View box luminance measurements and their effect on reader performance.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate the importance of view box luminance and viewing conditions on low-contrast detection by readers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Radiographs of a mammographic contrast-detail phantom were examined on 632 view box panels. The luminance of these panels was obtained by using a calibrated meter and ranged from 860 to 3,300 nit. Twelve radiologists reported the number of contrast-detail disks for each size (diameter, 0.3-7.0 mm) deemed to be visible on films with optical densities of 1.00-2.60. Radiologist performance in reading low-contrast phantom images was also studied as a function of room illuminance and image masking. RESULTS: Median luminance was 1,700 nit, with 25- and 75-percentile values of 1,450 and 2,150 nit, respectively. Low-contrast visibility generally was independent of view box luminance, regardless of film density or disk diameter. Low-contrast visibility deteriorated when masking around the image was removed and at normal room illuminance. The greatest deterioration in performance occurred at the highest film densities and with the smallest size disks. CONCLUSION: Detection of low-contrast features on radiographs is relatively independent of view box luminance, but it is degraded by the presence of stray light and by increased room illuminance.

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

Relative mAs values required to generate a constant plate readout signal for the Kodak Ektascan general purpose (GP-25) and high resolution (HR) photostimulable phosphors were measured as a function of x-ray beam quality and for a range of representative x-ray examinations. The signal intensity was determined from the exposure index (EI) generated during the read out of uniformly exposed phosphor imaging plates. These data were compared to the corresponding relative mAs values required to produce a constant film density of Lanex screen-film combinations with nominal speeds of 40, 400, and 600. The relative detection performance of the photostimulable phosphors generally decreased with increasing kVp and beam filtration. The relative response of GP-25 phosphors was independent of examination type, and modified by approximately 10% when scattered radiation was present. The HR phosphor was more efficient than a Lanex Single Fine extremity screen used with an EM-1 film. These relative response data will be useful for selecting the x-ray technique factors which minimize patient dose in x-ray examinations performed with photostimulable phosphors.

Comparison of a photostimulable phosphor system with film for dental radiology.

This study compared the imaging performance of a photostimulable phosphor system with E speed film for dental radiography. The response of each imaging system was measured as a function of radiation exposure. Measurements were also made of imaging performance in terms of the limiting spatial resolution and low contrast detectability. Photostimulable phosphors had a wider dynamic range in comparison with film. The limiting spatial resolution of the photostimulable phosphor was approximately 6.5 lp/mm and independent of image magnification. For film, the limiting spatial resolution was in the range 11 to 20 lp/mm depending on image magnification. At the same radiation exposure, low contrast detectability of the photostimulable phosphor was superior to that of film. Major benefits of photostimulable phosphor systems include the elimination of chemical processing and an improved low contrast detectability performance.