Film to X-rays? 71
erikred_at_csua asks: "A friend has his film X-rays on loan from the lab but needs to transfer them to digital format so he can take them for a second opinion. What's a reliable (and inexpensive) method of doing this without sacrificing image quality (and thereby rendering the exercise worthless)? Would the old lamp and scanner trick work here, or would there be too many flaws to make it worthwhile? Where could one find a list of places that would do this on the cheap? Since this is to document the progress of arthritis in his back, the level of detail must remain high."
Are they his xrays? (Score:5, Informative)
At least, thats the way it worked in the radiology dept. I worked in for a while about 10 years ago.
Re:Are they his xrays? (Score:2)
Doctors want you to think these things belong to them for purely selfish reasons: If they keep them, they force you to return to them alone for service. Think of your last eye prescription, did they write it down and give it to you? No? Well, they too will try to tell you that you can't have it. Hog wash.
Take what little control over your over-priced health care that you can. Check out your records and keep them. At the very least, make copies.
Re:Are they his xrays? (Score:2)
Yes, every year for 20 years.
Re:Are they his xrays? (Score:2)
Re:Are they his xrays? (Score:1)
Why? (Score:1)
Don't (Score:5, Insightful)
What kind of fucking moron with absolutely no radiology experience whatsoever thinks he can just scan a fucking x-ray and get something acceptable to a radiologist?
Depends on what you're looking for! (Score:2)
If this person cares about his health, (s)he should either borrow/sign out the films and send them to the other MD, or have the l
Re:Depends on what you're looking for! (Score:2)
btw i don't think we need the 3600x3600 dpi resolution to diagnose/monitor some arthritis, as far as i'm concerned, i'm happy with 1024x1024 image of CXR/AXR on monitor.
Re:Don't (Score:2)
The lab? (Score:2)
Maybe Walmart can make digital copies, if you get signed permission from the copyright owner (the lab).
Hi, I have a question (Score:5, Funny)
I'm willing to exchange my plans for making an MRI out of iPod earplugs.
He's not kidding, folks... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:He's not kidding, folks... (Score:2)
Um, internal chemical and electrical communications to a central processing unit?
Get copies (Score:3, Insightful)
I would strongly recommend *not* screwing around with any homebrew methods when his health depends on it.
Dear Slashdot, (Score:5, Funny)
As I type this, my mechanic is replacing the brakes on my car. He said he could change the oil at the same time, but it would cost an extra $25. I called my friend bob, and he said that he could change my oil for only $10!!!
So, as long as the car is up on the lift anyhow, I think I'll just remove the engine from the car and take it to my friend bob's house, so he can change the oil for me. Then, I'll bring the engine back to the shop and re-install it in the car. After all, there's only one engine, so I should be able to get the engine removed and re-installed much faster than my mechanic can replace four brakes.
I once compiled my own linux kernel, so I figure engine removal should be easy to do. However, I'm hoping someone can point me at a good howto guide...
Re:Dear Slashdot, (Score:2)
This reminds me of the time I was at Bastille day last year, someone called a local bar to ask wher
Let the doctors work this out (Score:2)
Let the 2nd opinion doctor tell him what to do. It won't involve using a lamp and scanning it, either. It might involve picking up a copy at the hopsital where the images were created. Or it might involve the other doctor just pulling up the image on that hospital's web site.
Again, there are systems and protocols that exist to give people who ought to have access to images access to them. Just don't get in the way, or make problems fo
Paitent Records, Kinkos (Score:2)
That said, an X-Ray is nothing more than a special transparency as far as scanning goes (that's my theory). So if you don't have a scanner that can do transparencies, then you have two options as far as I can think. Option one is to put a piece of white paper behind when you scan it. The black area will stay black, the transparent area will be white. Shouldn't be a problem.
The
Re:Paitent Records, Kinkos (Score:2)
However, asking your radiology department is easier, as I discovered afterwards that they'd have emailed the digital original to me if I'd asked.
Re:Paitent Records, Kinkos (Score:2)
So much for the theory. In practice even slightest shadings and finest details that can get lost when transferring the image with sub-standard equipment can hide vital information from the doc examining the picture afterwards, especially if you are not trying to examine some bones but soft tissue structures like e.g. the lung.
