Performance characteristics of a Kodak computed radiography system

Carla D. Bradford, Walter W. Peppler, and James T. Dobbins III

Citation: Medical Physics 26, 27 (1999); doi: 10.1118/1.598781

View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.598781
View Table of Contents: http://scitation.aip.org/content/aapm/journal/medphys/26/1?ver=pdfcov
Published by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine

Articles you may be interested in

Comparison of different computed radiography systems: Physical characterization and contrast detail analysis
Med. Phys. 37, 440 (2010); 10.1118/1.3284539

Characterization of noise sources for two generations of computed radiography systems using powder and
crystalline photostimulable phosphors
Med. Phys. 34, 3345 (2007); 10.1118/1.2750973

Performance evaluation of computed radiography systems

Med. Phys. 28, 361 (2001); 10.1118/1.1350586

Physical imaging performance of a compact computed radiography acquisition device

Med. Phys. 25, 354 (1998); 10.1118/1.598212

Relative speeds of Kodak computed radiography phosphors and screen-film systems

Med. Phys. 24, 1621 (1997); 10.1118/1.597969
Performance characteristics of a Kodak computed radiography system
Carla D. Bradford and Walter W. Peppler
Department of Medical Physics, The University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 53706
James T. Dobbins III
Thoracic Imaging Research Division, Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham,
North Carolina 27710
~Received 26 January 1998; accepted for publication 27 October 1998!
The performance characteristics of a photostimulable phosphor based computed radiographic ~CR!
system were studied. The modulation transfer function ~MTF!, noise power spectra ~NPS!, and
detective quantum efficiency ~DQE! of the Kodak Digital Science computed radiography ~CR!
system ~Eastman Kodak Co.-model 400! were measured and compared to previously published
results of a Fuji based CR system ~Philips Medical Systems-PCR model 7000!. To maximize
comparability, the same measurement techniques and analysis methods were used. The DQE at four
exposure levels ~30, 3, 0.3, 0.03 mR! and two plate types ~standard and high resolution! were
calculated from the NPS and MTF measurements. The NPS was determined from two-dimensional
Fourier analysis of uniformly exposed plates. The presampling MTF was determined from the
Fourier transform ~FT! of the system’s finely sampled line spread function ~LSF! as produced by a
narrow slit. A comparison of the slit type ~‘‘beveled edge’’ versus ‘‘straight edge’’! and its effect
on the resulting MTF measurements was also performed. The results show that both systems are
comparable in resolution performance. The noise power studies indicated a higher level of noise for
the Kodak images ~;20% at the low exposure levels and 40%–70% at higher exposure levels!.
Within the clinically relevant exposure range ~0.3–3 mR!, the resulting DQE for the Kodak plates
ranged between 20%–50% lower than for the corresponding Fuji plates. Measurements of the
presampling MTF with the two slit types have shown that a correction factor can be applied to
compensate for transmission through the relief edges. © 1999 American Association of Physicists
in Medicine. @S0094-2405~99!00101-7#

Key words: computed radiography ~CR!, digital radiography, modulation transfer function ~MTF!,
noise power spectrum ~NPS!, detective quantum efficiency ~DQE!

I. INTRODUCTION spectra ~NPS!, and detective quantum efficiency ~DQE! of

Photostimulable phosphor ~PSP! based computed radiogra-
phy ~CR! has gained increasingly widespread acceptance
since it was first commercialized in 1983. Numerous publi-
cations have shown CR to be an acceptable and sometimes
more favorable choice over conventional screen/film systems
for a variety of applications.1–3 Advantages with CR include:
Convenient storage of radiological data,3 increased flexibility
in image processing, and consistent reproducibility along
with a greater dynamic range, wider exposure latitude, and
reduced patient exposure.1,2
For the first nine years after the commercialization of CR,
the Fuji Photo Film Company had primarily developed the
majority of plates and readers available. A number of studies
had been conducted on this equipment to characterize its
physical performance.4–6 By 1992 two other manufacturers
~Eastman Kodak Co., Agfa Gevaert Group! had introduced
their own CR systems. To date there is little published docu-
mentation evaluating the characteristics of these new
systems.7 This paper serves to study the physical perfor-
mance of the Kodak Digital Science CR system 400 reader8
and compare these results with a CR system manufactured
by Fuji Photo Film ~sold by Philips Medical Systems, PCR-
7000!. The modulation transfer function ~MTF!, noise power
the Kodak system were measured and compared to the pub-
lished results presented by Dobbins et al.4 of this Fuji sys-
tem. To provide an accurate comparison, the same measure-
ment techniques and analysis methods used by Dobbins et al.
in the assessment of the Fuji systems were applied in this
study of the Kodak system.
II. MATERIALS AND METHODS
A. Equipment
The Kodak Digital Science CR System 400 consists of the
storage phosphor reader, two types of storage phosphor
screens, a bar code scanner for entering patient and exam
information, and a workstation for reviewing the radio-
graphs. There have been two models of the storage phosphor
reader: Model 3110 and Model 400. These models differ
mainly in their detection systems. We studied only the newer
Model 400 storage phosphor reader.
The two screen types available are general purpose ~GP-
25! and high resolution ~HR!. Table I lists the screen sizes
studied for each screen type. Table II lists the corresponding
image, pixel and study file sizes for the two CR screen sizes

27 Med. Phys. 26 „1…, January 1999 0094-2405/99/26„1…/27/11/$15.00 © 1999 Am. Assoc. Phys. Med. 27
28 Bradford, Peppler, and Dobbins III: Characteristic of a radiography system
TABLE I. Kodak screen type and sizes studied.
Screen Type Screen size
GP-25 35 cm343 cm
18 cm324 cm
HR 18 cm324 cm
studied. ~The study file contains the 12-bit logarithmic data,
look-up tables, display images and masks.!
The Kodak Model 400 reader is able to scan an area
smaller than the actual screen size. This option allowed us to
study two different scan conditions with the use of one
screen. For example, to measure the system’s performance
for the 18 cm324 cm plate, a specific portion of the
35 cm343 cm plate was exposed. When this larger plate was
then scanned, the 18 cm324 cm option was selected. By us-
ing one plate for two different sizes, effects from slight sen-
sitivity variations in the phosphor from one screen to another
were removed.8 Unfortunately, this process could be done
for just the GP-25 screen type since only the smaller
18 cm324 cm size was available for the HR screen.
Before every measurement, each screen was flash erased
to remove any accumulated signals due to extraneous back-
ground radiation and/or the naturally occurring isotopes
present in the phosphor. After each screen exposure, there
was a ten min delay before reading to minimize the effects of
latent image decay.9 The screens were cleaned prior to use.
The x-ray source used to expose each plate was a Phillips
x-ray tube ~Model SRO 33/100! with a Phillips Maximus
C850 ‘‘Classic’’ ~three phase, twelve pulse! generator. For
all plate exposures, the x-ray unit was set to 70 kVp and
confirmed within 2 kV by an RMI kVp meter ~Model 240A!.
Filtration of 0.5 mm Cu was applied during all measure-
ments. The aluminum equivalent half-value layer for this fil-
tered spectrum was 7 mm. Exposure levels ~‘‘in air’’! were
measured with an ADCL ~Accredited Dosimetry Calibration
Lab! calibrated exposure meter ~ionization chamber: Kei-
thley, Model 96035; electrometer: Keithley, Model 602!.
The x-ray tube was aimed horizontally with the central axis
of the beam parallel to the edge of the x-ray table and the
cassette was mounted vertically on the table perpendicular to
the beam using a square corner and the edge of the table.
B. MTF measurements
The method of Fujita et al.6 as adapted by Dobbins et al.4
was applied to measure the presampling MTF for each plate
type and size. The line spread function ~LSF! was obtained
by acquiring images of a narrow slit in both the fastscan and
TABLE II. Image, pixel, and study file sizes for the two CR screen sizes
studied.
Screen size Image size Pixel size Study size
35 cm343 cm 204832500 0.172 cm 11.5 MB
18 cm324 cm 179232392 0.100 mm 9.7 MB
Medical Physics, Vol. 26, No. 1, January 1999
28
slowscan directions for each screen type and size studied.
~Other publications have referred to these two directions by
various terms. The ‘‘fastscan’’ direction has been also
termed the ‘‘laser scan’’ or ‘‘scan’’ direction. The ‘‘slows-
can’’ direction has been also described as the ‘‘plate scan’’
or ‘‘subscan’’ direction.! This was accomplished by attach-
ing a 10 mm slit camera ~Radiation Measurements, model:
07-624! to the front surface of the cassette with the side
marked ‘‘focus side’’ facing the focal spot. The slit’s long
axis was slightly angled ~;5°–8°! with respect to the central
axes of the CR plate to provide adequate sampling for the
composite LSF. Shielding ~2 mm of lead! was placed around
the slit camera to block any forward-directed scatter. The
cassette/slit assembly was oriented vertically on the tabletop
perpendicular to the edge of the table, and therefore, the
x-ray beam, using a square corner and positioned at an SDD
of ;170 cm. The vertical orientation eliminated backscatter
since there was nothing behind the cassette. This simple cas-
sette alignment method was quite adequate and was con-
firmed by the consistency of the maxima of the line spread
functions obtained. One at a time the HR (18 cm324 cm)
and GP-25 (35 cm343 cm) screens were exposed. After a
ten min delay the screens were read and then erased. The
GP-25 screen was exposed a second time at this same dis-
tance for the 18 cm324 cm GP-25 measurement. Determina-
tion of the mAs factors were based on the goal to produce a
suitable LSF down to the 0.1% level.
Due to the slit camera’s construction ~see Fig. 1!, the
relief edges on each jaw ~4°! allowed a tolerance in the ac-
curacy of alignment. However, due to transmission through
the beveled edges, the width of this slit was effectively larger
than the nominal 10 mm. To determine the effect of the bev-
eled edges on the resulting MTF curves, repeat MTF mea-
surements ~in both the fastscan and slowscan directions!
were conducted using a straight edge slit with the 100 mm/
pixel HR Kodak plate. Comparisons between the MTF
curves made by the two slit types produced a correction fac-
tor that was applied to the less accurate MTF curves obtained
with the beveled slit. The correction factor is described be-
low.
The greater availability of this commercial slit and its
more forgiving alignment requirements ~as opposed to the
straight edge slit! will allow others to more easily reproduce
this MTF measurement method. Due to these advantages, we
chose to use the beveled slit for all of our MTF measure-
FIG. 1. Cross section of the beveled slit camera ~Radiation Measurements,
Inc.!.
29 Bradford, Peppler, and Dobbins III: Characteristic of a radiography system
TABLE III. Plate correction factors.
Screen type Screen size Cal0
GP-25 35 cm343 cm 20.067
18 cm324 cm 20.122
HR 18 cm324 cm 20.102
ments. In order to compare with the results from Dobbins
et al. for the Fuji manufactured CR system, the necessary
correction factor was applied.
C. NPS measurements
Images with uniform exposure ~flat field images! were
acquired at: 30, 3, 0.3, and 0.03 mR for the NPS measure-
ments. These exposure levels were determined by first set-
ting the mAs factor and then adjusting the distance between
the x-ray source and ionization chamber until the desired
exposure was detected. The mAs factor for these four expo-
sure levels were 250, 25, 2.5, and 0.25 mAs, respectively.
The distance between the source and reference point of the
detector ~SDD! ranged between 1.6 and 1.9 m. The measured
exposure values were within 2% for the 30, 3 and 0.3 mR
desired values and within 3% for the 0.03 mR value. The 3%
accuracy for the 0.03 mR exposure measurement was accom-
plished by taking ten successive exposures ~during the expo-
sure measurement step only! at the 0.03 mR setting provid-
ing the chamber with an integral reading of ;0.3 mR.
Once the SDD was determined, a cassette was placed on
the tabletop at this predetermined distance. The cassette was
oriented vertically on the table with nothing behind it that
would produce scatter. Similar to the MTF measurements,
the same two screens were used for the three screen sizes.
The above procedure was then repeated ~with the same two
screens! for each exposure level.
III. ANALYSIS
All images acquired by the Kodak reader were sent to a
network workstation ~Kodak, PDS! and subsequently to the
research computer by an ethernet connection. The raw data
for each image were first converted to screen exposure val-
ues by the following relationships:
E ~ x,y ! calc510@~ pixel2 value2C ! /1000# ,
log10@ E ~ x,y ! corrected# 5cal 01 ~ cal 1 ! •log10@ E ~ x,y ! calc# .
The constant C is 2000 for the GP-25 screen and 1700 for
the HR screen. The calibration factors, cal0 and cal1, were
used to correct the calculated exposure values. They were
determined from a log plot of measured exposure ~based on
ionization chamber measurements! versus calculated expo-
sure from the plate. Table III lists the values determined for
these correction factors. The analysis methods described be-
low are the same as those employed by Dobbins et al. This
was done to maximize the comparability of results. A more
complete description of the analysis methods can be found in
the previous report.4
Medical Physics, Vol. 26, No. 1, January 1999
29
Cal1
1.005
0.995
1.011
FIG. 2. Example of a transverse profile plot along the length of the slit. The
maxima occur when the slit’s central axis passes directly through the center.
The minima occur when the axis passes exactly between two pixel centers.
A. MTF analysis
In addition to the presampling MTF, the expectation value
of the modulation transfer function, EMTF, was also com-
puted from the slit images. The EMTF is the average of the
digital MTF over all possible phases of the sampling comb.10
The noise equivalent quanta ~NEQ! and subsequently the
detective quantum efficiency ~DQE! of the system were de-
termined using this EMTF curve. Calculation of the EMTF
consisted of the following steps:
~i! calculation of slit angle based on transverse slit profile
plots
~ii! computation of initial composite LSF & extrapolation
of LSF tails
~iii! computation of presampling MTF
~iv! correction for transmission through beveled edges
~v! computation of EMTF
Transverse profile plots are helpful to determine the
amount of usable data supplied in the slit image. Figure 2
shows an example of such a plot. Each data value in this plot
represents the maximum pixel value in each transverse pro-
file ~perpendicular to the slit! along the slit length. For ex-
ample, the maxima in the plot represent the points when the
slit’s central axis passes directly through the pixel center and
the minima occurs when the axis passes exactly between two
pixel centers. The angle of the slit was determined by the
distance in pixels between two minima that were chosen at
each end of the slit image.
Based on the slit’s angle, the orthogonal distance between
the slit’s central axis and each pixel sampling site was deter-
mined. Projecting these pixel values along a single transverse
axis produced a finely sampled composite LSF. To provide
uniform sampling along this axis, the LSF was resampled by
linear interpolation where the effective sampling distance
was the product of the pixel width and the sine of the slit’s
angle. The normalized LSF was then extended down to the
0.01% level by exponentially extrapolating past the 1% level
as explained by Fujita et al.6 Figure 3 displays an example of
the initial and extrapolated line spread functions. These
curves were normalized to 1.0 at the maximum. Choosing a
range of values on each LSF to fit to and extrapolate is a bit
subjective. To ensure that the same extrapolation criteria
30 Bradford, Peppler, and Dobbins III: Characteristic of a radiography system
FIG. 3. Initial and extrapolated composite line spread functions in the
fastscan direction for the HR Kodak plate ~100 mm/pixel!.
were used in this and the Fuji studies, one of the slit images
taken with the Kodak system ~172 mm/pixel, GP-25 plate,
fastscan direction! was re-evaluated by Dobbins. A compari-
son of the resulting MTF curves show differences of less
than 1.5%.
The Fourier transform ~FT! of the extrapolated LSF pro-
duced the presampling MTF. A factor to correct for the
transmission through the beveled edges was determined by
comparing the MTF curves produced by the beveled and
straight-edged slits. After this correction, the result was then
normalized to 1.0 at the zero frequency value. The digital
MTF, which includes the effects of the sampling interval,
was obtained by convolving the corrected presampling MTF
with a comb function in the frequency domain.10 Finally the
EMTF was computed by averaging the digital MTF over all
phases of the sampling comb relative to the slit.
To reduce the uncertainty in the MTF measurements, the
LSF and MTF calculations were repeated three times along
three different segments of the slit ~along three profile plot
cycles!. The average of these three curves was then applied
in subsequent calculations.
B. NPS analysis
The central 102431024 region of each flat field image
was divided into sixty-four 1283128 sub-regions. Within
each sub-region the data were first fitted to a planar ramp
function that was subsequently subtracted from the corre-
sponding data to remove any low-frequency nonuniformity
effects ~e.g., heel effect!. An ensemble average of the mean-
square Fourier amplitudes for all 64 regions was then com-
puted and used to determine the resulting two-dimensional
~2D! NPS. The one-dimensional NPS curves presented in
this paper ~see results section! represent an average of eight
slices through the 2D NPS data ~four slices on each side of
the central axis!.4 To ensure the accuracy of these results, the
integral of each 2D NPS was compared to the variance of its
pixel values and confirmed to be identical.
C. DQE analysis
The DQE of the image detector was calculated by the
following equations:
Medical Physics, Vol. 26, No. 1, January 1999
30
FIG. 4. Presampling MTF curves in the fastscan and slowscan directions for
the Kodak GP-25 ~100 mm/pixel and 172 mm/pixel! and Kodak HR ~100
mm/pixel! plates.
NEQ~ f !
DQE~ f ! 5 ,
SNR2ideal
where
EMTF2~ f ! • ~ large area signal! 2
NEQ~ f ! 5
NPS~ f !
EMTF2
5 .
NPS~ f ! normalized
The ideal SNR represents the signal-to-noise ratio of the in-
cident x-ray beam. We have attempted to obtain the same
x-ray spectrum as used by Dobbins et al.4 by using the same
model of x-ray tube, kV, and filtration in all of our measure-
ments. Therefore, the same ideal SNR2 value (2.7
3105/@ mm2 mR# ) was used in this study. ‘‘Large area sig-
nal’’ represents the mean exposure value ~mR! calculated
from the 64 regions of the flat field image. The normalized
NPS is the NPS divided by the square of the ‘‘large area
signal.’’
IV. RESULTS
A. MTF, NPS, and DQE results
Figure 4 compares the measured presampling MTF curves
~the average of three segments! for the three Kodak plate
configurations studied. For each plate configuration, the
MTF curves corresponding to the slowscan direction were
higher that the fastscan direction. At all frequencies, the HR
plate out performed the GP-25 plate for both scan conditions.
At frequencies greater than three cycles/mm, the MTF curves
for the HR plate are approximately twice as large as the MTF
curves for the GP-25 plate. Among the two GP-25 scan con-
ditions studied, the 100 mm/pixel sampling performed better
than the 172 mm/pixel sampling in the fastscan direction
~;20% greater at 2.6 cycles/mm! and worse in the slowscan
direction ~;10% lower at 2.6 cycles/mm!.
Figure 5 displays the NPS profiles in each direction for
the three Kodak configurations studied. Similar to the MTF
31 Bradford, Peppler, and Dobbins III: Characteristic of a radiography system 31

