AJR Women's Imaging Online
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gomes, A.
Right arrow Articles by Lois, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gomes, A.
Right arrow Articles by Lois, J.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 146, Issue 4, 835-838
Copyright © 1986 by American Roentgen Ray Society


Articles

Digital subtraction angiography: a comparison of 512(2) and 1024(2) imaging

AS Gomes, PJ Papin, NJ Mankovich, and JF Lois

A commercial DSA unit was modified by the manufacturer to permit 1024 X 1024 8-bit imaging. System upgrade includes a high-resolution 1049-line TV camera that operates with variable aperture to minimize x-ray exposure during 1024(2) imaging. To compare the change in resolution and radiation exposure between 512(2) and 1024(2) imaging with this system, a two-phase phantom study was performed using a high-contrast converging lead line phantom and a specially designed high-resolution low-contrast Lucite phantom. The two-phase phantom study tested general system resolution performance and resolution under simulated and actual clinical conditions for each field size (15, 25, and 36 cm). The 512(2) imaging was performed with the aperture reduced to the 512 setting; 1024(2) imaging was performed with the aperture at the 512 and 1024 values. The 1024(2) imaging resulted in only modest improvement in resolution compared to 512(2). While Nyquist limits were approached with 512(2) imaging, this was not the case with 1024(2) imaging. This suggests other factors such as system noise are playing a significant role in 1024(2) image degradation.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1986 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.