<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4727.700" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="MARGIN-TOP: 2px; FONT: 12pt Verdana; MARGIN-LEFT: 2px">
<DIV> David Diaz >>><BR><BR>I just asked, and "you can video
clip images,...85megs is typical"<BR><BR><BR>At 12:46 -0500 11/18/02, David
Lesher wrote:<BR>>Any idea how large these images are? I seem to recall
that<BR>>they are massive, given ultra-hi-rez data....<BR>><BR>>(Are
they attaching them to lookOut mail ;-?)<BR>><BR>>And the radiologist may
look for a few seconds at best so he<BR>>is NOT going to want to
wait....</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV></BODY></HTML>