Depends on what you need.
Regards,
--
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/85e6d87c-daf9-4b4a-9165-16dc4c277767o%40googlegroups.com.
Depends on what you need.
- Orthanc is small, self contained and easy to install DICOM server, but it doesn't have all the features DCM4CHEE has. On the other hand, is easily extensible using Lua or Python. I would use Orthanc as a forwarding PACS, mini local PACS, DICOM router, DICOM analyzer (with Python) or as a base for something bigger. It's very developer friendly.
- If you want a fully featured PACS from the beginning, with all the DICOM bells and whistles (HL7, Worklists...), you probably want dcm4chee.
Regards,
On 6/10/20 7:37 PM, Depth Application Team wrote:
--Hello,I am trying to build a PACS system.However, there are some problems.
It is whether or not to use Orthanc-based PACS or DCM4CHE-based PACS.
If anyone knows about the performance differences between the two infrastructures, please let me know.
Thank you.
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 dcm...@googlegroups.com.