retzerj at ohsu.edu
Mon Nov 18 18:45:55 UTC 2002
David Diaz >>>
I just asked, and "you can video clip images,...85megs is typical"
At 12:46 -0500 11/18/02, David Lesher wrote:
>Any idea how large these images are? I seem to recall that
>they are massive, given ultra-hi-rez data....
>(Are they attaching them to lookOut mail ;-?)
>And the radiologist may look for a few seconds at best so he
>is NOT going to want to wait....
Try asking any radiologist, cardiologist, oncologist how much quality is good enough and they will probably say "it depends." Digital mammography is potentially hundreds of megabytes ― and you sure don't want to miss (or insert any extra) white spots! What we're seeing is higher and higher resolution combined with "longitudinal" (ie, over time) recording and in some cases additional 'dimensions' added using color and so on, and on top of that the ability to look at various depths, rotate, three spatial dimensions. So, for example a live echocardiogram today will use color as an indication of the "force" of the heart beat. MRIs typically record data at three dimensions. As we approach micron-level resolution the file size grows into the petabytes. No, I did not make a mistake there. Currently, no one even stores these but they will want to in time. Given our demands for instant feedback on our health these kinds of applications will eventually become more real time. One internationally recognized teaching hospital in the upper midwest advertises that all their x-rays are read by a radiologist within 30 minutes.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NANOG