[Oradlist] FW: Dicom printer for panoramic

Wed May 13 09:13:23 PDT 2009

I agree that the DICOM printer is significantly more expensive. But in the
long run, not too expensive.
Used for inkjet or laser printer will be almost as expensive. Their life is
much less.
The image on the film is stored much longer without any loss in quality. The
film is much more pleasant to hold in your hand (for the doctor). There is a
confidence that you see on the screen and on an exit will be identical
quality. Especially if you use the medical monitor.If a couple of years you
want to grow (Cef or CBVT) it will be easy.And more many different pluses.

I asked this question more than one year ago in Russia (Moscow). It is a lot
of nuances. I hope that my experience will be interesting to you. I have
made for myself the table with key parametres and have compared them.
I note for you positions which have helped me to make a choice between
manufacturers.
1 Count necessarily quantity of pictures in day and what size of a film to
you it is necessary. Estimate possible quantity of account materials.
2 Necessarily pay attention to level of service support in your city. It can
appear important further.
3 The film price depends on the size. The square centimetre of the big size
film costs more cheaply than the square centimetre of the small size film.
4 Pay attention to quantity of sheets of a film in packing. At the identical
price there can be a different quantity.
5 The human eye does not perceive more than 100 gradation of grey colour.
But it influences quality of the image all the same.
6 Noise level and heat allocation. It is important too.

The prices of units approximate, only to understand their order.

CODONICS NP-1660M Price -  (It is less than 10 ths $). Film\paper A tray for
two sizes of a film. 256 gradation of the grey. The different sizes of a
film\paper are possible. Good parity the price\quality. Bad tech support.
Problems with account materials. No service in Russia. I envy the American
users. =)

Sony UP-D74XRD (9-12 ths $) Paper\film. One tray. A tray only for one size
of a film\paper. 512 gradation of the grey.
I use this printer for different types of pictures (CBVT, Pan, Cef) almost 2
years. There are no problems. At them very high quality of a film. I print
Pan images in scale 1:1. Even in this case I cut off edge (backbone)
sometimes.

Sony UP-DF500 (22-25 ths $) Film. One tray. The different sizes of a film
are possible. 4096 gradation of the grey.

Sony UP-DF550 (25-28 ths $) Film. A tray for two sizes of a film. The
different sizes of a film are possible. 4096 gradation of the grey. In the
future I wish to buy this model for all types of images in maxillofacial
area.

At Sony there are some other interesting models. At them the biggest lineup
in this area, so seemed to me.

Fuji DryPix 1000 (26-30 ths $) Film. One tray. The different sizes of a film
are possible. 4096 gradation of the grey. It is not enough information in
Russia. I did not see any working printer.

Agfa DRYSTAR 5302 (28-32 ths $) Film. A tray for two sizes of a film. The
only 2 sizes of a film are possible. 4096 gradation of the grey. Takes a lot
of place. The noisy. Account materials expensive.

-- 
Best regards,
Vasiliy Grachev.
3DentLab The radiological diagnostic centre for stomatology.
www.3DentLab.ru

2009/5/13 Craig Dial <Craig at ddicentral.com>

>
> The Codonics printers are excellent, we own several models and they all
> have been great. An alternative printer that has less cost, but equal in
> print quality is the Sony models. We own several of these printers also. The
> can also print in paper or transparency (blue film), and they have a color
> model as well. The downside is they are not DICOM printers, and the maximum
> print size is 8.5x11.
>
> The cost for a new gray scale Sony UP-D72XR is about $6,000.00. The cost
> per sheet of film is about $.70 for paper and $1.14 for transparency The
> Sony color model UP-D75MD is $1,900.00 and the cost per color sheet of media
> is $1.09
>
> Craig Dial
> Diagnostic Digital Imaging
> www.DDICenters.com
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* oradlist-bounces at lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
> oradlist-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Stuart C. White
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 13, 2009 8:29 AM
> *To:* Oradlist
> *Subject:* [Oradlist] FW: Dicom printer for panoramic
>
> We've also been using a Codonics printer at UCLA for many years. Its main
> virtues are excellent images, either transparencies in multiple sizes or
> color or black and white paper prints. Also, if it breaks down (twice in 6-7
> years in our experience), the company sends out a replacement machine
> overnight ready for work the next morning.
>
> Stuart White
>
>
>
> ------ Forwarded Message
> From: Allan Farman <agfarm01 at louisville.edu>
> Reply-To: Oradlist <oradlist at lists.ucla.edu>
> Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 10:02:39 -0400
> To: Oradlist <oradlist at lists.ucla.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Oradlist] Dicom printer for panoramic
>
> I concur with what is said about the Codonics. I have used one for 5
> years with print capabilities up to 17" x 14", monochrome paper,
> monochrome transparency and color paper capabilities. It is not cheap in
> initial outlay or in the paper/transparency supplies; however, if you
> need printing capacity it is first rate. We use is primarily for CBCT
> output, but also for all panoramic radiographs made in the Radiology
> Clinic. One of the reasons for purchasing a top of the line medical
> model was to ensure rapidity of printing throughput.
>
> Allan G. Farman, BDS, PhD, MBA, DSc, Diplomate ABOMR
>
> Prof. Radiology & Imaging Science
> Univ. Louisville School of Dentistry: SUHD
> 501 South Preston Street,
> Louisville, Kentucky 40292, USA
>
> Tel: +1(502) 852.1241
> Fax: +1(502)852.1626
>
>
> >>> Ricardo Urzúa <ricurzua at gmail.com> 5/13/2009 8:48 AM >>>
> Dr. Fidler,
> . Since  3 years ago we are using Codonics printer, not only for
> panoramics
> and cephs, also for cone beam prints. Its a very good machine, fast and
> very
> good images quality.
>
> Dr. Ricardo Urzua
> Prof Radiology. Universidad del Desarrollo
> Santiago, Chile
>
> 2009/5/13 Roberto Molteni <rmolteni at afpimaging.com>
>
> >  Verona, 2009 May 13th
> >
> >
> >
> > Dr. Fidler:
> >
> > Question: if you have no PACS, and consequently (I assume) all your
> digital
> > panoramic operations will be local (point-to-point from the computer
> > controlling the Panoramic machine to the printer), then why do you
> feel that
> > you need a DICOM printer, as opposed to a less-expensive non-dicom
> printer
> > with standard Windows drivers?
> >
> > Is it because - generally speaking - DICOM printers offer
> better-diagnostic
> > print quality than non-DICOM printers (but there are
> good-image-quality
> > non-DICOM printers too). Or is it in anticipation of future needs,
> or
> > because of the wider range of print media (= more
> radiology-oriented)
> > usually available with DICOM printers, or ... ?
> >
> >
> >
> > Roberto Molteni
> >
> > CTO, QR/AFP Imaging/Dent-X
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* oradlist-bounces at lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
> > oradlist-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Aleš Fidler
> > *Sent:* Wednesday, 2009 May 13 09:01
> > *To:* oradlist at lists.ucla.edu
> > *Subject:* [Oradlist] Dicom printer for panoramic
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Oradlisters,
> >
> >
> >
> > on our University hospital we will upgrade to digital panoramic. So
> for we
> > don't have PACS so images will have to printed. I would appreciate if
> you
> > could share your experiences with DICOM printers (reliability, speed,
> time
> > to first printed page, cost of printing, etc.)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you for your help!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> >
> >
> > Aleš Fidler
> >   ------------------------------
> >
> > doc. dr. Aleš Fidler, dr.dent.med
> >
> > Specialist za zobne bolezni in endodontijo
> >
> > Stomatološka klinika Ljubljana
> >
> > Katedra za zoben bolezni in normalno morfologijo zobnega organa
> >
> >
> >
> > Asist. Prof. Aleš Fidler, DMD, PhD
> >
> > Endodontist
> >
> > University of Ljubljana, Department of endodntics and restorative
> dentistry
> >
> > Slovenia
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Oradlist mailing list
> > Oradlist at lists.ucla.edu
> > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/oradlist
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Oradlist mailing list
> Oradlist at lists.ucla.edu
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/oradlist
>
> ------ End of Forwarded Message
>
> _______________________________________________
> Oradlist mailing list
> Oradlist at lists.ucla.edu
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/oradlist
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/oradlist/attachments/20090513/cf4b6137/attachment-0001.htm>