There is a thread on AuntMinnie about the long promised Stentor/Philips
PACS 3.5 DICOM CDs that aren't, which may be of interest:

The text of my post follows:

MRICTPACSTech wrote:

"Has anyone else had trouble importing DICOM studies burned on a CD
with Stentor/Philips 3.5? We have the option of burning with or without
DICOM data on the CD. But, we've noticed that our Siemens Leonardo
cannot read the CD'S. I have tried some other DICOM programs such
as DICOMWorks and they can read the CD, just not Siemens. I have
been told by the vendor it's a known issue. With all of the Stentor
sites out there and even more Siemens modalities, I have to believe
that some other site has had this issue. We would like to ensure
that our patients could import the CD'S to other PACS out there,
but we can't be sure since we have this issue. Any other comments
about 3.5 in general? Thanks."

MRICTPACSTech kindly sent to me copies of Stentor/Philips 3.5 "DICOM"
CDs (both with and without the iSyntax files) in order to investigate
these issues.

Unbelievably, they are not standard DICOM disks !

There is no DICOMDIR.

The file and folder names do not follow the ISO 9660 Level 1 and DICOM
requirements to be 8 characters and uppercase.

I find it amazing that after years of promising to finally deliver
DICOM media in 3.5, way later than first promised, Stentor could have
either carelessly screwed this up or deliberately elected to violate
the DICOM standard.

At least the DICOM files themselves seem to be OK, except for a minor
issue with the two bytes of the File Meta Information Version being

The bottom line is that many DICOM workstations will fail to read these
disks unless they have a feature to search the entire disk or a user
specified folder for potential DICOM files, which rules out many
commercial workstations (this is a good feature to look for in a
workstation, and presumably why we haven't noticed problems with
3.5 disks before in our operation).

"Known issue" indeed ... it should have been not only known but
corrected before 3.5 was released.

What were Stentor thinking ?

I wonder how long Stentor sites will have to wait for a revised release
from Philips to correct this ? At least Philips understands the importance
of DICOM conformance.

I am very disappointed.


PS. There is no mention of DICOM media in the 3.5 conformance statement
on the web site, which I guess is a hint that either this was deliberately
omitted or that DICOM media support was a half implemented after thought.