A free 3d medical image viewer (windows/linux/macosx) - DICOM

This is a discussion on A free 3d medical image viewer (windows/linux/macosx) - DICOM ; at www.tviewer.org tell me if you like it Sincerely...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: A free 3d medical image viewer (windows/linux/macosx)

  1. A free 3d medical image viewer (windows/linux/macosx)

    at www.tviewer.org

    tell me if you like it

    Sincerely


  2. Re: A free 3d medical image viewer (windows/linux/macosx)


    lzyhm wrote:
    > at www.tviewer.org
    >
    > tell me if you like it


    First of, wow ! It looks really cool, good job. Did you do that on your
    free time ? I like when people support my favorite OS (GNU/Linux)

    Also, if you are using CMake for your build process, you know you can
    generate MacOS Universal Binary, this might save you some time.

    Will you be distributing the source code ? If yes, what license ?

    It looks like you are using VTK 4.2, is this intentional ? Or was this
    a project started a fairly long time ago ? VTK 5.0 and above directly
    support Qt as a GUI. Same question for dcmtk 3.5.3, will you update to
    3.5.4 ?

    On the website you mention ITK being a third party library but I was
    not able to find how to get to the ITK layer. Could you give me some
    directions ?

    Thanks
    Mathieu
    BTW, you know you are supposed to anonymize DICOM files when
    distributing them


  3. Re: A free 3d medical image viewer (windows/linux/macosx)

    In article <1150537608.325133.238060@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.c om>,
    "lzyhm" wrote:

    > tell me if you like it


    The PPC link doesn't seem to work at the moment:

    :

    "The requested URL /download/tviewer-1.15ppc.pkg was not found on this
    server."

    --
    Matti Haveri remove ei roskaa

  4. Re: A free 3d medical image viewer (windows/linux/macosx)

    Thank you, it's my wrong. I fixed it already.

    Good luck

    Lewis

    Matti Haveri wrote:
    > In article <1150537608.325133.238060@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.c om>,
    > "lzyhm" wrote:
    >
    > > tell me if you like it

    >
    > The PPC link doesn't seem to work at the moment:
    >
    > :
    >
    > "The requested URL /download/tviewer-1.15ppc.pkg was not found on this
    > server."
    >
    > --
    > Matti Haveri remove ei roskaa



  5. Re: A free 3d medical image viewer (windows/linux/macosx)


    Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
    if you like it
    >
    > First of, wow ! It looks really cool, good job. Did you do that on your
    > free time ? I like when people support my favorite OS (GNU/Linux)


    No, I have a team. The tivewer is from a TPS, plannig removed.

    >
    > Also, if you are using CMake for your build process, you know you can
    > generate MacOS Universal Binary, this might save you some time.
    >

    The build is testing.

    > Will you be distributing the source code ? If yes, what license ?

    No, temporarily, the decision will depend on many factors.Maybe you
    can give me a good reason for distributing the source code .

    > It looks like you are using VTK 4.2, is this intentional ? Or was this
    > a project started a fairly long time ago ? VTK 5.0 and above directly
    > support Qt as a GUI. Same question for dcmtk 3.5.3, will you update to
    > 3.5.4 ?

    The updating will cause many time and many BUG. If it work better,
    the updating will be delayed. If I find a function can't be applied in
    older version, the updating will be made. The function has the first
    place. VTK 5.0 have many new function. But it change quickly. I'm
    waiting. Maybe VTK5.1. I don't use vtkQt, I writed own code, Because
    some function call for special means.

    > On the website you mention ITK being a third party library but I was
    > not able to find how to get to the ITK layer. Could you give me some
    > directions ?


    I don't use ITK as registration and segmentation. Many arithmetic is
    very complicated for user(doctor). and I can't decide which arithmetic
    has a better result on which images. Learn these arithmetic spended my
    many time. I only use the ITK do some simple work or do DRR in TPS.

    Thank you

    Lewis

    > Thanks
    > Mathieu
    > BTW, you know you are supposed to anonymize DICOM files when
    > distributing them



  6. Re: A free 3d medical image viewer (windows/linux/macosx)

    lzyhm wrote:
    > at www.tviewer.org
    >
    > tell me if you like it
    >
    > Sincerely
    >

    Compliments!!!! Great viewer!

    So far it seems to work fine under SUSE 10.0

    Go on!

