Hi all,
Thanks for the explanation!
Clinical opinion:
I agree with Chris that we don't often adjust WL in RGB images. Nevertheless, images viewed on different screens (the US vs workstation vs mobile vs projector) tend to have different brightnesses. Even though I *know* that 256/127 shows *all* the possible data available in the image, when the image appears "a little dark", the automatic thing I do (and all my clinical colleagues do) is to adjust the WL. I can adjust the screen brightness, etc (which is the proper method), but it's "instinctual" to adjust the WL on an RGB image.
In my clinical use scenario, where I presented the images on a (crappy) projector yesterday, I wanted to emphasize certain areas of the image, which may be darker or lighter. Considering that the most "comfortable" value (output value) to look at is in the mid-grey range, I may use a WL of 120/60 to show darker structures and WL 120/170 to show brighter structures.
Technical opinion:
I've also been having the same issues with the RGB images. Not sure how much this applies, but:
- Just did a quick experiment where I skipped the re-reading input RGB data (for the same instance) and tied WL to the alpha channel - it rendered about 2x faster, but the visual results were not that great (it's only adjusting transparency, right? :P )
- Another quick experiment where I skipped re-reading input RGB data, and just modified output RGB channels directly. It also renders 2x faster, but too much image information is lost (it saturates or desaturates too fast and too much).
I'm sure that Chris will have better luck than me. ;) Failing this, then maybe just 3 preset WLs or something like that.
Regards,
Emsy
* On a side note, I just found out that my colleagues were using this pathology room for their breast conferences and they've been lugging a 5-year-old MacBook up there every other week... Time to start telling them the benefits of Orthanc & Cornerstone! :)