Jim Miller | 1 Jun 04:19 2006
Picon

Re: Problems or bug with itkKdTree search method

Arnaud,

I recall another user reporting issues with the KdTree. 

http://public.kitware.com/pipermail/insight-users/2006-March/017203.html

Perhaps the issue is similar to yours. 

I do not think this issue has been addressed yet.

Jim

On 5/30/06, Arnaud GELAS < gelas-0ZXfWqjJkvJNgumx+FIHDcc1ZZbpBbUC@public.gmane.org> wrote:
Hi all,
 
I faced a problem with using KdTree search method. I am not sure yet if I am wrong in the use of the kdtree, or if there is one bug in the KdTree.
 
I join a code with which I get some troubles... As you can see in the log.txt file for few measurements vectors (i.e. ids=28, 35, 50, 59, 67, 82, 85, 92), the kdtree search method and a brutal one (i.e. by testing all points) do not provide the same results.
 
I would really appreciate if anyone can tell me if there is something's wrong in my code, or if there is a problem with the kdtree search method?
 
Thanks in advance for your replies,
Best regards,
 
Arnaud

_______________________________________________
Insight-users mailing list
Insight-users-RyaoCGfWeh4@public.gmane.org
http://www.itk.org/mailman/listinfo/insight-users




_______________________________________________
Insight-users mailing list
Insight-users@...
http://www.itk.org/mailman/listinfo/insight-users
Popa Teo | 1 Jun 10:13 2006
Picon

MRI geometric distorsion

Hi,
 
Did anybody encounter geometric distorsion in MRI images,especially high-tesla(7) fields.I found that the geometric distorsion is quite obvious when I tried to measure the distance of 3 colinear fiducials with known distance on a in-plane slice.
 
Does itk have methods for correcting this distorsion (especialy on 7T magnets for example ) or this should be done by manufacturer of MRI device?
 
Teo
 
p.s.I know itk has some methods for correcting some characteristics of MRI images(like  MRI bias field correction itk::MIBiasFieldCorrectionFilter).

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

_______________________________________________
Insight-users mailing list
Insight-users@...
http://www.itk.org/mailman/listinfo/insight-users
Grace Chen | 1 Jun 16:40 2006
Picon

3d multi-modality registration

Hi Karthik,  Good morning!

Even though the registration program does scale the registered moving image.
The registered image still does not look the same size as the fixed
image....  Do you know why?

Thanx!

Grace

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Karthik Krishnan" <Karthik.Krishnan@...>
To: "Grace Chen" <Grace.Chen@...>; "itk"
<insight-users@...>
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 12:27 PM
Subject: [Insight-users] Re: 3d multi-modality registration

> No. In the end, you should not need to do this .  If you use the
> ResampleImageFilter to resample your moving image as in ,
>
>   ResampleFilterType::Pointer resample = ResampleFilterType::New();
>   resample->SetTransform( finalTransform ); // after registration
>   resample->SetInput( movingImageReader->GetOutput() );
>   resample->SetSize(
   fixedImage->GetLargestPossibleRegion().GetSize() );
>   resample->SetOutputOrigin(  fixedImage->GetOrigin() );
>   resample->SetOutputSpacing( fixedImage->GetSpacing() );
>
> Your resample filter will ensure that the moving image is resampled to
> have the same meta-data as the fixed image. Does this not work for you ?
>
>
> Try to take things one step at a time. Just resample the moving image
> first (without registration using an identity transform). Then use a
> translation transform that overlays them to a reasonable extent. Then
> register with this translation transfrom or a transform really close to
> it as the initial transform and see if your solution converges to the
> right translation transform.
>
> After you've gone through this exercise, you can dive into the other
> details of registration.
>
> HTH
> karthik
>
>
>
> Grace Chen wrote:
>
> >Hi Karthik,
> >
> >Do you mean I should apply scalling (as in the following line) after
> >applying the registration transformation to make corresponding slices of
> >both images matched??
> >
>
>currTransform->Scale((double)fSpacing[0]/mSpacing[0],(double)fSpacing[1]/mS
p
> >acing[1], (double)fSpacing[2]/mSpacing[2]);
> >
> >Thank you so much!
> >
> >Grace
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message ----- 
> >From: "Karthik Krishnan" <Karthik.Krishnan@...>
> >To: "Grace Chen" <Grace.Chen@...>
> >Cc: <insight-users@...>
> >Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 10:29 AM
> >Subject: Re: 3d multi-modality registration
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>Grace Chen wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Hi there,
> >>>
> >>>My moving image looks smaller than the fixed image on screen.  (These
two
> >>>input images have different spacing.)  And because it's 3D
multi-modality
> >>>registration, so only translation and rotation are involved in the
> >>>registration process.  Is this why the registered moving image still
look
> >>>smaller than the fixed image and the slices of the moving images don't
> >>>
> >>>
> >match
> >
> >
> >>>that of the fixed image?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>This happens often in multi-modality registration, where CT, MR PET
> >>datasets have very different resolutions. If you use the registration
> >>framework in ITK, the moving image is resampled to the grid of the fixed
> >>image. In otherwords your resampled/transformed moving image should,
> >>after registration have the same meta-data (spacing, origin) as the
> >>fixed image.  You definitely want to do this so you evaluate the
> >>registatration using an overlay or checkerboard.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Thanx a lot!
> >>>
> >>>Grace
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>----- Original Message ----- 
> >>>From: "Grace Chen" <Grace.Chen@...>
> >>>To: <Karthik.Krishnan@...>
> >>>Cc: <insight-users@...>
> >>>Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 6:00 PM
> >>>Subject: Re: [Insight-users] 3d multi-modality registration
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Hi Karthik,
> >>>>
> >>>>Thanx for your help!
> >>>>
> >>>>However, my program needs this process to be made automatic....  So, I
> >>>>extracted the volume of interest from the moving image, making sure
that
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>the
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>moving image covers the whole fixed image but yet is not too big.  The
> >>>>registration program can correct the movement in the x and y
direction.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>And
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I can see the program translates the slices (in z direction) too.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>However,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>because the moving image has smaller spacing, so within the same
volume
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >of
> >
> >
> >>>>interest, the moving image has more slices.  The program doesn't seem
to
> >>>>interpolate the moving image well so the subsequent slices of the
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>registered
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>moving image matches the corresponding slices of the fixed image.
> >>>>
> >>>>Any idea why? or is there a bug in my understanding??
> >>>>
> >>>>Thanx again!!
> >>>>
> >>>>Grace
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>----- Original Message ----- 
> >>>>From: "Karthik Krishnan" <Karthik.Krishnan@...>
> >>>>To: "Grace Chen" <Grace.Chen@...>
> >>>>Cc: <insight-users@...>
> >>>>Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 3:11 PM
> >>>>Subject: Re: [Insight-users] 3d multi-modality registration
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Hi Grace,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>The correct use of image registration is to bring it close to final
> >>>>>solution and expect image registration to take it from there. I you
> >>>>>provide two volumes with vastly differnt extents and a poor
> >>>>>initialization, it wouldn't be surprising if registration failed to
> >>>>>achieve results.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>In a clinincal workflow, I don't think any radiologist/clinician
would
> >>>>>perform registration using command line tools and proceed to the next
> >>>>>step without validating the quality of the registration. This is why
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >its
> >
> >
> >>>>>usually done using GUI tools. For instance
> >>>>>InsightApplications/LandmarkInitializedMutualInformation (have you
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >tried
> >
> >
> >>>>>this application for your datasets ?) allows you to place landmarks
on
> >>>>>the source and target image, so you can roughly overlay the images
> >>>>>(usually within 0-5 mm of each other) and then allow registration to
> >>>>>fine tune it. If the overlay looks good, you are happy.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Please give this application a try first :