    Jan Rorive

  7. Re: A free 3d medical image viewer (windows/linux/macosx)

    Sorry but I've not a good comment for you. I think it's a VERY GOOD
    SOFTWARE, but the stability is near the zero. I don't know if in linux /
    MacOS X it works better, but in win2k is a disaster. I'm trying it in 2
    different sistems with Win2k. In first system TViewer return me the
    classic "serious hardware / memory error" with blue screen and white
    text...the system rests itself.

    In second system (laptop) TViewer works but it fails very frequently
    with "access memory errors" and I've to kill the process. Errors are in
    0x00000 address: pointer error????

    I repeat: I think it's a good tool, but in windows you need to work for
    a better stability.

    Bye

    Stefano

  8. Re: A free 3d medical image viewer (windows/linux/macosx)

    I've found the same behavior as Stefano with Windows XP.

    Peter


  9. Re: A free 3d medical image viewer (windows/linux/macosx)

    You can try to run the tviewer with argument "--single-layout"

    Maybe your question is about video card:
    TViewer need opengl supported by OS. About 12 opengl windows are
    created in tviewer. So your video card should be more powerful.
    "--single-layout" only create 3 opengl window, so some function can't
    be used.

    Tviewer can't detect the power of your video card correctly. Our video
    cards is NV series.

    We will collect these question as BUG or FAQ.
    Thank you.

    Lewis

    Dr. Stefano Smania wrote:
    > Sorry but I've not a good comment for you. I think it's a VERY GOOD
    > SOFTWARE, but the stability is near the zero. I don't know if in linux /
    > MacOS X it works better, but in win2k is a disaster. I'm trying it in 2
    > different sistems with Win2k. In first system TViewer return me the
    > classic "serious hardware / memory error" with blue screen and white
    > text...the system rests itself.
    >
    > In second system (laptop) TViewer works but it fails very frequently
    > with "access memory errors" and I've to kill the process. Errors are in
    > 0x00000 address: pointer error????
    >
    > I repeat: I think it's a good tool, but in windows you need to work for
    > a better stability.
    >
    > Bye
    >
    > Stefano



  10. Re: A free 3d medical image viewer (windows/linux/macosx)

    In my opinion, a less powerfull video card should no crash the application.
    it would only run slower than with a powerful video card. Bugs are crashing
    an application. Performance is another issue. Lack of power will result in
    bad performance but no crash !

    --
    francois.piette@overbyte.be
    The author for the freeware multi-tier middleware MidWare
    The author of the freeware Internet Component Suite (ICS)
    http://www.overbyte.be


    "lzyhm" a écrit dans le message de news:
    1150686499.933430.305060@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.c om...
    > You can try to run the tviewer with argument "--single-layout"
    >
    > Maybe your question is about video card:
    > TViewer need opengl supported by OS. About 12 opengl windows are
    > created in tviewer. So your video card should be more powerful.
    > "--single-layout" only create 3 opengl window, so some function can't
    > be used.
    >
    > Tviewer can't detect the power of your video card correctly. Our video
    > cards is NV series.
    >
    > We will collect these question as BUG or FAQ.
    > Thank you.
    >
    > Lewis
    >
    > Dr. Stefano Smania wrote:
    >> Sorry but I've not a good comment for you. I think it's a VERY GOOD
    >> SOFTWARE, but the stability is near the zero. I don't know if in linux /
    >> MacOS X it works better, but in win2k is a disaster. I'm trying it in 2
    >> different sistems with Win2k. In first system TViewer return me the
    >> classic "serious hardware / memory error" with blue screen and white
    >> text...the system rests itself.
    >>
    >> In second system (laptop) TViewer works but it fails very frequently
    >> with "access memory errors" and I've to kill the process. Errors are in
    >> 0x00000 address: pointer error????
    >>
    >> I repeat: I think it's a good tool, but in windows you need to work for
    >> a better stability.
    >>
    >> Bye
    >>
    >> Stefano

    >




  11. Re: A free 3d medical image viewer (windows/linux/macosx)

    Hi
    I tried the program on windows, and it seems a very good work, it seems
    usable.
    It needs a big computer to run with plenty of RAM and Powerful CPU and
    Video Card
    But this is common to all DICOM Viewer I've seen.

    I tried to load data from DICOM CD for XA format, and it did it
    correctly, I know this is not a XA Viewer, but it works (I did not find
    a Play button for cineloops)

    I tried Also to do some query retrieve to our local MR repository, and
    here the usability is not so good, dicom services seems not to start
    properly, and seems that it tries to retrieve all series befor show
    some info about the series, after that It hangs.

    Thank you for this good work,


    Paolo Marcheschi


  12. Re: A free 3d medical image viewer (windows/linux/macosx)


    lzyhm wrote:
    > > Also, if you are using CMake for your build process, you know you can
    > > generate MacOS Universal Binary, this might save you some time.
    > >

    > The build is testing.


    Not sure I understand the answer...

    > > Will you be distributing the source code ? If yes, what license ?

    > No, temporarily, the decision will depend on many factors.Maybe you
    > can give me a good reason for distributing the source code .


    Well, I can give a real application case Look at all the answers in
    this thread, people are complaining about issues that you will have a
    hard time reproducing. I am sure among them there are people willing to
    recompile the app, and run it though the debugger. Then they will
    either send you a backtrace of the seg fault or even better a patch.
    In the past it was better to keep the IP, but now it does not make as
    much sense. Esp for you I don't think you have done any particular new
    discovery. Instead you reused components that are freely available in
    term of license (if we except the case of Qt, which you could deal
    separately).
    Have a look at sourceforge.net which host in particular Osirix, there
    site is well designed for sharing source code, distributing package,
    hosting web site...

    > The updating will cause many time and many BUG. If it work better,
    > the updating will be delayed. If I find a function can't be applied in
    > older version, the updating will be made. The function has the first
    > place. VTK 5.0 have many new function. But it change quickly. I'm
    > waiting. Maybe VTK5.1. I don't use vtkQt, I writed own code, Because
    > some function call for special means.


    Well again in an open source model, your users becomes your testers. I
    am convinced people would find the time to do the integration for you,
    and give you a report.

    > I don't use ITK as registration and segmentation. Many arithmetic is
    > very complicated for user(doctor). and I can't decide which arithmetic
    > has a better result on which images. Learn these arithmetic spended my
    > many time. I only use the ITK do some simple work or do DRR in TPS.


    Oh ok. BTW, you know VTK 5.1 has support for OpenGL 2.0, right ? And a
    much better Volume rendering framework.

    > > BTW, you know you are supposed to anonymize DICOM files when
    > > distributing them


    Mathieu


  13. Re: A free 3d medical image viewer (windows/linux/macosx)


    Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
    > > > Will you be distributing the source code ? If yes, what license ?

    > > No, temporarily, the decision will depend on many factors.Maybe you
    > > can give me a good reason for distributing the source code .

    >
    > Well, I can give a real application case Look at all the answers in
    > this thread, people are complaining about issues that you will have a
    > hard time reproducing. I am sure among them there are people willing to
    > recompile the app, and run it though the debugger. Then they will
    > either send you a backtrace of the seg fault or even better a patch.
    > In the past it was better to keep the IP, but now it does not make as
    > much sense. Esp for you I don't think you have done any particular new
    > discovery. Instead you reused components that are freely available in
    > term of license (if we except the case of Qt, which you could deal
    > separately).


    This is a good answer. However, it is not the only reason to consider
    Open Source. Assuming that you use the tool yourself, if you open the
    development under the right kind of open source licence, you will also
    get contributions developed by others back to your own software. For
    example, someone might improve your software to view 3D cone beam CT
    images (as soon as it's approved and added to the standard). Or any
    number of other additions might be contributed. Selection of the right
    license can greatly increase the amount of such contributions you might
    get. For example, if you use GPL, then many potential commercial
    contributors would opt out. If you used a BSD or MIT type licence, then
    you aren't guaranteed as many contributions, but since commercial
    contributors would be more likely to use the software, you would
    probably get more contributions (both bug reports and improvements).
    But which license to choose is highly dependent upon your project's
    goals.

    There are many other reasons open source is helpful to many projects.
    These are covered nicely in "The Success of Open Source" by Steven
    Weber. One aspect that isn't covered in Steven's book is that being
    open source also is helpful for outsourcing. See:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_outsourcing for information on this
    matter.

    > Well again in an open source model, your users becomes your testers. I
    > am convinced people would find the time to do the integration for you,
    > and give you a report.