So yes, an x-ray image basically is just a special transparency, but you will
Re:Paitent Records, Kinkos (Score:3, Informative)
However, the grey areas will become much darker than intended since the light has to pass twice through the film. If the difference between white and black is a factor 500 in light intensity, then you will need a scanner that can handle a dynamic range of 500*500=25,000. There are no scanners that can do that under practical circumstances. That is why scanners for negative
Actually it's not his X-ray (Score:2)
As far as your little theory goes - it's ok in concept, but fails miserably in it's application. A radiograph has many subtle shadings, that some homebrew scanner copying will not reproduce. I actually am an orthopaedic surgeon and have seen some images like that - I can't make anything, but the most basic of diagnoses off poor quality copies like that. This then wastes time for both of us, and would j
DICOM is your friend (Score:4, Interesting)
There are still some stone age practitioners who refuse to move into the digital age. Before getting radiology work done, you might call around to see if the practice is on a "PACS" system. And furthermore, will they give you the images in DICOM format?
One of the hospitals I set up sent every patient home with a CD-R that had a royalty-free DICOM image viewer and the full study of their X-Rays, CT scan, MRI, etc. This way they could pop the CD into a Windows computer and see everything the doctor sees (sort of... some of the advanced image manipulation isn't there) and take the CD to their primary care practitioner for followup.
Lousy MSWindows-only "free" DICOM viewer (Score:1)
Those viewers are lousy! (Score:2)
Re:DICOM is your friend (Score:2)
Trained, certified, skilled radiologists make more money than god (at least in the USA).
Which partially explains the popularity of outsourcing [boston.com] to India and the benefits of digitization.
Ummm... (Score:2)
Typical (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Typical (Score:3, Funny)
torrent?
Re:Typical (Score:2)
Sure beats pleading with the lab to see the results that you PAID for.
Sure beats it, but the lab took the photo, they own the copyright. It's just like getting professional photos (or being inadvertently photographed by someone in the street). They own the copyright on the artwork. They can make money selling you copies and restricting your right to make copies, and damn it they will do that...
Re:Typical (Score:2)
I'm not so sure that the lab owns the x-rays. It sounds like a work-for-hire situation. You hired them to take the x-rays; you own the copyright. The reason this isn't true in the typical situation when you hire a professional photographer is because you sign a contract that creates a special arrangment. You don't sign any such contract when you have x-rays taken.
Nope (Score:2)
That's good for a laugh! (Score:2)
Nonetheless, I would find it hard to believe that you couldn't request a copy be made made, or the originals loaned to a licensed doctor, for a small fee. (small is, of course, relative when you're talking the medical community).
Re:That's good for a laugh! (Score:2)
You generally do sign a contract when you're admitted to the hospital, though offhand I can't say if it contains a clause about ownership of image copyrights. However, in my experience you generally do not sign any such contract when you get x-rays or other tests as an outpatient.
Re:That's good for a laugh! (Score:2)
in my experience you generally do not sign any such contract when you get x-rays or other tests as an outpatient.
I had some medical images taken recently and they made me sign quite a long disclaimer, etc and it was just a simple ultrasound. The lab retained copyrights to the images (according to the piece of paper I signed), but I have the original prints that were made. They retain a digital copy and can reproduce them at any time if I need them.
It really is a matter of asking. AFIK they aren't al
You seem to be missing the point (Score:2)
Epson scanner w/ optional transparency adapter (Score:2)
There may be other less-expensive models w/ a similar adapter, and you may also be able to find one used.
Re:Epson scanner w/ optional transparency adapter (Score:2)
Re:Epson scanner w/ optional transparency adapter (Score:2)
At the hospital where we work we do have a Kodak scanner specifically designed for X-Rays, but of course it costs probably in the range of $10,000-$15,000.
Of course this entire question is moronic. Go to the Radiology department, ask for a copy of your X-Rays to keep, and they'll charge you like $15. $15 is about two orders of magnitude cheaper than ANY method you could do yourself, and three orders of magnitude of any meth
Use a scanner that's meant for this. (Score:3, Informative)
You might find that Kinkos or a local print shop has the capability to copy the film to CD as well. Look around.
I don't think you're going to be able to do this job on the cheap and well at the same time.
-Adam
X-Ray scanners (Score:3, Informative)
Re:X-Ray scanners (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:X-Ray scanners (Score:2)
I am not sure if your inexpensive junk desktop scanner can handle the range that is needed.
Re:X-Ray scanners (Score:1)
When you have to deal with full colour images the imaging equipment has to be colour calibrated regularly when it's used for diagnostics.
Re:X-Ray scanners (Score:2)
I have a 1200 dpi laser printer, I can see the dot scale on images because its black and white, not grayscale.