> >>>>>
> >>>>>1. Specify a landmark on the fixed and moving image. Pick  anatomical
> >>>>>correspondances. For an MRI of the brain, you could pick the tips of
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >the
> >
> >
> >>>>>splenium of the corpuscallosum on a sagittal/coronal acquistion (you
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >can
> >
> >
> >>>>>see it very clearly in
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >Insight/Examples/Data/BrainMidSagittalSlice.png).
> >
> >
> >>>>>For an axial MRI, you could pick the tips of the ventricles.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>2. Initialize using landmarks. (it should be one of the options on
the
> >>>>>initialization menu).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>3. Register
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Does this work for you ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>HTH
> >>>>>karthik
> >>>>>
> >>>>>On Fri, 2006-05-26 at 12:26 -0400, Grace Chen wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Hi Luis,  Thanx a lot for your inputs!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>I've been struggling with this one for a longest time....  The
problem
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>is
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>that I have two 3D brain images and one brain image has greater
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>physical
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>extents in z.  The information of the two volumes are as follows:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Fixed image:
> >>>>>> origin = [-120, -135.805, -29.7683]
> >>>>>> spacing = [0.9375,  0.9375,  7]
> >>>>>> extent = [256,256, 7]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Moving image:
> >>>>>> origin = [-142.5, -170.488, -84.8781]
> >>>>>> spacing = [1.17188, 1.17188, 5.5]
> >>>>>> extent = [256,256, 28]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>For these two brain volumes, the fixed image matches a section in
the
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>moving
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>image...I tried registered them using the whole volume, the first
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>slice
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>of
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>the registered moving image doesn't looked like that of the fixed
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>image
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>at
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>all...Then, I tried extracting a section from the moving slice and
> >>>>>>registered them together....but the middle slices of the the
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>registered
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>image does not match the corresponding slices in the fixed image.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>What's
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>going on??  Is there prerequisite on the input data for performing
> >>>>>>mullti-modality registration using ITK?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Please help!!  I am in deperate need to really nail this this time!!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>Thanx
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>a million!!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Grace
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>----- Original Message ----- 
> >>>>>>From: "Luis Ibanez" <luis.ibanez@...>
> >>>>>>To: "Grace Chen" <Grace.Chen@...>
> >>>>>>Cc: <insight-users@...>
> >>>>>>Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:58 PM
> >>>>>>Subject: Re: [Insight-users] 3d multi-modality registration
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Hi Grace,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>In principle, that's true,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>but in practice it may not happen if the spatial extension
> >>>>>>>of the moving image doesn't fully overlap with the fixed
> >>>>>>>image.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Have you checked the other slices ?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Do they overlap well ?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>    Luis
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>===================
> >>>>>>>Grace Chen wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Hi there,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>My program performs the 3D multi-modality registration for two
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>volumes.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>After the registration has been performed, is it true that the
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>first
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>slice of the registered moving image should look like the first
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>slice of
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>the fixed image?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Grace
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
>
>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>_______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>Insight-users mailing list
> >>>>>>>>Insight-users@...
> >>>>>>>>http://www.itk.org/mailman/listinfo/insight-users
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>_______________________________________________
> >>>>>>Insight-users mailing list
> >>>>>>Insight-users@...
> >>>>>>http://www.itk.org/mailman/listinfo/insight-users
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>_______________________________________________
> >>>>>Insight-users mailing list
> >>>>>Insight-users@...
> >>>>>http://www.itk.org/mailman/listinfo/insight-users
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>_______________________________________________
> >>>>Insight-users mailing list
> >>>>Insight-users@...
> >>>>http://www.itk.org/mailman/listinfo/insight-users
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Insight-users mailing list
> Insight-users@...
> http://www.itk.org/mailman/listinfo/insight-users
>
Rick Shilling | 1 Jun 16:46 2006
Picon

