{"title":"[对比细节图和交互式图像分析的电影-屏幕组合对比。]3:引线图案图像柱状组灰度分布的三模态直方图。","authors":"G Hagemann, G Eichbaum, G Stamm","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The following four screen film combinations were compared: a) a combination of anticrossover film and UV-light emitting screens, b) a combination of blue-light emitting screens and film and c) two conventional green fluorescing screen film combinations. Radiographs of a specially designed plexiglass phantom (0.2 x 0.2 x 0.12 m3) with bar patterns of lead and plaster and of air, respectively were obtained using the following parameters: 12 pulse generator, 0.6 mm focus size, 4.7 mm aluminum prefilter, a grid with 40 lines/cm (12:1) and a focus-detector distance of 1.15 m. Image analysis was performed using an Ibas system and a Zeiss Kontron computer. Display conditions were the following: display distance 0.12 m, a vario film objective 35/70 (Zeiss), a video camera tube with a PbO photocathode, 625 lines (Siemens Heimann), an Ibas image matrix of 512 x 512 pixels with a spatial resolution of ca. 7 cycles/mm, the projected matrix area was 5000 micron 2. Maxima in the histograms of a grouped bar pattern were estimated as mean values from the bar and gap regions (\"mean value method\"). They were used to calculate signal contrast, standard deviations of the means and scatter fraction. Comparing the histograms with respect to spatial resolution and kV setting a clear advantage of the UVR system becomes obvious. The quantitative analysis yielded a maximum spatial resolution of approx. 3 cycles/mm for the UVR system at 60 kV which decreased to half of this value at 117 kV caused by the increasing influence of scattered radiation. A ranking of screen-film systems with respect to image quality and dose requirement is presented. For its evaluation an interactive image analysis using the mean value method was found to be superior to signal/noise ratio measurements and visual analysis in respect to diagnostic relevance and saving of time.</p>","PeriodicalId":76986,"journal":{"name":"Aktuelle Radiologie","volume":"8 3","pages":"151-6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1998-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Comparison of film-screen combinations in contrast-detail diagram and with interactive image analysis. 3: Trimodal histograms of gray scale distribution in bar groups of lead pattern images].\",\"authors\":\"G Hagemann, G Eichbaum, G Stamm\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The following four screen film combinations were compared: a) a combination of anticrossover film and UV-light emitting screens, b) a combination of blue-light emitting screens and film and c) two conventional green fluorescing screen film combinations. Radiographs of a specially designed plexiglass phantom (0.2 x 0.2 x 0.12 m3) with bar patterns of lead and plaster and of air, respectively were obtained using the following parameters: 12 pulse generator, 0.6 mm focus size, 4.7 mm aluminum prefilter, a grid with 40 lines/cm (12:1) and a focus-detector distance of 1.15 m. Image analysis was performed using an Ibas system and a Zeiss Kontron computer. Display conditions were the following: display distance 0.12 m, a vario film objective 35/70 (Zeiss), a video camera tube with a PbO photocathode, 625 lines (Siemens Heimann), an Ibas image matrix of 512 x 512 pixels with a spatial resolution of ca. 7 cycles/mm, the projected matrix area was 5000 micron 2. Maxima in the histograms of a grouped bar pattern were estimated as mean values from the bar and gap regions (\\\"mean value method\\\"). They were used to calculate signal contrast, standard deviations of the means and scatter fraction. Comparing the histograms with respect to spatial resolution and kV setting a clear advantage of the UVR system becomes obvious. The quantitative analysis yielded a maximum spatial resolution of approx. 3 cycles/mm for the UVR system at 60 kV which decreased to half of this value at 117 kV caused by the increasing influence of scattered radiation. A ranking of screen-film systems with respect to image quality and dose requirement is presented. For its evaluation an interactive image analysis using the mean value method was found to be superior to signal/noise ratio measurements and visual analysis in respect to diagnostic relevance and saving of time.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":76986,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Aktuelle Radiologie\",\"volume\":\"8 3\",\"pages\":\"151-6\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1998-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Aktuelle Radiologie\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aktuelle Radiologie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
比较了以下四种屏膜组合:a)防交叉膜与紫外发光屏的组合,b)蓝光发光屏与薄膜的组合,c)两种常规绿色荧光屏膜组合。采用以下参数获得了一个特殊设计的有机玻璃幻影(0.2 x 0.2 x 0.12 m3)的x射线照片:12脉冲发生器,0.6 mm焦点尺寸,4.7 mm铝预滤波器,40线/cm(12:1)的栅格,焦点探测器距离为1.15 m。图像分析使用一个系统和蔡司Kontron计算机进行。显示条件为:显示距离0.12 m,不同胶片物镜35/70(蔡司),带PbO光电阴极的显像管,625条线(西门子海曼),512 × 512像素的图像矩阵,空间分辨率约为7 cycles/mm,投影矩阵面积为5000微米2。分组柱状图中的最大值被估计为柱状和间隙区域的平均值(“平均值法”)。它们被用来计算信号对比度、均值标准差和分散分数。将直方图与空间分辨率和kV设置进行比较,可以明显看出UVR系统的优势。定量分析得到的最大空间分辨率约为。60 kV时UVR系统为3 cycles/mm,在117 kV时由于散射辐射的影响增大,降低到该值的一半。根据图像质量和剂量要求对屏膜系统进行了排序。对于其评估,使用平均值方法的交互式图像分析被发现优于信号/噪声比测量和视觉分析,就诊断相关性和节省时间而言。
[Comparison of film-screen combinations in contrast-detail diagram and with interactive image analysis. 3: Trimodal histograms of gray scale distribution in bar groups of lead pattern images].
The following four screen film combinations were compared: a) a combination of anticrossover film and UV-light emitting screens, b) a combination of blue-light emitting screens and film and c) two conventional green fluorescing screen film combinations. Radiographs of a specially designed plexiglass phantom (0.2 x 0.2 x 0.12 m3) with bar patterns of lead and plaster and of air, respectively were obtained using the following parameters: 12 pulse generator, 0.6 mm focus size, 4.7 mm aluminum prefilter, a grid with 40 lines/cm (12:1) and a focus-detector distance of 1.15 m. Image analysis was performed using an Ibas system and a Zeiss Kontron computer. Display conditions were the following: display distance 0.12 m, a vario film objective 35/70 (Zeiss), a video camera tube with a PbO photocathode, 625 lines (Siemens Heimann), an Ibas image matrix of 512 x 512 pixels with a spatial resolution of ca. 7 cycles/mm, the projected matrix area was 5000 micron 2. Maxima in the histograms of a grouped bar pattern were estimated as mean values from the bar and gap regions ("mean value method"). They were used to calculate signal contrast, standard deviations of the means and scatter fraction. Comparing the histograms with respect to spatial resolution and kV setting a clear advantage of the UVR system becomes obvious. The quantitative analysis yielded a maximum spatial resolution of approx. 3 cycles/mm for the UVR system at 60 kV which decreased to half of this value at 117 kV caused by the increasing influence of scattered radiation. A ranking of screen-film systems with respect to image quality and dose requirement is presented. For its evaluation an interactive image analysis using the mean value method was found to be superior to signal/noise ratio measurements and visual analysis in respect to diagnostic relevance and saving of time.