C-Cube Message Board - Msg: 1888773

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : C-Cube

CUBE 36.62

-0.1%

Nov 14 9:30 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: DiViT who wrote (20100)	8/1/1997 9:06:00 PM
From: J Fieb	of 50808

Dadiv N. Recently on another thread a brief discussion on digital images in medicine came up, which caused me to pull my files on the subject. The standards as outlined by DICOM3.0( Digital Image Communications in Medicine), a joint effort of American College of Radiology and National Equipment Manufacturer's Association, will result in PAC(Picture archiving and communications). From the articles I read they aren't using much compression. Heart caths are stored uncompressed.....an article said" Compression was not used before interpretation in most cases, but many systems used 2.5/1 compression for on-line interpreted cases, and 10:1 compression for longer term archiving." The file sizes are large and storage substantial. The reason that they don't compress more is that they are afraid of losing some small, but critical detail important in making a diagnosis. My Q to you is that this technology is changing so fast that I wonder if their concerns are still valid. What are the chances that an MPEG2 compressed chest x-ray will drop a 3mm lesion, etc.? Any chance that CUBE has any input into DICOM? Thanks. Anyone out there on the DICOM comittee who would know if they are thinking of upping the amount of compression?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next