ITK physical space & Image space

Hi-

I first wanted to validate a few things regarding Image to physical coordinate transformations in ITK.  All transformations are assumed to be 3-D rotation then translation.  Here's my approach:

We have two scans each with different MRI scanning orientations:  sagittal & coronal.  This means that in image/pixel space,denoted as 'If' & 'Im' for image fixed & Image moving, they are not closely registered.  In fact, unit vectors are permuted & polarity is reversed in the z axis ( right handed to left handed coordinate system change). 

However they have their own anatomical space (denoted as Af & Am for anatomical fixed and anatomical moving) where the two volumes are almost registered.   This means the transformation between Am to Af is close to the identity.  Note anatomical space is not physical space and I have the transformations:  If <-> Af,  Im<->Am. 

I assume the transformation between image space and ITK physical space (denoted as Pf & Pm) is represented by a diagonal matrix whose diagonal entries are the anatomical pixel sizes.  This means image/Pixel directions are the same as physical directions for each volume.  Both translations are set to the zero vector. 

In summary, the 6 Spaces are:
fixed            moving
-----------------------------
Af                Am     |     Anatomical
If                  Im      |     Image/Pixel
Pf                Pm     |     ITK Physical

And we have the exact transformations:
Af   <-> If   <-> Pf
Am <-> Im <-> Pm


I want to give ITK the best initial estimate possible between physical spaces as a starting point to ITK registration: Pm->Pf.  Since we know in anatomical space the images are initially closely registered, we want to use that information (Am->Af=Identity) & the exact transformations as the way to compute that transformation by composing:
Pm->Im->Am->Af->If->Pf.

In our case we compute & set Pm->Pf =
[0 0 -1;
 0 1 0;
-1 0 0]
with Translation offset=
[298;34 223];

Though ITK reports:

itk::ExceptionObject (00F290C8) Location: "unknown" File: C:\InsightToolkit-2.6.0\Code\Algorithms\itkMutualInformationImageToImageMetric.txx
Line: 193 Description: itk::ERROR: MutualInformationImageToImageMetric(01262BA0): All the sampled point mapped to outside of the moving image

I looked at where image/Pixel space boundaries map to in physical space for each and indeed, there is overlap.  I'm wondering if new problems are created if there is a polarity change in the physical moving to physical fixed tranformation that the programmer should know about?  Is there anything to possibly debug that you may know about?  Thanks for your help.

Rick

Ring'em or ping'em. Make PC-to-phone calls as low as 1¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
_______________________________________________
Insight-users mailing list
Insight-users@...
http://www.itk.org/mailman/listinfo/insight-users
Mathieu Malaterre | 1 Jun 16:48 2006

Re: How can I build a dicom serie from separeted bmps?

Bruno Barcellos wrote:
> How can I build a dicom serie from a separated .BMP snapshot images 
> using ITK? I have converted each .BMP to DICOM separately, acrescenting 
> to the headers of the generated DICOMS informations from the DICOM 
> headers that originated the .BMPS. But some tags cannot be changed, e.g. 
> (0002|0003) and (0008|0018). Are there some tags that I can modify to 
> explicity that the separated DICOM slices compose the same serie?

Bruno,

	You need to read the BMP series as a series (in proper order!) and 
write it as a DICOM series. But before you save the image you need either:

1. To set the spacing (x,y,z), you need to set the direction cosines (I 
guess the default should be ok). And then write it using ITK CVS.

2. Set a proper metadatadictionary that would contain the Image Position 
(Patient) (and Image Orientation (Patient)) for each individual slice.

I believe there are example for both in ITK.

HTH
Mathieu
Ps: Do not modify anything from group 0002, please.
Picon

RE: ITK physical space & Image space

Rick,
 
If the data are read as dicom images with proper direction cosines, the itkOrientedImage can be used in
place of the itkImage. itkImage does not, for efficieny reasons, take into account the directon cosines
of the data.
 
