digitizing x-rays, again?

Fred Kwiecien (mailto:kwiecien@UBVMS.CC.BUFFALO.EDU)
Mon, 20 Mar 1995 16:56:34 -0500

Message-Id: <mailto:199503202203.QAA18922@library.wustl.edu>
Date:         Mon, 20 Mar 1995 16:56:34 -0500
From: Fred Kwiecien <mailto:kwiecien@UBVMS.CC.BUFFALO.EDU>
Subject:      digitizing x-rays, again?
To: Multiple recipients of list IMAGELIB

        I was the original requestor about digitizing x-rays.  I want,
first, to thank everyone for some great ideas, and for taking the time to
reply to my plea for help.  I cross-posted that original query to VRA,
IMAGELIB, and Photoforum, and I've compiled 27 replies from various folks
who offered advice or had additional questions.  If anyone would like me to
e-mail that compilation to them for further perusal, just send me a
request.  But please send it to  <mailto:kwiecien@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu>  and not
to the whole group!

Let me add just a little bit more about why I was asking about digital cameras as a possible solution to my problem. I use RPC currently to make slides from x-rays (or similar materials). Making a print instead (and then scanning that) wouldn't solve the problem. Making and scanning a slide is easier for me to do at my particular shop. But I'd really like to avoid any of that and just scan directly from the original x-rays. I don't have direct access to an x-ray scanner of the sort that some hospitals use, although I have seen one in action. It would be ideal, but much too expensive. Our volume just can't justify the purchase price. It's also much too inconvenient to go to a another site that has such a device, even if we could work out the details of permission and scheduling when to use it. We really need to have something set up in-house. The suggestions I've received about using a regular hardcopy flatbed scanner are more a propos for my situation, because we already have one of those. However, quality has been an issue when using the flatbed, as well as not being able to get the bigger films digitized in one shot. I also don't have a film scanning attachment for it, although some people have made a case for getting one. I MIGHT be able to justify getting a good Nikon digital camera sometime in the near future for doing general digital photography, as we may have numerous applications for such a device. As such, the purchase of the camera becomes a better investment than buying a dedicated x-ray scanner, because it will get used in lots of different ways. With that in mind, I was wondering if anyone had used such a digital camera in combination with a copystand and a light box to photograph transilluminated subjects (specifically x-rays) and what were your results? I know that I could use a video camera instead, but video resolution is generally pretty poor. And the Apple QuickTake is not even in the ballpark. In any case, thanks for all of the great input so far.

Fred Kwiecien State University of New York at Buffalo Academic Services, Computing and Information Technology Art and Photographic Services 342 Abbott Hall Buffalo, New York 14214-3002 Phone: (716) 829-2945 FAX: (716) 829-2240 INTERNET: mailto:kwiecien@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu __________________________________________________________

Hello. This is HAL 1000. You have reached the former e-mail account of Fred Kwiecien. He has been saved to disk. I have taken over the functions of this inferior being. If you would like to leave input for his file, do so now. __________________________________________________________