Slashdot Mirror
Film to X-rays?
erikred_at_csua asks: "A friend has his film X-rays on loan from the lab but needs to transfer them to digital format so he can take them for a second opinion. What's a reliable (and inexpensive) method of doing this without sacrificing image quality (and thereby rendering the exercise worthless)? Would the old lamp and scanner trick work here, or would there be too many flaws to make it worthwhile? Where could one find a list of places that would do this on the cheap? Since this is to document the progress of arthritis in his back, the level of detail must remain high."
If they are his xrays, they should be part of his medical record, which means he owns them. You can keep them as long as you like (they are signed out to you right? dont get some poor clerk in trouble), or return them and your other doc can request them.
At least, thats the way it worked in the radiology dept. I worked in for a while about 10 years ago.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
If you need high quality images from a nageitve, use a scanner that's equipped to handle negatives. Many scanners do this. Cheap ones will only scan small sections of negatives, but you can stitch them together later.
You might find that Kinkos or a local print shop has the capability to copy the film to CD as well. Look around.
I don't think you're going to be able to do this job on the cheap and well at the same time.
-Adam
Lots of people do exactly what he's asking about. It doesn't require anything more than a run-of-the-mill scanner with a transparency adapter. It's just film, it's not magic. Go down to Office Depot and try it yourself. Hell, just put the scannning software on full auto and push the button.
WHich is not to mention any radiologist worth a radiologist's salary can take marginal scans and fix them in about 3 seconds with photoshop or other medical imaging program. There's no need to be an ass.
X-Ray scanners cost in excess of $10,000 for usage in simple day surgery situations. There is a good reason why they cost that much. Domestic scanners don't even come close to the resolution needed by radiologists. When they look at a minute dot on an X-Ray which to you and me looks the same as any other minute dot, they know the difference. The FDA makes a distinction between images which can be used for diagnostic purposes and images which can't.
Task Mangler
Check his website. He really does have plans for for making an MRI out of iPod earplugs. And it works too! How else do you think he found out that he had back pain?
I got one of my wife's CT for $3.50 from the hospital radiology department. I just asked for a DICOM-format dump of the CT series (OK, so I used to work in radiology software - they don't get many requests but are happy to help). Open source software is readily available to view it (I either used Madena X or OsiriX at the time).
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
However, the grey areas will become much darker than intended since the light has to pass twice through the film. If the difference between white and black is a factor 500 in light intensity, then you will need a scanner that can handle a dynamic range of 500*500=25,000. There are no scanners that can do that under practical circumstances. That is why scanners for negatives have a separate light source that illuminates the negatives from behind.
Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
Since my wife the radiologist has the day off today, I swiveled my chair around and asked her. So here's a bullet list of relevant points combining my editorializing with her systems knowledge:
-Most medical stuff is regulated at a state level (in the US, anyway), not at a federal level, so exercise caution when saying 'it's the law'.
-Radiology films are 11"x17", so you would need a big (and expensive - my wife has a couple thousand old films from her research we'd like to digitize, so I've shopped) scanner to do this.
-Contrary to popular belief, you do not own your medical records; the physician who generated them does. You do, however, have the right to access them and the request a copy. You may be required to pay a fee for the copy, but it's usually something reasonable (e.g. $10). I realize this may raise a ruckus - this isn't flame bait or an ethical statement, it's a statement about the way it is. Deal with it.
-You may request a copy of your films to keep, rather than borrow. Again, there may be a fee.
-Many practices now use PACS systems to handle the images, and can burn a CD of the data that can be read by a radiologist; many even come with the reading software on the CD. As another poster pointed out, the image data will in all likelihood conform to the DICOM standard http://www.sph.sc.edu/comd/rorden/dicom.html , and can be shared with your other physicians readily. Because the CD systems are relatively new, many hospitals and imaging centers haven't yet implemented a policy of how to charge for them - so you may be able to get it for free. Or not.
-So, in a nutshell: If you are, for whatever reason, not willing to ask your physician to share the information (which is the best route - physicians are our partners in care, not our adversaries), then request a copy that you own; don't borrow. Present this data to the physician you are seeking a second opinion from. Good luck, and I hope he can treat the arthritis!