Not all input formats report the direction cosines. What is you data format.
 
Bill
 
 
-----Original Message----- 
From: insight-users-bounces+lorensen=crd.ge.com <at> itk.org on behalf of Rick Shilling 
Sent: Thu 6/1/2006 10:46 AM 
To: insight-users <at> itk.org 
Cc: 
Subject: [Insight-users] ITK physical space & Image space



	Hi-
	
	I first wanted to validate a few things regarding Image to physical coordinate transformations in ITK. 
All transformations are assumed to be 3-D rotation then translation.  Here's my approach:
	
	We have two scans each with different MRI scanning orientations:  sagittal & coronal.  This means that in
image/pixel space,denoted as 'If' & 'Im' for image fixed & Image moving, they are not closely registered. 
In fact, unit vectors are permuted & polarity is reversed in the z axis ( right handed to left handed
coordinate system change).  
	
	However they have their own anatomical space (denoted as Af & Am for anatomical fixed and anatomical
moving) where the two volumes are almost registered.   This means the transformation between Am to Af is
close to the identity.  Note anatomical space is not physical space and I have the transformations:  If <->
Af,  Im<->Am.  
	
	I assume the transformation between image space and ITK physical space (denoted as Pf & Pm) is represented
by a diagonal matrix whose diagonal entries are the anatomical pixel sizes.  This means image/Pixel
directions are the same as physical directions for each volume.  Both translations are set to the zero
vector.  
	
	In summary, the 6 Spaces are:
	fixed            moving
	-----------------------------
	Af                Am     |     Anatomical
	If                  Im      |     Image/Pixel
	Pf                Pm     |     ITK Physical
	
	And we have the exact transformations:
	Af   <-> If   <-> Pf
	Am <-> Im <-> Pm
	
	
	I want to give ITK the best initial estimate possible between physical spaces as a starting point to ITK
registration: Pm->Pf.  Since we know in anatomical space the images are initially closely registered, we
want to use that information (Am->Af=Identity) & the exact transformations as the way to compute that
transformation by composing:
	Pm->Im->Am->Af->If->Pf.
	
	In our case we compute & set Pm->Pf = 
	[0 0 -1; 
	 0 1 0; 
	-1 0 0] 
	with Translation offset=
	[298;34 223];
	
	Though ITK reports:
	
	itk::ExceptionObject (00F290C8) Location: "unknown" File: C:\InsightToolkit-2.6.0\Code\Algorithms\itkMutualInformationImageToImageMetric.txx
	Line: 193 Description: itk::ERROR: MutualInformationImageToImageMetric(01262BA0): All the
sampled point mapped to outside of the moving image
	
	I looked at where image/Pixel space boundaries map to in physical space for each and indeed, there is
overlap.  I'm wondering if new problems are created if there is a polarity change in the physical moving to
physical fixed tranformation that the programmer should know about?  Is there anything to possibly debug
that you may know about?  Thanks for your help.
	
	Rick 

	
  _____  

	Ring'em or ping'em. Make PC-to-phone calls as low as 1ยข/min
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/postman11/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=39666/*http://voice.yahoo.com>
 with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.

_______________________________________________
Insight-users mailing list
Insight-users@...
http://www.itk.org/mailman/listinfo/insight-users
Mathieu Malaterre | 1 Jun 17:20 2006

Re: about the speed of reading DICOM series using ITK and volview

Yixun Liu wrote:
> Hi,
>  
> I use VolView and ITK to read a same series of MRI. VolView read them 
> quickly, but ITK read them very slow. Does volview not use ITK to read 
> dicom? I use GDCMImageIO to read the dicom file.

There has been a couple of speed improvement in the code of ITK-gdcm.
Please try again with a recent version of ITK.
VolView uses GDCM for reading DICOM images.

