Reading dll files on a MAc
in [Mac Systems]
|
From: Tom Stiller on 30 Jun 2010 22:44 In article <dorayme-900681.08475701072010(a)news.albasani.net>, dorayme <dorayme(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > In article > <tom_stiller-9428EC.07080030062010(a)news.individual.net>, > Tom Stiller <tom_stiller(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > PNG is OK but why would one store X-ray images in a lossy image format > > like JPG? > > Why not if nothing of interest is actually lost? Well, if proper medical care depended on an accurate diagnosis, *I* wouldn't want to start with incomplete information. -- Tom Stiller PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF
From: dorayme on 1 Jul 2010 03:12 In article <tom_stiller-0DF69F.22443530062010(a)news.individual.net>, Tom Stiller <tom_stiller(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > In article <dorayme-900681.08475701072010(a)news.albasani.net>, > dorayme <dorayme(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > In article > > <tom_stiller-9428EC.07080030062010(a)news.individual.net>, > > Tom Stiller <tom_stiller(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > PNG is OK but why would one store X-ray images in a lossy image format > > > like JPG? > > > > Why not if nothing of interest is actually lost? > > Well, if proper medical care depended on an accurate diagnosis, *I* > wouldn't want to start with incomplete [relevant]* information. *inserted by dorayme. Who would? I have yet to see a human spot any critical difference between a tiff and a jpg that is not further compressed than max that could possibly be of relevance to diagnosis. Most X-rays neg sheets are a bit shithouse in the first place. -- dorayme
From: isw on 1 Jul 2010 03:36 In article <tom_stiller-1A5983.14520230062010(a)news.individual.net>, Tom Stiller <tom_stiller(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > In article <isw-3F6597.10150030062010@[216.168.3.50]>, > isw <isw(a)witzend.com> wrote: > > > In article <tom_stiller-9428EC.07080030062010(a)news.individual.net>, > > Tom Stiller <tom_stiller(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > In article <20100630001001441-jasonsavlov(a)mecom>, > > > Jason S <jasonsavlov(a)me.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 2010-06-28 23:00:26 -0400, Mel Comisarow said: > > > > > > > > > I had a bunch of x-rays done for my cat and the veterinarian returned > > > > > a > > > > > cd containing a bunch of files with a .dll suffix and a file with an > > > > > .exe suffix, which presumably is a Windows program. The Finder says > > > > > each .dll file is a "Windows dynamic link library". How can I read > > > > > these > > > > > .dll files on my Mac? Thanks. > > > > > > > > Why does this sound way more complicated than it probably is? And why > > > > on earth does your veterinarian put the images in a windows executable > > > > file? Why not just put the images in folders as PNG or JPG or something > > > > easily accessible? > > > > > > > PNG is OK but why would one store X-ray images in a lossy image format > > > like JPG? > > > > Because if you do it right, you save considerable space, and it's not > > lossy enough to matter? > > > I don't know, but I suspect the purpose for wanting the X-ray images was > to show them to someone and I doubt that either of us knows enough to > determine which details of the image matters and which details don't. And I'd bet that the doctors don't know either, but are "playing it safe" out of ignorance. If they cared (but why should they?), they could run some tests to see precisely what degree of compression started to cause problems. Isaac
From: Tom Stiller on 1 Jul 2010 06:48 In article <dorayme-28D3C6.17122001072010(a)news.albasani.net>, dorayme <dorayme(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > In article > <tom_stiller-0DF69F.22443530062010(a)news.individual.net>, > Tom Stiller <tom_stiller(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > In article <dorayme-900681.08475701072010(a)news.albasani.net>, > > dorayme <dorayme(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > In article > > > <tom_stiller-9428EC.07080030062010(a)news.individual.net>, > > > Tom Stiller <tom_stiller(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > PNG is OK but why would one store X-ray images in a lossy image format > > > > like JPG? > > > > > > Why not if nothing of interest is actually lost? > > > > Well, if proper medical care depended on an accurate diagnosis, *I* > > wouldn't want to start with incomplete [relevant]* information. > > *inserted by dorayme. > > Who would? I have yet to see a human spot any critical difference > between a tiff and a jpg that is not further compressed than max > that could possibly be of relevance to diagnosis. Most X-rays neg > sheets are a bit shithouse in the first place. Bye. -- Tom Stiller PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF
From: Wes Groleau on 1 Jul 2010 09:18
On 07-01-2010 03:12, dorayme wrote: > Who would? I have yet to see a human spot any critical difference > between a tiff and a jpg that is not further compressed than max > that could possibly be of relevance to diagnosis. Most X-rays neg What is your criteria for determining whether something “could possibly be of relevance to diagnosis”? You probably are judging the image quality based on a lack of understanding what you are looking at. As for compression, I acknowledge that for most images I've looked at (not xrays), I can lower the quality (as measured by GraphicConverter) to 25% and often lower without being able to see a difference. Some scans of old documents can be made less readable below fifty percent. What is the meaning of “further compressed than max”? I'm not a jpeg expert, but GraphicConverter allows me to set quality at zero percent. At 72 ppi (unacceptable resolution for xrays), a zero, which GraphicConverter allows, reduced a 1.4 MB 1930 census image to 161 KB. Text was still decipherable, but not pretty. I can reduce the size further by asking for a resolution of five pixels per inch. -- Wes Groleau Expert, n.: Someone who comes from out of town and shows slides. |