Your scanner, even at 1200 or higher DPI won't be able to determine the exact difference in shade between point A and point B, it just does its best based on how well calibrated the bulb and sensors (and semi-reflective white material on the lid) is.
Accuracy is pretty low on consumer scanners; good enough for most undiscerning peopl
Professional photo lab (Score:2)
Can anyone clarify this? (Score:2)
In many ways, it's essentially a negative by the time it's delivered to you. I know my scanner can scan negatives, but only in 35mm format.
Is a scan of an X-ray somehow innacurate, or likely to introduce errors? Or will it come out with sufficiently good resolution to be accurate at the scanned resolution? Obviously, you can't meaningfully zoom beyond the resolution of the X-ray, but would a scan result in something of comparable resolution?
[ I have no backgro
Re:Can anyone clarify this? (Score:2)
Most home and office scanners offer only 256 gradations in gray scale mode. Scanning the xray image under these conditions is going to seriously compress the midrange values and some of the subtle distinctions are going to be lost. Since the concern is with arithritic changes in bone density, this would be a very serious problem. Scanning in 24 bit color mode could get around this, but it would probably introduce color artifacts that could mislead a diagnostician even when the scan looked good. (A pixel tha
Re:Can anyone clarify this? (Score:2)
Cheers
Why do things the hard way. (Score:2)
Homebrew methods for something so important seems a bit risky.
Ask for a CD (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, it works. (Score:2, Funny)
That was easy. Go ahead and ask me another one.
go to a better doctor... (Score:2)
Ask your xray place to supply you with your xrays in cdrom format. Demand it!
medical grade scanner (Score:2)
IANAR, but I married one (Score:5, Informative)
-Most medical stuff is regulated at a state level (in the US, anyway), not at a federal level, so exercise caution when saying 'it's the law'.
-Radiology films are 11"x17", so you would need a big (and expensive - my wife has a couple thousand old films from her research we'd like to digitize, so I've shopped) scanner to do this.
-Contrary to popular belief, you do not own your medical records; the physician who generated them does. You do, however, have the right to access them and the request a copy. You may be required to pay a fee for the copy, but it's usually something reasonable (e.g. $10). I realize this may raise a ruckus - this isn't flame bait or an ethical statement, it's a statement about the way it is. Deal with it.
-You may request a copy of your films to keep, rather than borrow. Again, there may be a fee.
-Many practices now use PACS systems to handle the images, and can burn a CD of the data that can be read by a radiologist; many even come with the reading software on the CD. As another poster pointed out, the image data will in all likelihood conform to the DICOM standard http://www.sph.sc.edu/comd/rorden/dicom.html [sc.edu] , and can be shared with your other physicians readily. Because the CD systems are relatively new, many hospitals and imaging centers haven't yet implemented a policy of how to charge for them - so you may be able to get it for free. Or not.
-So, in a nutshell: If you are, for whatever reason, not willing to ask your physician to share the information (which is the best route - physicians are our partners in care, not our adversaries), then request a copy that you own; don't borrow. Present this data to the physician you are seeking a second opinion from. Good luck, and I hope he can treat the arthritis!
monitor and a digital camera (Score:1)
some important points (Score:1)
of all the lame comments here -- no one seems to have made some of the most important points:
reading x-rays from a film and from a screen are completely different. radiologists still primarily read from film for very good reasons. (mostly contrast depth on film is 14 orders, where screens are at best 8 or 9 orders).
do not screw with the originals. the more you move and play with them without expereince,the higher the chance you'll scratch
Re:digital.... (Score:2)
HRCT is still the same story, although it mentions 'high resolution'.
Do it right (Score:2)
Interpreting xrays depends on really subtle shadows and things, and it will take some doing to get it right in digital form. Do the right thing and ask the hospital/doctor for reprints. If it's that important, it's worth doing right. Unless you're some sort of idiot.
No, make that a fucking idiot. Sheesh.
A couple of years ago I found myself in the emergency ward after stumbling in the dark (distracted by Jupiter...) and going head first in to a brick wall. They did a CAT scan, and when I asked if I could
in case that Mr. Obvious is still missing (Score:2)
Don't Bother (Score:2)
1. Making a diagnosis from an image scanned into a digital system by even the best scans is generally not done. The Radiologist will typically want the original - and that's even when done with real equipment.
2. As others have mentioned, the tools to do this are very very specialised - including extermely hi-res monitors with very fine contrast ratios.
In sh