    Absolutely. As you can see from this thread, it is hard to give a good
    bug report without the source code. So, instead of a nice bug report
    like "fix the increment operator on line 233 of file.cpp" you get a
    black eye in a public forum "this program doesn't run on Windows"...
    which is much less accurate and fair, and not very helpful either.

    -Kelly


  14. Re: A free 3d medical image viewer (windows/linux/macosx)

    Now I used --single-layout option but stability is the same.
    About the graphics card, I've (in laptop) a Mobility Radeon 9000 (ATI).
    In the system that crash with a reset I've a old Radeon All in wonder
    and a old Matrox Mistique PCI (yes, 2 graphic cards)

    lzyhm wrote:
    > You can try to run the tviewer with argument "--single-layout"
    >
    > Maybe your question is about video card:
    > TViewer need opengl supported by OS. About 12 opengl windows are
    > created in tviewer. So your video card should be more powerful.
    > "--single-layout" only create 3 opengl window, so some function can't
    > be used.
    >
    > Tviewer can't detect the power of your video card correctly. Our video
    > cards is NV series.
    >
    > We will collect these question as BUG or FAQ.
    > Thank you.
    >
    > Lewis
    >
    > Dr. Stefano Smania wrote:
    >> Sorry but I've not a good comment for you. I think it's a VERY GOOD
    >> SOFTWARE, but the stability is near the zero. I don't know if in linux /
    >> MacOS X it works better, but in win2k is a disaster. I'm trying it in 2
    >> different sistems with Win2k. In first system TViewer return me the
    >> classic "serious hardware / memory error" with blue screen and white
    >> text...the system rests itself.
    >>
    >> In second system (laptop) TViewer works but it fails very frequently
    >> with "access memory errors" and I've to kill the process. Errors are in
    >> 0x00000 address: pointer error????
    >>
    >> I repeat: I think it's a good tool, but in windows you need to work for
    >> a better stability.
    >>
    >> Bye
    >>
    >> Stefano

    >


  15. Re: A free 3d medical image viewer (windows/linux/macosx)

    Francois PIETTE
    > Lack of power will result in bad performance but no crash !


    You are right. We distributed our application with PC with modern
    graphics card. So the BUG can't be captured easily. Next, we will test
    on some a less powerfull video card. On old video card, the ROIs is
    drawn very slowly and the image painted very slowly.

    Marcheschi
    >I did not find a Play button for cineloops

    This feature is supported at left control panel.

    Mathieu Malaterre and Kelly
    I can't access http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_outsourcing, I will
    resarch the license. I'm too busy to distribute the souce code: I will
    finish my doctor's degree and develop our TPS in these months.Some
    questions:
    1 Code: Some code isn't designed very good and many code wrote without
    comment because of time reason, So the other developers can't
    understand correctly. This work wll spend me many time. I have no time
    so much as to maintain a distribution at sourceforge.net.
    2 Develop: How many developers will be insteresting in tviewer? I'm not
    sure. What is the next developing direction about tviewer? What
    features should update to tviewer? If only for BUG, I don't think this
    is enough reason to distribute source code.
    So if somebody has interesting in developing tviewer advancely, you
    can contact me by mail@tivewer.org or post message.

    Thank you

    Lewis


  16. Re: A free 3d medical image viewer (windows/linux/macosx)


    lzyhm wrote:
    > Mathieu Malaterre and Kelly
    > I can't access http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_outsourcing, I will
    > resarch the license. I'm too busy to distribute the souce code: I will
    > finish my doctor's degree and develop our TPS in these months.


    I'm sorry the link didn't work, the page is there... researching the
    license takes far longer than distributing the source code. There is a
    web site www.sourceforge.net where you can post open source projects.
    It might take 20 minutes to sign up, and post a Zip file, 30 max. :-)

    >Some
    > questions:
    > 1 Code: Some code isn't designed very good and many code wrote without
    > comment because of time reason, So the other developers can't
    > understand correctly. This work wll spend me many time. I have no time
    > so much as to maintain a distribution at sourceforge.net.


    Other programmers generally are happy to add comments. What time is
    required to maintain the distribution? You post the files whenever you
    have a new version...

    > 2 Develop: How many developers will be insteresting in tviewer? I'm not
    > sure. What is the next developing direction about tviewer? What
    > features should update to tviewer? If only for BUG, I don't think this
    > is enough reason to distribute source code.
    > So if somebody has interesting in developing tviewer advancely, you
    > can contact me by mail@tivewer.org or post message.