FIG. 6. Two-dimensional NPS for the Kodak GP-25 ~100 mm/pixel! plate at
~a! 0.03, ~b! 0.3, ~c! 3, and ~d! 30 mR. ~Scaling for each image has been
independently adjusted.!

relatively flat except for a few peaks that are most prominent
at the lowest exposure levels ~i.e., the 0.03 mR images!.
Because the noise peaks are most prominent at the low ex-
posure levels, they most likely represent a fixed pickup
noise, perhaps from a switching power supply that is used in
the unit. The KESPR reader electronics operate with the
same digitization rate ~i.e., the same analog bandwidth! for
both pixel sizes and adjust the plate and laser scan speeds to
achieve the different size pixels. Therefore, peaks that appear
at the same relative position in both figures ~representing
different frequency scales! correspond to the same analog
frequency. Several of the peaks appear at similar positions,

FIG. 5. Normalized NPS in the fastscan and slowscan directions for the ~a!
Kodak GP-25 ~172 mm/pixel! plate, ~b! Kodak GP-25 ~100 mm/pixel! plate,
and ~c! Kodak HR ~100 mm/pixel! plate.

plots, the NPS curves also show a difference between the

two directions. For all plates studied, there was more noise in
the slowscan direction at frequencies greater than 1 cycle/
mm. Figures 6 and 7 display the two-dimensional NPS at the
four exposure levels for the GP-25 plate with 100 mm/pixel
and 172 mm/pixel sampling, respectively. ~The characteris-
tics of the 2D NPS for the HR plate are very similar to the
GP-25 100 mm/pixel plate.! The contrast scaling on each of
FIG. 7. Two-dimensional NPS for the Kodak GP-25 ~172 mm/pixel! plate at
these images have been independently adjusted in order to ~a! 0.03, ~b! 0.3, ~c! 3, and ~d! 30 mR. ~Scaling for each image has been
best display the NPS structure. The noise power spectra are independently adjusted.!

