Pixel Aspect Ration vs Pixel Spacing - DICOM

This is a discussion on Pixel Aspect Ration vs Pixel Spacing - DICOM ; Hi, everybody ... I read, at page 291, PS3.3-2006 (Information Objet Definitions) that, for US images e.g. V=0.30 mm, H=0.25mm Pixel Aspect Ratio = Vertical Size\Horizontal Size = 0.30mm \0.25 mm Thus the Pixel Aspect Ratio could be represented as ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Pixel Aspect Ration vs Pixel Spacing

  1. Pixel Aspect Ration vs Pixel Spacing

    Hi, everybody ...

    I read, at page 291, PS3.3-2006 (Information Objet Definitions) that,
    for US images
    e.g.
    V=0.30 mm, H=0.25mm
    Pixel Aspect Ratio = Vertical Size\Horizontal Size = 0.30mm \0.25 mm
    Thus the Pixel Aspect Ratio could be represented as the string "6\5",
    or "60\50" or any equivalent integer ratio.

    OK.

    "12\10", should work, too, right?
    How can I deduce that the Spacing is 0.3 * 0.25, and not 0.6*0.5?

    Any information welcome.

    Jean-Pierre Roux


  2. Re: Pixel Aspect Ration vs Pixel Spacing


    jpr@creatis.univ-lyon1.fr wrote:

    > "12\10", should work, too, right?
    > How can I deduce that the Spacing is 0.3 * 0.25, and not 0.6*0.5?


    After browsing the archive, the only answer that actually make sense is
    one made by D. Clunie:
    http://groups.google.com/group/comp....b4ccdc2?hl=en&

    ....
    I think it is also fairly unusual for viewers and displays
    to handle non-square pixels "properly" anyway.
    ....

    The best approach could be to simply set spacing of 1\1 and produce a
    warning.

    Mathieu


  3. Re: Pixel Aspect Ration vs Pixel Spacing

    Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
    > jpr@creatis.univ-lyon1.fr wrote:
    >
    > > "12\10", should work, too, right?


    Yes, of course.

    > > How can I deduce that the Spacing is 0.3 * 0.25, and not 0.6*0.5?


    You can't. The ratio is less information than the pair of pixel
    spacings.

    >
    > After browsing the archive, the only answer that actually make sense is
    > one made by D. Clunie:
    > http://groups.google.com/group/comp....b4ccdc2?hl=en&
    >
    > ...
    > I think it is also fairly unusual for viewers and displays
    > to handle non-square pixels "properly" anyway.
    > ...


    That's a bit pessimistic! You can easily get non-square pixels by
    doing MPR; imagine an axial CT with 0.5 mm square pixels and 1mm slice
    separation -- the orthogonal views will have 0.5 mm by 1 mm pixels.
    Our viewer handles them fine. I'd be shocked if other commercial
    viewers did not.

    -Steve


  4. Re: Pixel Aspect Ration vs Pixel Spacing

    As a matter of fact, our customers have had numerous occasions where
    non-square pixels were not being displayed correctly. Specifically,
    the other vendors were only using Pixel Aspect Ratio, which works for
    most of the IODs out there. But, CT/MR/PET... use Pixel Spacing, not
    Pixel Aspect Ratio, which means that the images that were displayed
    looked "squished"... Ultimately, we were forced to "fix" our images,
    and make our pixels square, to satisfy the customer complaints.

    Steve Robbins wrote:
    > Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
    > > jpr@creatis.univ-lyon1.fr wrote:
    > >
    > > > "12\10", should work, too, right?

    >
    > Yes, of course.
    >
    > > > How can I deduce that the Spacing is 0.3 * 0.25, and not 0.6*0.5?

    >
    > You can't. The ratio is less information than the pair of pixel
    > spacings.
    >
    > >
    > > After browsing the archive, the only answer that actually make sense is
    > > one made by D. Clunie:
    > > http://groups.google.com/group/comp....b4ccdc2?hl=en&
    > >
    > > ...
    > > I think it is also fairly unusual for viewers and displays
    > > to handle non-square pixels "properly" anyway.
    > > ...

    >
    > That's a bit pessimistic! You can easily get non-square pixels by
    > doing MPR; imagine an axial CT with 0.5 mm square pixels and 1mm slice
    > separation -- the orthogonal views will have 0.5 mm by 1 mm pixels.
    > Our viewer handles them fine. I'd be shocked if other commercial
    > viewers did not.
    >
    > -Steve



  5. Re: Pixel Aspect Ration vs Pixel Spacing

    > ...
    > I think it is also fairly unusual for viewers and displays
    > to handle non-square pixels "properly" anyway.
    > ...


    I would just add that I think it is very poor engineering (an
    understatement..., I could have been more blunt) to NOT handle it
    properly. It is just a matter of interpolation to make them square. I
    just don't want to get people the impression that it is OK not to
    display these images correctly.

    Herman O.


    dmcnamara@vitalimages.com wrote:
    > As a matter of fact, our customers have had numerous occasions where
    > non-square pixels were not being displayed correctly. Specifically,
    > the other vendors were only using Pixel Aspect Ratio, which works for
    > most of the IODs out there. But, CT/MR/PET... use Pixel Spacing, not
    > Pixel Aspect Ratio, which means that the images that were displayed
    > looked "squished"... Ultimately, we were forced to "fix" our images,
    > and make our pixels square, to satisfy the customer complaints.
    >
    > Steve Robbins wrote:
    > > Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
    > > > jpr@creatis.univ-lyon1.fr wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > "12\10", should work, too, right?

    > >
    > > Yes, of course.
    > >
    > > > > How can I deduce that the Spacing is 0.3 * 0.25, and not 0.6*0.5?

    > >
    > > You can't. The ratio is less information than the pair of pixel
    > > spacings.
    > >
    > > >
    > > > After browsing the archive, the only answer that actually make sense is
    > > > one made by D. Clunie:
    > > > http://groups.google.com/group/comp....b4ccdc2?hl=en&
    > > >
    > > > ...
    > > > I think it is also fairly unusual for viewers and displays
    > > > to handle non-square pixels "properly" anyway.
    > > > ...

    > >
    > > That's a bit pessimistic! You can easily get non-square pixels by
    > > doing MPR; imagine an axial CT with 0.5 mm square pixels and 1mm slice
    > > separation -- the orthogonal views will have 0.5 mm by 1 mm pixels.
    > > Our viewer handles them fine. I'd be shocked if other commercial
    > > viewers did not.
    > >
    > > -Steve



+ Reply to Thread