Quote Originally Posted by Bill Burk View Post
Possibly a red herring, or maybe food for thought. The emergency technician had better not email a lossy jpg to a radiologist for consultation. I can just see it now: "what is that funny four-leaf clover-shaped thing inside his lung. oh yea jpg compression artifact". It's an absurd statement. I know the lossless medical image standards (DCOM) will ensure that won't happen.

Sal, I get what you're saying. My logic for sticking with film draws from a similar sentiment, the 'alternative to film isn't good enough for me'. Lately, I've been feeling that 'although there is an alternative that is pretty good, film always worked, has always been great and has never been better'. I feel we're at an apex and am very pleased to be making the best of film, at a time when its replacement is certainly more convenient but I may argue it is not better.

p.s. I work for Kodak but the opinions and positions I take are my own and not necessarily those of EKC.
My GF (The Doctor at Yale with a double MD hehe) says the digital x-rays are 10 times better than the old ones, for many reasons, one is image quality and ability to easily zoom into an area to more clearly see, second is speed, not waiting for development nor some intern to bring it up from radiology or another department if the patient has multiple things going on... She just pulls it up on any computer anywhere in the hospital. Heck I think she can pull it up at home...


The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk