PACS? PACS! ROFL! This is an old fashioned silver halide film. The image
has been photographed, turned to grey scale and compressed quite a bit
from the 16bit/channel original, which is 6MB in size. A few people now
have commented on image quality. I have posted this image because debate
rages at my facility over whether this is normal or not. If anyone would
like the original Canon RAW image I'll happily e-mail it. I can assure you
all that the possible abnormalities are not at all compromised by the
post-processing. It would be a bit pointless putting the image up,
wouldn't it?
Happy New Year to all.
> *From:* "Cosson, Philip" <[log in to unmask]>
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Date:* Sun, 1 Jan 2006 09:28:08 -0000
>
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C60EB5.AD545EC0
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> Undiagnostic without a orthogonal projection. The condyle of the =
> mandible is overlying the odontoid due to slight rotation of the =
> patients head.
> =20
> Also the image quality is awful. This may be due to your method of =
> saving the image as a jpg and posting on your website. If this image is
> =
> the best you have been able to review ON THE PACS then the exposure =
> parameters were incorrect (too much noise =3D too little exposure) most
> =
> digital sytems have an indicator on the image which should be in a =
> certain range. for Agfa systems the range can be anywhere from 1.8-2.2 =
> other systems have completely different systems. I would ask radiology =
> for a list of "exposure indicator ranges" so you can check you are =
> making a decision on a diagnostic image.
> =20
> Regards - and happy new year
> =20
> Philip
>
/Rowley./
|