[Insight-users] Problem with writing DICOM using KeepOriginalUID

[Martin Kavec]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Mathieu Malaterre <
mathieu.malaterre at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 10:03 PM, Martin Kavec <martin.kavec at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I have 182 files (slices) in the output directories for the both
> situations,
> > KeppOriginalUID On and commeted out. Please note that the number of
> slices
> > (files) omitted by Osirix varies. If I run my code multiple times slices
> at
> > different positions and different number of slices is omitted. So this
> > problem is a bit intermittent. For this particular run there were 180
> slices
> > recognized.
>
> ok
>
> >> 4. The the number of SOP Instance UID in one dir is equal to the one
> >> in the other one.
> >
> > Not OK. The number of unique SOPInstanceUID and
> MediaStorageSOPInstanceUID is
> > correct (182) for the series with KeepOriginalOn commented out, and 181
> WITH
> > KeepOriginalOn.
> >
> > After a while I identified the two files having the same SOPInstanceUID
> and
> > MediaStorageSOPInstanceUID, I changed them to a unique ones (checked
> that)
> > and now Osirix reads in 181 slices, that is one more. But still one slice
> is
> > missing.
>
> Can you send me a couple of those SOP Instance UID. I vaguely recall
> an issue in gdcm 1.2.4 where the generation of unique UIDs was not
> robust.
>

Here they go:

(0008,0018) UI
[1.2.826.0.1.3680043.2.1125.1.102857387392.2009042219380994675]         #
62,1 SOP Instance UID
(0008,0018) UI
[1.2.826.0.1.3680043.2.1125.1.102857387392.2009042219380994951]         #
62,1 SOP Instance UID
(0008,0018) UI
[1.2.826.0.1.3680043.2.1125.1.102857387392.2009042219380998846]         #
62,1 SOP Instance UID
(0008,0018) UI
[1.2.826.0.1.3680043.2.1125.1.102857387392.2009042219380998828]         #
62,1 SOP Instance UID
(0008,0018) UI
[1.2.826.0.1.3680043.2.1125.1.102857387392.2009042219380998817]         #
62,1 SOP Instance UID
(0008,0018) UI
[1.2.826.0.1.3680043.2.1125.1.102857387392.2009042219380998915]         #
62,1 SOP Instance UID
(0008,0018) UI
[1.2.826.0.1.3680043.2.1125.1.102857387392.2009042219380998957]         #
62,1 SOP Instance UID
(0008,0018) UI
[1.2.826.0.1.3680043.2.1125.1.102857387392.2009042219380999080]         #
62,1 SOP Instance UID
(0008,0018) UI
[1.2.826.0.1.3680043.2.1125.1.102857387392.2009042219380999003]         #
62,1 SOP Instance UID
(0008,0018) UI
[1.2.826.0.1.3680043.2.1125.1.102857387392.2009042219380999053]         #
62,1 SOP Instance UID
(0008,0018) UI
[1.2.826.0.1.3680043.2.1125.1.102857387392.2009042219380999149]         #
62,1 SOP Instance UID
(0008,0018) UI
[1.2.826.0.1.3680043.2.1125.1.102857387392.2009042219380999195]         #
62,1 SOP Instance UID
(0008,0018) UI
[1.2.826.0.1.3680043.2.1125.1.102857387392.2009042219380994983]         #
62,1 SOP Instance UID



>
> > I found that with respect to the other files/slices in the series with
> > KeepOriginalOn commented out, the following tags were left unchanged in
> one
> > or two files: (0002,0013) and (0002, 0012). While this may not affect my
> > situation, it is strange that these tags were left behind.
>
> Why would you care about Implementation Class UID and Implementation
> Version Name ? Obviously you want them to be updated after a File-Set
> Updater operation, right ?
>

It's not that I particularly care about these, I just tried to find
differences in dicom tags between the two series.

Thanks,

Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.itk.org/pipermail/insight-users/attachments/20090423/28d9e744/attachment.htm>