > PhD student at Philips Medisys and CREATIS**** > > **** > > Groupement Hospitalier Est**** > > H?pital Cardiologique Louis Pradel**** > > Laboratoire CREATIS - B?t. B13**** > > CNRS UMR5220, INSERM U1044, INSA-Lyon, Univ. Lyon 1**** > > 28, Avenue du Doyen LEPINE**** > > 69677 Bron cedex FRANCE**** > > **** > > Office : +33 4 72 35 74 12**** > > Cell : +33 6 69 46 73 79**** > > **** > > ** ** > ------------------------------ > > The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally > protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the > addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby > notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this > message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the > intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy > all copies of the original message.**** > > ** ** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 92933 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 74939 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pierre.ldff at gmail.com Tue Apr 23 03:48:46 2013 From: pierre.ldff at gmail.com (Pierre Le Duff) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:48:46 +0200 Subject: [Rtk-users] Open gate file. Message-ID: Hello all, I would like to know if rtk can open GATE simulation file ? Thanks, Pierre -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marc.vila-oliva at creatis.insa-lyon.fr Tue Apr 23 04:26:41 2013 From: marc.vila-oliva at creatis.insa-lyon.fr (Marc Vila Oliva) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:26:41 +0200 Subject: [Rtk-users] Open gate file. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1366705602.2950.1.camel@mvila-laptop> Hello Pierre, On Tue, 2013-04-23 at 09:48 +0200, Pierre Le Duff wrote: > Hello all, > > I would like to know if rtk can open GATE simulation file ? Sorry, but for the moment this possibility does not exist under RTK. If it is possible to know what do you want to do exactly? Cheers, Marc > > > > Thanks, > > Pierre > > _______________________________________________ > Rtk-users mailing list > Rtk-users at openrtk.org > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rtk-users