Perception of detail and greyscale range in X-ray fluoroscopy images captured with a personal computer and frame-grabber

European Journal of Radiology

Volumn 23, Issue 2, 1996, Pages 149-158

  Okkalides, Demetrios ^a  

^a Ippokration Hospital Thessaloniki   (Greece)

Author keywords

Digital imaging; Frame grabbing; Perception test; X ray fluoroscopy

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE QUALITY; MICROCOMPUTER; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

EID: 0030248282     PISSN: 0720048X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/0720-048X(96)01064-9     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. [1] Tait WH, Hanson ME. Microcomputer processing of film radiographs. Br J Radiol 1989; 62: 613-619.
2. [2] Parkin A, Norwood H, Erdentug MA, Hall AJ. A flexible image archiving system using a personal computer and optical disk. Br J Radiol 1989; 62: 620-622.
3. [3] Parkin A, Norwood H, Erdentug MA, Hall AJ. Optical disk archiving using a personal computer: a solution to image storage problems in diagnostic imaging departments. J Med Eng Tech 1990; 14: 55-59.
4. [4] Okkalides D, Efremides S. Quality assessment of DSA, ultrasound and CT digital images compressed with the JPEG protocol. Phys Med Biol 1994; 39: 1407-1421.
5. [5] Low A. Introductory computer vision and image processing. London: McGraw-Hill, 1991.
6. [6] Tait WH. A software method of optimising a radiograph digitising system. Phys Med Biol 1988; 33: 723-731.
7. [7] Maher KP. Comparison of scatter measurement techniques in digital fluoroscopy. Phys Med Biol 1993; 38: 1977-1983.
8. [8] Kay DC, Levine JR. Graphics File Formats. Windcrest/ McGraw-Hill, 1992.
9. [9] Goldman LW. Fluoroscopic performance tests using a portable computer/frame grabber: Wìenner spectra measurements. Med Phys 1992; 19: 45-52.
10. [10] Dialo I, Bouhnik H, Aubert B, Chavaudra J. Conflicting requirements and limitations of a dual purposes image intensifier-television (II-TV) system used both for classical fluoroscopy and for computed tomography. Physica Medica 1994; X: 17-27.
11. [11] Okkalides D, Raptou P. Quantification of image persistence in a digital angiography system. Br J Radiol 1993; 66: 882-885.
12. [12] Chuang KS, Huang HK. Assessment of noise in a digital image using the join-count statistic and the Moran test. Phys Med Biol 1992; 37: 357-369.
13. [13] Sharp P, Mallard J. The measurement of the performance of the display system of a radioisotope imaging device: the multi-element band display. Br J Radiol 1976; 49: 270-277.
14. [14] Cook LT, Insana MF, McFadden MA, Hall TJ, Cox GG. Comparison of the low-contrast detectability of a screen-film system and third generation computed radiography. Med Phys 1994; 21: 691-695.
15. [15] Ogura T, Fujita H. Resolution properties of a 2048 × 2048 matrix image intensifier - TV based digital radiography system. Med Phys 1994; 21: 463-469.
16. [16] Boone JM, Seibert JA, Barett WA, Blood EA. Analysis and correction of imperfections in the image intensifier-TV-digitiser imaging chain. Med Phys 1991; 18: 236-242.
17. [17] James AE, Anderson JH, Higgins CH. Digital image processing in radiology. Baltimore/London: Williams & Wilkins, 1985.
18. [18] Wilson DL, Xue P, Aufrichtig R. Perception of fluoroscopy last-image hold. Med Phys 1994; 21: 1875-1883.