Difference between revisions of "2015 Summer Project Week:Dicom parsing with DCMJS"
From NAMIC Wiki
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
* Proposed workflow | * Proposed workflow | ||
** https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1BX0NBIDPrrM-JGk9b1awL_w57f9rMvdTJSeVjT9bM5U | ** https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1BX0NBIDPrrM-JGk9b1awL_w57f9rMvdTJSeVjT9bM5U | ||
| − | ** workflow relies on new dcmtk functionnalities | + | ** note: workflow relies on new dcmtk functionnalities. It will have to be evaluated in term of performance. |
* Take dicom segmentations/models into account | * Take dicom segmentations/models into account | ||
* Testing database | * Testing database | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
Revision as of 07:58, 24 June 2015
Home < 2015 Summer Project Week:Dicom parsing with DCMJS
Key Investigators
- Nicolas Rannou
- Michael Onken
- Steve Pieper
Project Description
Objective
- Define target DICOM types
- Define a good workflow to parse targets with DCMJS.
- Define required JS models to support the workflow.
- Evaluate DicomParser from cornerstone team.
Approach, Plan
- Talk with DICOM/DCMTK experts to get some feedback on best strategy.
- Write a demo to showcase js models and dicom parsing workflows.
Progress
- Evaluation of current solutions
- yves:
- pros: fast
- cons: single frame and need to parse dicom header by hand in JS later on
- dicomparser: same
- dcmjs:
- pro: relies on dcmtk, (almost) no need to manually parse dicom header by hand
- cons: slower (150ms for dcmdump vs 30ms for other solutions)
- note: compilation of dcmjs with -o3 or -of drasticly improves performance of dcmjs
- yves:
- Proposed workflow
- https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1BX0NBIDPrrM-JGk9b1awL_w57f9rMvdTJSeVjT9bM5U
- note: workflow relies on new dcmtk functionnalities. It will have to be evaluated in term of performance.
- Take dicom segmentations/models into account
- Testing database