Mathieu
David Clunie | 1 Jun 17:40 2006

NCI Cancer Imaging Program caBIG related RFPs, was [Fwd: Two Imaging RFPs Posted]]

FYI, since you may not be aware of this initiative and
potential source of funding.

The XIP in particular is intended to result in an open
source platform for use for cancer imaging, which may
be of interest to many of you, either as a respondent
to the RFP or a consumer of what is produced.

David

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Two Imaging RFPs Posted
Date: 	Thu, 1 Jun 2006 09:34:42 -0400
From: 	Dorries John <dorries_john@...>
Reply-To: 	kupferschmidd@...
To: 	CABIG_IMAGE-L@...

Please note the two Imaging Requests for Proposals (RFPs) that have been
posted to the caBIG Announce ListServ:

Booz Allen Hamilton, in support of the Cancer Biomedical Informatics
Grid (caBIG(tm)) Program, is requesting proposals for *eXtentsible
Imaging Platform Development Project.* The RFP, Statement of Work, and
associated forms can be downloaded from
_http://207.36.232.130/rfp_management/_. Offerors must submit a Letter
of Intent by June 14, 2006. Proposals must be received no later than
July 12th, 2006, and must be completed in accordance with the Proposal
Instructions.

Booz Allen Hamilton, in support of the Cancer Biomedical Informatics
Grid (caBIG(tm)) Program, is requesting proposals for *Small Animal
Imaging Workspace Subject Matter Expert (SME)*. The RFP, Statement of
Work, and associated forms can be downloaded from
_http://207.36.232.130/rfp_management/_. Offerors must submit a Letter
of Intent by June 14, 2006. Proposals must be received no later than
July 12th, 2006, and must be completed in accordance with the Proposal
Instructions.

*Judie Phillips (**phillips_judie@...*
<mailto:phillips_judie@...>*) is the contact for any questions
regarding these RFPs.*

John

*/___________________/*
*/John Dorries/*
*/Senior Associate/*
*/Booz Allen Hamilton/*
*/(301) 998-8764 (office)/*
*/(301) 466-3237 (cell)/*
An, Li (NIH/NINDS) [E] | 1 Jun 17:44 2006
Picon

A bug possibly related to itkGDCMImageIO

I’m using Visual Studio 2005 to build a 3D image registration program. The registration program works well if I build the project using the ITK debug library. However, the program crashes in run-time if it is built using the ITK release library. The program crashes when it is reading 2D DICOM image slices and combining them into 3D ITK images. The error message says that the crashed module is msvcr80d.dll. Has anyone reported a similar problem?

 

Thanks,

Li

 

_______________________________________________
Insight-users mailing list
Insight-users@...
http://www.itk.org/mailman/listinfo/insight-users
Atwood, Robert C | 1 Jun 18:03 2006
Picon

Mask image filter -- how to mask small image into large image?


Hi all:
I would like to draw several small shapes, stored in individual image
files,  into a large image. The filter that seems to do what I want is
MaskImageFilter. However, I find the last point mentioned in the
documentation seems like a roadblock. So , I thought I would ask here
before randomly trying things that might work... How can I mask a
smaller image into a big image? If I have missed an available example
please direct me to it.
Thanks
Robert

 
(quote)

http://www.itk.org/Doxygen/html/classitk_1_1MaskImageFilter.html

 Implements an operator for pixel-wise masking of the input image with
the mask.

This class is parametrized over the types of the input image type, the
mask image type and the type of the output image. Numeric conversions
(castings) are done by the C++ defaults.

The pixel type of the input 2 image must have a valid defintion of the
operator != with zero. This condition is required because internally
this filter will perform the operation

if pixel_from_mask_image != 0 pixel_output_image = pixel_input_image
else pixel_output_image = 0

The pixel from the input 1 is cast to the pixel type of the output
image.

****>> Note that the input and the mask images must be of the same size.
<<*****

Gmane