Medical Physics, Vol. 26, No. 1, January 1999

32 Bradford, Peppler, and Dobbins III: Characteristic of a radiography system
FIG. 8. DQE curves in the fastscan and slowscan directions for the ~a!
Kodak GP-25 ~172 mm/pixel! plate, ~b! Kodak GP-25 ~100 mm/pixel! plate,
and ~c! Kodak HR ~100 mm/pixel! plate.
which supports the hypothesis that the noise is from pickup
in the electronics. The peaks are well confined and do not
likely contribute to the noise power outside their immediate
neighborhood. As explained in the analysis section, the NPS
profiles represent an average of eight slices through the 2D
NPS data. Since these eight slices were chosen close to the
central axis, the noise peaks that are in the corners of the 2D
NPS images do not appear on the corresponding one-
dimensional NPS profile while the peaks along the axis do.
Figure 8 displays the DQE curves in each direction for the
three Kodak configurations studied. Figure 9 compares the
average DQE curves ~average of each direction! for the three
Medical Physics, Vol. 26, No. 1, January 1999
32
Kodak plate configurations and four exposure levels. Over-
all, the DQE curves decrease as exposure level increases.
However, the curves for the standard resolution plate ~GP-
25! decrease much more quickly compared to the high reso-
lution ~HR! plate @Fig. 9~d! vs Fig. 9~a!#. At 0.03 mR, the
100 mm/pixel GP-25 plate outperforms the other plates at
lower frequencies and is equivalent to the HR plate at higher
frequencies ~.2.7 cycles/mm!. At 30 mR, the HR plate is
comparable to the 100 mm/pixel GP-25 plate at the lowest
frequencies but significantly better at all higher frequencies
~.1.2 cycles/mm!.
B. Effects from quantum and system noise
In Fig. 5~a! ~standard resolution plate, 172 mm/pixel! the
0.03 and 0.3 mR NPS lines for the Kodak-400 system differ
approximately by a factor of 10. At this low exposure the
noise power is inversely proportional to the exposure level.
For the other two Kodak configurations studied, the plots
display a factor smaller than ten between the corresponding
0.03 and 0.3 mR NPS curves. This suggests that at very low
exposures ~,0.3 mR!, quantum noise dominates for the 172
mm/pixel GP-25 Kodak plate while system noise is more
prevalent for both 100 mm/pixel GP-25 and HR plates. The
differences between the 0.3 and 3 mR, and 3 and 30 mR set
of NPS curves are reduced, indicating that system noise is a
more dominant factor at the higher exposure levels.
As expected the DQE curves at 0.03 and 0.3 mR for the
standard resolution Kodak plate ~172 mm/pixel! are very
similar. This is due to the dominant role of quantum noise
for this plate at the low exposure levels @see Fig. 8~a!#. As
explained above, the NPS values at these two exposure lev-
els have a factor of 10 difference. During the DQE analysis,
this factor is canceled by the factor of 10 difference in the
exposure levels. The result is similar DQE curves at 0.03 and
0.3 mR. The additional system noise in all other plates stud-
ied prevents this similarity.
C. Comparison of slit type
To ensure that our results were independent of slit type
the MTF for the high resolution ~HR! plate was measured
twice in each direction, once using the beveled slit and once
using a straight-edged slit. Figure 10 provides an example of
the results produced. This figure compares the resulting pre-
sampling MTF for both slits in the slowscan direction using
the HR ~100 mm/pixel! plate. At frequencies less than 2
cycles/mm, the difference between the ‘‘straight edge’’ MTF
data and the uncorrected ‘‘beveled edge’’ MTF data was less
than 2.5%. However, at higher frequencies this difference
quickly increased and was as large as 12.5% at the Nyquist
limit ~5 cycles/mm!. A plot of the difference as a function of
frequency qualitatively resembled a sinc function. Therefore
we chose to model the correction factor as sinc(W•u),
where ‘‘u’’ is the frequency in cycles/mm and W represents
an effective slit width. We found the minimum error for W
552 mm. After the correction the differences in MTF were
less than 0.8% for frequencies below 2 cycles/mm and
slightly higher ~1.75%! for the larger frequencies.
33 Bradford, Peppler, and Dobbins III: Characteristic of a radiography system
V. DISCUSSION
A. Comparison of Kodak and Fuji CR systems
In order to compare the results presented in this paper
with the results presented by Dobbins et al.4 on the Fuji-
7000 CR system, all measurement and analysis methods per-
formed in this study were the same as used by Dobbins.
Except for the slit type, no changes or refinements have been
made. We attempted to create the same x-ray spectra by
applying the same model x-ray tube/generator kVp, and fil-
tration. Of course there may be some slight differences in the
x-ray spectra since different equipment was used and the
x-ray tubes may have had different usage histories. It is not
clear how much this would affect results. The same com-
puter programs were used for the computation of MTF, NPS,
FIG. 10. An example of the effect of the sinc correction on the beveled slit
presampling MTF data. ‘‘Uncorrected premtf’’ and ‘‘corrected premtf’’ re-
fer to the beveled slit presampling MTF data before and after the sinc
correction, respectively. ‘‘Straight-edge premtf’’ refers to the straight edged
slit presampling MTF data. The above data were measured with the HR
Kodak plate ~100 mm/pixel! and in the slowscan direction.
Medical Physics, Vol. 26, No. 1, January 1999
