On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Andreas Tille <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 9 Jan 2009, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: ... >> Any other "DICOM viewer" I have seen out-there are at best buggy (in >> debian distrib). dicomscope is the only viewer that actually >> implements the DICOM standard (esp. Presentation State). I was getting >> annoyed seeing packages claiming being to be "DICOM viewer", so I >> decided to work on dicomscope to provide a pretty darn good >> alternative to expensive vendors specific system (PACS). > > Did you made up your mind about kradview? At least it is actively > developed. > I started with the packaging after I came back from Malaga where I met > upstream, but have stalled the work (for a reason I do not remember - > probably because I moved gnumed-server on top of my todo list and come > back if nobody else steps in).
Just for the French people on this list, don't you like the sound of this package name :) Short answer: if this not based on David Clunie / OFFIS or GDCM then I can pretty much guarantee this is buggy. I opened their dict and found out they do not support properly private tags. Briefly looking at the code, they only support a very limited subset of the DICOM standard (rle, jpeg and explicit) If I find some time, I'll setup a page referencing all the bugs from kradview, but it really looks like yet another 'gdcmviewer' like program, just a very simple Pixel Data loader. The page looks like a personal page, where is the src code (+revision tool) ? where is the bug tracker ? where is the wiki ? I maintain a page of nightmarish DICOM file image at (also called DICOM hall of shame): http://apps.sourceforge.net/mediawiki/gdcm/index.php?title=gdcm:Supported And a tarball of DICOM file to test the conformance of a viewer at: http://apps.sourceforge.net/mediawiki/gdcm/index.php?title=General_questions#What_is_gdcmConformanceTests_.3F the first one (hall of shame) is hard to support, I agree, but if they fail on most of gdcmConformanceTests then the viewer if pretty much useless. Most people think DICOM is just a file format for image, but that means they discard: Curve, Overlay, VOI LUT (not to mention non-image type DICOM file)... which completely modify interpretation of the image, pretty dangerous for medical images, right ? Sorry to sound so negative/arrogant, but that's the truth. -- Mathieu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
