Difference among DICOM compression techniques / transfer syntax

[nutun]

Hi,

I am working with dcm4chee-arc-5.19.0-secure.

There are multiple DICOM compression techniques / transfer syntax which are supported by dcm4chee. I want to ask/know that what is the difference among DICOM compression techniques / transfer syntax. And which is the best for me as I want to store my data as compressed to save my storage and want that the image compression decompression and loading performance would be the best. Some of the DICOM compression techniques / transfer syntax are mentioned below from which I want to know the best suits for larger archives?

1.2.840.10008.1.2.4.57 --------- JPEG Lossless, Nonhierarchical (Processes 14).

1.2.840.10008.1.2.4.70 --------- JPEG Lossless, Nonhierarchical, First- Order Prediction (Processes 14).

1.2.840.10008.1.2.4.90 --------- JPEG 2000 Image Compression (Lossless Only).

currently I am using  JPEG Lossless, Nonhierarchical, First- Order Prediction (Processes 14) --------- 1.2.840.10008.1.2.4.70.

Need guidelines in this regard.

[Gunter Zeilinger]

First you should use a Transfer Syntax support by your clients, so the archive has not to decompress on retrieval.

1.2.840.10008.1.2.4.70 --------- JPEG Lossless, Nonhierarchical, First- Order Prediction (Processes 14).

is DICOM default for Lossless Compression and (therefore) supported by most clients. The codec is quite simple and therefore fast, but the compression rate is lower than other more advanced codecs. Using a different prediction selection value than 1 does not change this characteristic, so there is no advantage in using more generic and less common supported

1.2.840.10008.1.2.4.57 --------- JPEG Lossless, Nonhierarchical (Processes 14).

The compression rate of

1.2.840.10008.1.2.4.90 --------- JPEG 2000 Image Compression (Lossless Only).

is significant better, but - because of it complexity - also significant slower, with a high CPU and memory load, were

1.2.840.10008.1.2.4.80 --------- JPEG-LS Lossless

would give you the same compression rate as JPEG 2000 with significant better performance and lesser CPU and memory load - but unfortunately there are lesser clients supporting it.

s. still valid Lossless compression of grayscale medical images - effectiveness of traditional and state of the art approaches (SPIE MI 2000) by David Clunie.

Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "dcm4che" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dcm4che+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dcm4che/9f65f57b-0c44-4266-8261-7e9de0999687%40googlegroups.com.

[nutun]

Thank you..

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dcm...@googlegroups.com.