33
FIG. 9. These four plots compare the
resulting average DQE curves for each
Kodak plate studied at ~a! 0.03, ~b! 0.3,
~c! 3, and ~d! 30 mR.
and DQE ~there were a few minor modifications to accom-
modate differences in the transformation to exposure values
and differences in image dimensions!.
Figure 11 compares the measured presampling MTF
curves ~the average of three segments! for the Kodak-400
system with Dobbins’ results for the Fuji-7000 system. ~For
the PCR model 7000 reader, Dobbins et al.4 had measured a
variety of plate models for each pixel size and resolution
type. For this comparison we chose only the latest plate mod-
els in his study that corresponded the closest to the pixel
sizes of the Kodak plates in this study.! Similar to the Kodak
plates, the Fuji MTF curves corresponding to the slowscan
direction were higher than the fastscan direction. However,
there was a much larger difference between the slowscan and
fastscan MTF curves for the Kodak plates ~e.g., at 4
cycles/mm for the high resolution 100 mm/pixel plate, the
Kodak fastscan MTF curve was 39% lower than its slowscan
curve as compared to a difference of 9.3% for the Fuji MTF
curves!. At larger frequencies ~.2 cycles/mm!, the Kodak
MTF curves were higher than the corresponding Fuji curves
in the slowscan direction and lower in the fastscan direction.
The average values at higher frequencies were slightly
greater for Kodak than for Fuji. The differences between the
average MTF curves ~average of the two directions! of each
CR system were less than 12% for both the large ~172 mm/
pixel Kodak and 200 mm/pixel Fuji! standard resolution
and 100 mm/pixel ~Fuji and Kodak! high resolution plates.
As for the 100 mm/pixel standard resolution plates, the two
systems produced average MTF curves within 10% for fre-
quencies less than 3.3 cycles/mm. At the larger frequencies
the average Kodak MTF curve is 20% larger ~the absolute
difference is less than 0.04!.
Figure 12 compares the NPS profiles between the Kodak-
400 and Fuji-7000 systems. Each curve in these plots is an
34 Bradford, Peppler, and Dobbins III: Characteristic of a radiography system
FIG. 11. Comparison of average presampling MTF curves for the Kodak-
400 and Fuji-7000 readers and the ~a! type V ST ~200 mm/pixel! Fuji and
GP-25 ~172 mm/pixel! Kodak plates, ~b! type IIIN ST ~100 mm/pixel! Fuji
and GP-25 ~100 mm/pixel! Kodak plates, and ~c! type V HR ~100 mm/pixel!
Fuji and HR ~100 mm/pixel! Kodak plates.
average of the NPS profiles for the two directions. Generally,
the Kodak NPS curves are higher than the corresponding
Fuji curves for each plate type and exposure level studied.
For all plates studied, differences in noise power between the
two systems tend to increase with increasing exposure level
and frequency. For 100 mm pixel sampling, differences be-
tween the Kodak and Fuji NPS curves ~both standard and
high resolution plates! remain relatively constant up to 2.5–3
cycles/mm @see Figs. 12~b! and 12~c!#. In this frequency
range the Kodak NPS curves are about 20%–40% higher at
0.3 mR, 40%–70% higher at 3 mR and 100%–170% higher
at 30 mR. At higher frequencies the Kodak curves begin to
level out while the corresponding Fuji curves continue to
drop. For the larger sampling distance ~172 and 200 mm
pixels! the Kodak NPS curves are again higher and a similar
trend of greater difference with increasing exposure is seen
@see Fig. 12~a!#. Only the 0.3 mR curves deviate from this
Medical Physics, Vol. 26, No. 1, January 1999
34
FIG. 12. Comparison of average NPS profiles at 0.03, 0.3, 3, and 30 mR for
the Kodak-400 and Fuji-7000 readers and the ~a! type V ST ~200 mm/pixel!
Fuji and GP-25 ~172 mm/pixel! Kodak plates, ~b! type IIIN ST ~100 mm/
pixel! Fuji and GP-25 ~100 mm/pixel! Kodak plates, and ~c! type V HR ~100
mm/pixel! Fuji and HR ~100 mm/pixel! Kodak plates. ~NPS data at 0.03 mR
for the Fuji 7000 reader and type V HR plate were not available.!
trend. The leveling off of Kodak values at higher frequencies
is also not as prevalent for the larger plates.
The DQE curves for both systems are compared in Fig.
13. Each curve represents an average of the two directions.
As expected from the NPS calculations, differences in DQE
between the two systems tend to increase with increasing
exposure. The exception occurs at 0.3 mR where the DQE
curves for each system are a bit closer than the 0.03 mR
curves. The Kodak DQE curves are ;30%–40% lower at
0.03 mR, 20%–35% lower at 0.3 mR, 30%–50% lower at 3
mR and 50%–70% lower at 30 mR.
B. General discussion
A very wide range of exposures was used for these ex-
periments. This was done to test the system at very high and
very low exposure levels. In routine clinical practice, expo-
35 Bradford, Peppler, and Dobbins III: Characteristic of a radiography system
FIG. 13. Comparison of average DQE at 0.03, 0.3, 3, and 30 mR for the
Kodak-400 and Fuji-7000 readers and the ~a! type V ST ~200 mm/pixel! Fuji
and GP-25 ~172 mm/pixel! Kodak plates, ~b! type IIIN ST ~100 mm/pixel!
Fuji and GP-25 ~100 mm/pixel! Kodak plates, and ~c! type V HR ~100
mm/pixel! Fuji and HR ~100 mm/pixel! Kodak plates. ~DQE data at 0.03 mR
for the Fuji 7000 reader and type V HR ~100 mm/pixel! plate were not
available.!
sures would be expected to be in the range of the middle two
exposures utilized for this report ~0.3–3 mR!. In this more
clinically relevant exposure range the differences in the
DQE’s for the two systems were somewhat reduced. The
