I worked for a company that was developing imaging systems to replace
film x-rays with digital images displayed on a CRT. This was about 15
years ago. We were working with an 8 bit gray scale. The films were
much more detailed and subtle, a well designed system would have kept
better track of the images but there was a lot lost in image
translation. Most hospitals thought it was a great idea, most of the
people interpreting the images were not so hot on the idea.
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>The hospital I go to has gone to all digital capture XRays. I talked
>with my doctor last time I was there for a check up and asked how he
>liked the new systems. His comments were that
> a) it was much faster to work with,
> b) xrays didn't get lost like they used to, while many physicians
>could use them simultaneously,
> c) he could see more with them, and
> d) since going to the digital xray machines, he'd never had to re-
>shoot a series of xrays therefore subjecting the patient to less
>radiation.
>
>In other words, in his estimation, the functionality of the digital
>xray machines was far better than what they used to have. I suspect
>the hospitals' reluctance to move was simply the cost of converting
>the systems and training the technicians, plus the capital costs of
>the machines themselves.
>
>Godfrey
>
>On Jun 29, 2006, at 11:03 AM, P. J. Alling wrote:
>
>
>
>>Digital X-rays have been available for some time. Most large
>>hospitals
>>resisted them because much of the equipment produced images with an 8
>>bit depth and a good tech could read the film with much more
>>precision.
>>Lets hope there's been some improvement, and it's just not a
>>convenience
>>and cost savings measure.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
--
When you're worried or in doubt,
Run in circles, (scream and shout).
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
