Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at 0.05 Tesla

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–159 of 159 posts

Re: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at 0.05 Tesla

#151

Post by CamperBob2 »

enriquto wrote: post #82
UberFly wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A camera takes a picture of what it sees. What comes next is a different thing all together.

> A camera takes a picture of what it sees. All images taken with digital cameras have been filtered by a pipeline of advanced algorithms. Nobody ever looks at "what the camera sees". What kind of savage would look at an image before demosaicing the Bayer pattern? (Except from the people who work in demosaicing, of course.)

What a goofy point to be raised as many times it as it has been in this thread. All of that stuff serves the purpose of more faithfully emulating actual human vision.

Re: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at 0.05 Tesla

#152

Post by el_don_almighty »

This problem has already been solved by the MRI machines at your local airport. Cost and performance are not the issues. For $25 your luggage gets an MRI that automatically differentiates between organic molecules in seconds. How easily could this be adapted for free annual screenings at the mall?

But that's not the objective, and so your research is doomed

The medical equipment industry will not suffer fools who don't understand 'regulatory capture' and 'rent seeking.'

Those hospital machines are expensive and rare for reasons that have very little to do with cost or performance

Re: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at 0.05 Tesla

#153

Post by bawolff »

wtallis wrote: post #84
bawolff wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A camera is supposed to take pictures of what it sees. If people wanted cameras to actually take what it sees, then we wouldn't have autofocus, photoshop or instagram filters. The goal of a cell phone camera is to capture what you are experiencing, not to literally record what light strikes the cmos chip.

> If people wanted cameras to actually take what it sees, then we wouldn't have autofocus, Bad example. Autofocus makes changes to the light that goes into the camera, not just the data that comes out. > photoshop or instagram filters Bad examples. Those both give the user a before-and-after comparison so the user can decide what kind of alterations are reasonable or desirable.

> Bad example. Autofocus makes changes to the light that goes into the camera, not just the data that comes out.

Arguably so do the AI things (i.e. they take multiple shots at different exposure and composit them).

The point is, we have ceeded manual control of photography to automated systems a long time ago. Most people are happy with that choice, as phone cameras serve a cultural function and are not scientific instruments.

Re: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at 0.05 Tesla

#154

Post by bawolff »

icehawk wrote: post #109
bawolff wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A camera is supposed to take pictures of what it sees. If people wanted cameras to actually take what it sees, then we wouldn't have autofocus, photoshop or instagram filters. The goal of a cell phone camera is to capture what you are experiencing, not to literally record what light strikes the cmos chip.

When a cell phone camera auto-focuses, it's still literally recording what light strikes the cmos chip. Do you think its recording some other light?

A) i think that is not true if focus stacking is in use.

B) the light has been modified based on an algorithm, causing the camera to capture different things. Its not just the light as it would be by itself.

In terms of the output of the camera the effect of this is much more significant than the AI stuff being complained about.

Re: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at 0.05 Tesla

#155

Post by andbberger »

wholinator2 wrote: post #100
andbberger wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the future is already here, GE has put this into production. if you have remove the onerous constraint of being correct you can make some really crispy images! 9/10 radiologists. that was literally what the FDA approval process was, surveyed a bunch of radiologists to see what they preferred. no adults in the room. heads should roll etc

Do you have a link or anything? I'm highly interested but unable to find more on this

https://www.gehealthcare.com/products/magnetic-resonance-ima...

https://www.gehealthcare.com/about/newsroom/press-releases/g...

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf21/K213717.pdf

Re: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at 0.05 Tesla

#156

Post by paledot »

pavlov wrote: post #36
BobbyTables2 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Samsung phone wasn’t a technological advancement, it was sheer fraud. A camera is supposed to take pictures of what it sees. Imagine going to a restaurant, ordering French onion soup, and getting a bowl of brown food coloring in water.

> “A camera is supposed to take pictures of what it sees.” Feels like that’s just a matter of expectations. A phone used to be a device for voice communications. It’s right there in the Greek etymology, “phonē” for sound. But 95% of what people do today on devices called phones is something else than voice. Similarly, if people start using cameras more to produce images of things they want rather than what exists in…

Fine, I expect an MRI to take pictures of what's actually going on in my body rather than inventing MRI-like images that can fool the radiologist into thinking I'm healthy when I'm not. Not sure why this is controversial.

Re: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at 0.05 Tesla

#157

Post by bawolff »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #151
enriquto wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A camera takes a picture of what it sees. All images taken with digital cameras have been filtered by a pipeline of advanced algorithms. Nobody ever looks at "what the camera sees". What kind of savage would look at an image before demosaicing the Bayer pattern? (Except from the people who work in demosaicing, of course.)

What a goofy point to be raised as many times it as it has been in this thread. All of that stuff serves the purpose of more faithfully emulating actual human vision.

Actual human vision works a lot more like the AI stuff then you think. Human vision is famous for filling in details that aren't there based on what you expect to see.

Re: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at 0.05 Tesla

#158

Post by CamperBob2 »

bawolff wrote: post #157
CamperBob2 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a goofy point to be raised as many times it as it has been in this thread. All of that stuff serves the purpose of more faithfully emulating actual human vision.

Actual human vision works a lot more like the AI stuff then you think. Human vision is famous for filling in details that aren't there based on what you expect to see.

Oh, certainly, the human visual system is batshit insane. But nobody knows how to model it exactly, so trying to fool it with made-up data is not OK.

Re: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at 0.05 Tesla

#159

Post by Auracle »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #127
Auracle wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So when I took an 8 second exposure of the aurora on Friday and then used Capture One to process the raw to make it more vivid than it was in real life - is that a record of what was? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not super keen on AI type stuff in cameras as a whole. The line is muddy though. A smartphone camera straight up can’t capture the moon well, or at all. If it then looks more like it did in real life after proces…

How often do you capture auroras or other beauty shots, vs. readouts on your electricity meter, stickers on the back of your furnace, receipts, and a hundred other displays and documents you need to send someone? I definitely do plenty of the latter, and in such cases, I'd really appreciate the AI to not spice things up with details it thinks should be there. I'm by no means against the feature. Hell, I shoot 90% of…

My job the last 10 years was a photographer, and I still take a lot of photos of my kids, dog, wife, etc.
Post reply on HN