DQE for the Kodak system was 20%–35% lower at 0.3 mR
and 30%–50% lower at 3 mR.
The difference in system response for the two scan direc-
tions was significantly larger for the Kodak system than the
Fuji system. Our early measurements demonstrated an even
larger difference for the Kodak system than what was pre-
sented in this report. We discussed our early findings with
Kodak and obtained an upgrade to the antialiasing filter. Af-
ter the installation of the new filter the difference in the two
scan directions was significantly reduced, but remains larger
than for the Fuji system. Earlier versions of the Fuji system
Medical Physics, Vol. 26, No. 1, January 1999
35
had larger differences in the two scan directions. All the
results presented in this report were obtained with the up-
graded filter.
For the measurements on the standard resolution plate the
same 35343 cm plate was used for both the large ~172 mm!
and small ~100 mm! pixel sizes. For the small pixel size this
was accomplished by indicating that the system should scan
only a portion of the plate since the system is not capable of
performing a small pixel scan of an entire 35343 cm plate.
Therefore, differences in the results for the two pixel sizes
are not due to any differences in the plate itself. The fact that
the DQE results for the small pixel size are better than the
large pixel size indicates that small pixel scanning of the
entire 35343 cm plate would provide some benefit, albeit
with a significant increase in the image data size and in-
creased scan time. Alternatively, these results suggest that
there is room for improvement in the acquisition of the large
pixel data.
The NPS curves show very similar trends between Kodak
and Fuji, except that the Kodak curves flatten out at higher
frequencies whereas the Fuji NPS curves continue to drop. In
fact, in Figs. 12~b! and 12~c!, the Kodak and Fuji NPS~0!
values are almost the same at low exposure. That fact,
coupled with the fact that the Kodak curves flatten out at
high frequencies, implies that the difference between the two
systems appears to be a higher background white noise
source in the Kodak. This would account for the flattening
out at high frequency, and would also account for why the
higher exposure NPS values differ more than the low expo-
sure curves. Such an additive white noise component could
be the result of system noise, for example.
It was not the intention of this study to measure the meth-
odological uncertainty of the measurement methods pre-
sented. However, duplicate flat field and slit images were
acquired on different 35 cm343 cm GP-25 plates ~for both
the 172 mm/pixel and 100 mm/pixel reader settings!. A com-
parison among the duplicate MTF curves show average per-
cent differences of 2.4%62.4% for the 172 mm/pixel GP-25
plate and 0.5%61.4% for the 100 mm/pixel GP-25 plate.
Repeat measurements of NPS were made using different
GP-25 plates for the 35 cm343 cm and 18 cm324 cm sizes.
The integral NPS showed average percent differences of
9.5%, 7.3%, 4.2%, and 19% for 0.03, 0.3, 3, and 30 mR
exposures, respectively. We feel that these difference values
overestimate the methodological uncertainty since they in-
clude plate variability.
A previous report7 has also compared the performance of
the Kodak and Fuji computed radiography systems. There
are several ways in which the measurements and methodol-
ogy used in the previous report are different from those in
this report. The previous report used a range of x-ray tech-
niques ~70–150 kVp! and only one exposure value ~0.3 mR!
compared with the present report which used one kVp ~70!
and a range of exposure values. The previous report com-
pared the Kodak Digital Science CR System 400 ~also
known as the Kodak Ektascan model 400! to the Fuji
9501-HQ system ~as opposed to the PCR 7000 system! and
used Fuji type-Va plates instead of type V plates that were
36 Bradford, Peppler, and Dobbins III: Characteristic of a radiography system
compared in this report. Lastly, slightly different methodolo-
gies were used to measure NPS and MTF. In spite of these
differences, there are some areas where the results can be
compared. The MTFs measured in both studies for standard
resolution plates ~both Fuji and Kodak! were very similar.
We were unable to compare the large pixel size in the laser
scan direction and high resolution plates ~both Fuji and
Kodak! since that data was not available in the previous re-
port. Also, NPS values could not be compared since data for
similar measurements was not available. We found that our
measurements of DQE for the Kodak system were ;20%
lower at all frequencies than those of Samei and Flynn7 for
both the standard and high resolution plates. This difference
may be partially explained by a 3.5% difference in the value
used for the square of the ideal signal-to-noise ratio (2.61
3105 vs 2.73105 ). It is not clear to what the remaining
difference can be attributed.
The MTF values for two Fuji systems using standard
resolution plates, measured by both Samei and Flynn,7 and
Dobbins et al.,4 were quite comparable. For the DQE results
there is only one curve where the two papers have reasonably
comparable data. All the other curves are for different expo-
sures, kVps, or plates and readers. Comparing the PCR 7000
reader from Dobbins et al. ~with ST-V plates, 200 micron
sampling and 0.3 mR exposure, and with both scan direc-
tions averaged! with the FCR 9501-HQ reader from Samei