    I can't say how many will be interested. My interest would depend
    largely on which license you choose to use. If you use GPL, I would
    have no interest, if you chose MIT type license, then over time I would
    likely have a lot of interest. I can't speak for my company, or for
    anyone else, this is just my feeling.

    If I were to develop on tviewer, it would likely be to add support for
    the draft cone beam CT SOP... it isn't likely to happen any time soon,
    as it is a draft of the standard, but that would be the direction I
    would likely have interest in.

    -Kelly


  17. Re: A free 3d medical image viewer (windows/linux/macosx)


    lzyhm wrote:
    > at www.tviewer.org
    >
    > tell me if you like it


    Grate job!

    I would suggest making the web more informative. It would be nice to
    see high resolution images in your gallery to appreciate the quality of
    rendering. Additionally, the spec numbers would be very helpful to make
    preliminary assessment, such as size of volume you can render without
    undersampling, hardware requirements, the input/output pixel formats,
    the renderings types...etc.

    One of mentioned feature is "Surface Generation". The impulse
    opacity transfer function (step like) should provide iso-surface so,
    why this very particular case of volume rendering is distinguished in
    separate nomination?

    Best regards and good luck,
    sb


  18. Re: A free 3d medical image viewer (windows/linux/macosx)


    kellyatdentrix@gmail.com wrote:
    > I can't say how many will be interested. My interest would depend
    > largely on which license you choose to use. If you use GPL, I would
    > have no interest, if you chose MIT type license, then over time I would
    > likely have a lot of interest. I can't speak for my company, or for
    > anyone else, this is just my feeling.
    >
    > If I were to develop on tviewer, it would likely be to add support for
    > the draft cone beam CT SOP... it isn't likely to happen any time soon,
    > as it is a draft of the standard, but that would be the direction I
    > would likely have interest in.


    Just to be fair, I need to add that GPL can perfectly be considered.
    For instance Osirix picked this license and I don't think they have any
    regret, look at their figures on sf.net stats page. For a more detail
    explanation in between BSD and GPL license I suggest reading:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_and_GPL_licensing

    I'd like to add on top of that, since you are using Qt, the licensing
    can be GPL pretty easily. BUT if you choose a BSD like, then you'll
    have to be extremely clear that any Qt code in your application cannot
    be patched by someone with the GPL version of Qt... This might be
    difficult in a project where GUI and code are intermixed.

    More info at:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt_(toolkit)
    http://www.trolltech.com/developer/knowledgebase/188
    http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt...ing/licensing/

    HTH
    Mathieu
    Ps: going futher and further from the topic of this group, sorry...


  19. Re: A free 3d medical image viewer (windows/linux/macosx)


    stefanbanev@yahoo.com wrote:
    >
    > One of mentioned feature is "Surface Generation". The impulse
    > opacity transfer function (step like) should provide iso-surface so,
    > why this very particular case of volume rendering is distinguished in
    > separate nomination?
    >

    If you define left eye ROI slice by slice, tviewer can generate the
    surface by ROIs even the slices have different spacing.


  20. Re: A free 3d medical image viewer (windows/linux/macosx)


    lzyhm wrote:
    > stefanbanev@yahoo.com wrote:
    > >
    > > One of mentioned feature is "Surface Generation". The impulse
    > > opacity transfer function (step like) should provide iso-surface so,
    > > why this very particular case of volume rendering is distinguished in
    > > separate nomination?
    > >

    > If you define left eye ROI slice by slice, tviewer can generate the
    > surface by ROIs even the slices have different spacing.


    The original data provides just set of interpolation grids thus, what
    so special about a non-regular spacing. The iso-surface of volume is
    still perfectly defined from point of view of interpolator (tri-linear
    or higher) so, impulse transfer function must show the correspondent
    iso-surface of scalar field seeing by interpolator. The quality of
    iso-surface obtained through step-TF is heavily depends on
    super-sampling level and order of interpolation (tri-linear or higher).
    To get comparatively accurate mesh-based iso-surface you will need at
    least 8 polygons per voxel what actually excessively far more expensive
    than super-sampling ray-casting approach. Definitely the polygonal
    substitution is a viable option for many applications where a draft
    approximation is acceptable.


+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast