AJR Get Involved! Join ARRS Today
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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Chotas, H. G.
Right arrow Articles by Ravin, C. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Chotas, H. G.
Right arrow Articles by Ravin, C. E.
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 161, 743-747, Copyright © 1993 by American Roentgen Ray Society

ARTICLES

Film-based chest radiography: AMBER vs asymmetric screen-film systems

HG Chotas, CE Floyd Jr and CE Ravin
Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710.

OBJECTIVE. Contrast-to-noise ratios were measured on radiographs from two types of state-of-the-art chest imaging systems (an Advanced Multiple Beam Equalization Radiography [AMBER] system and an asymmetric screen-film system) to facilitate an objective comparison of image quality. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Radiographs of a chest phantom were obtained by using the AMBER system with a medium-latitude screen-film image recorder (Kodak T-MAT L film and Lanex regular screens) and a commercially available asymmetric, zero-crossover screen-film system optimized for chest radiography (Kodak InSight and InSight HC). Conventionally acquired radiographs (T-MAT L/Lanex regular) were also evaluated as a reference. Films were digitized, radiographic contrast and noise were measured in the lung-, mediastinum-, and subdiaphragm- equivalent regions of each image, and contrast-to-noise ratios were computed. RESULTS. Radiographic contrast and contrast-to-noise values were found to be higher on AMBER images in all chest regions when compared with radiographs obtained with the asymmetric screen-film systems (InSight contrast-to-noise ratio approximately 77% of AMBER contrast-to-noise in the lung-equivalent region, 57% in the mediastinum- equivalent region, and 43% in the subdiaphragm-equivalent region). On conventional radiographs, the contrast and contrast-to-noise values were higher than on all other image types in the lung-equivalent region and lower than on all other image types in the less well penetrated chest areas. CONCLUSION. Image quality was higher, most notably in dense phantom regions, on radiographs obtained with the AMBER system than on radiographs obtained with the new asymmetric screen-film systems. Clinical studies are needed to determine whether this level of image improvement justifies the additional expense of the exposure equalization system.
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?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 RadiologyHome page
W. J. H. Veldkamp, L. J. M. Kroft, B. J. A. Mertens, and J. Geleijns
Digital Slot-Scan Charge-coupled Device Radiography versus AMBER and Bucky Screen-Film Radiography: Comparison of Image Quality in a Phantom Study
Radiology, June 1, 2005; 235(3): 857 - 866.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1993 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.