and Flynn ~with ST-Va plates, 100 micron sampling, 0.3 mR
exposure, and with results for the plate scan direction only!
shows approximately a 5% difference at low frequency up to
almost 20% difference at high frequencies. Since the differ-
ences in the two results have a frequency dependence, meth-
odological differences may have some effect. Since the
present report used the same methodology as Dobbins et al.,
the methodology may account for some of the differences
between the present results and those of Samei and Flynn.
To correct for transmission through the beveled edges, we
chose to apply a sinc function correction factor to each MTF
curve. As shown in Fig. 10 this correction worked very well.
A more accurate description of the transmission profile,
through the slit, would presumably provide a more accurate
correction. However, considering the small magnitude of the
MTF and DQE values involved at the higher frequencies, an
error of less than 1.75% should be accurate enough for most
situations. For the larger plate ~172 mm pixel! the correction
factor results in an error less than 0.8% up to the Nyquist
limit ~;3 cycles/mm!. The correction factor determined for
these experiments is only applicable for this energy spec-
trum. A different factor would be needed for different spectra
since higher energy beams would penetrate the beveled jaws
of the slit to a greater extent and lower energy beams to a
lesser extent.
VI. CONCLUSION
Among the three plates studied for the Kodak system, the
100 mm/pixel HR plate outperformed both GP-25 plates at
the higher frequencies and exposure levels. At low expo-
sures, all three plates are comparable at the higher frequen-
Medical Physics, Vol. 26, No. 1, January 1999
36
cies. At lower frequencies the 100 mm/pixel GP-25 plate is
much better. At all exposure levels and frequencies, the 100
mm/pixel GP-25 plate outperformed the 172 mm/pixel GP-25
plate.
These measurements have shown the Kodak-400 and
Fuji-7000 systems to be comparable in resolution perfor-
mance. Noise power studies have shown differences among
the two systems. At low exposure levels, the Kodak images
contain ;20% more noise power and 40%–70% more at
higher exposure levels. The DQE for the Kodak plates is
from 20%–50% lower than the corresponding Fuji plates in a
clinically relevant exposure range ~0.3–3.0 mR!.
Measurements have shown that a beveled slit can be used
to measure the MTF of a system. A simple correction factor
can be applied to account for transmission through the bev-
eled jaws. The primary advantage of the beveled slit is that
the relief edges allow alignment of the slit to be a signifi-
cantly less critical issue. For the 4° relief angle of the jaws
the focal spot must only be positioned within 64°. At an
SSD of 1.8 meters that is 612 cm, a tolerance that was easily
accommodated by eye without the need for any alignment
mechanism. Since we also had a slit fabricated with straight
~nonbeveled! jaws to compare our results, we were able to
find an accurate correction factor.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported in part by Grant No. 1 RO1
CA58521 from the National Cancer Institute and Grant No.
DAMD17-94-J-4055 from the Department of the Army. The
contents of this publication are solely the responsibility of
the authors and do not necessarily represent the official
views of the National Cancer Institute or the Department of
the Army. We would like to thank Eastman Kodak Co. for
their help and the use of a 18 cm324 cm HR plate. We
would also like to thank the University of Wisconsin, Ac-
credited Dosimetry Calibration Laboratory for the use of an
ion chamber and electrometer.
1
J. C. Wandtke, ‘‘Bedside chest radiography,’’ Radiology 190, 1–10
~1994!.
2
K. Aoki, ‘‘Computed Radiography in Pediatrics,’’ J. Digital Imaging 8,
92–96 ~1995!.
3
F. E. Lindhardt, ‘‘Clinical experiences with computed radiography,’’ Eur.
J. Radiol. 22, 175–85 ~1996!.
4
J. T. Dobbins III, D. L. Ergun, L. Rutz, D. A. Hinshaw, H. Blume, and D.
C. Clark, ‘‘DQE( f ) of four generations of computed radiography acqui-
sition devices,’’ Med. Phys. 22, 1581–1593 ~1995!.
5
W. Hillen, U. Schiebel, and T. Zaengel, ‘‘Imaging performance of a digi-
tal storage phosphor system,’’ Med. Phys. 14, 744–751 ~1987!.
6
H. Fujita, D.-Y. Tsai, T. Itoh, K. Doi, J. Morishita, K. Ueda, and A.
Ohtsuka, ‘‘A simple method for determining the modulation transfer
function in digital radiography,’’ IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 11, 34–39
~1992!.
7
E. Samei and M. J. Flynn, ‘‘Physical Measures of Image Quality in Pho-
tostimulable Phosphor Radiographic Systems,’’ SPIE Proc. 3032, 328–
338 ~1997!.
37 Bradford, Peppler, and Dobbins III: Characteristic of a radiography system
8
T. Bogucki, D. P. Trauernicht, and T. E. Kocher, Characteristics of a
storage phosphor system for medical imaging, Technical and Scientific
Monograph No. 6, Publication No. N-331 ~Health Sciences Division,
Eastman Kodak C., Rochester, NY, 1995!.
9
C. E. Floyd, H. G. Chotas, J. T. Dobbins III, and C. E. Ravin, ‘‘Quanti-
Medical Physics, Vol. 26, No. 1, January 1999
37
tative radiographic imaging using a photostimulable phosphor system,’’
Med. Phys. 17, 454–459 ~1990!.
10
J. T. Dobbins III, ‘‘Effects of undersampling on the proper interpretation
of modulation transfer function, noise power spectra, and noise equivalent
quanta of digital imaging systems,’’ Med. Phys. 22, 171–181 ~1995!.