BJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

British Journal of Radiology (1995) 68, 277-282
© 1995 British Institute of Radiology
doi: 10.1259/0007-1285-68-807-277

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
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 Robson, K J
Right arrow Articles by Faulkner, K
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Robson, K J
Right arrow Articles by Faulkner, K

The use of a contrast–detail test object in the optimization of optical density in mammography

K J Robson, BSc C J Kotre, MSc, PhD and K Faulkner, MSc, PhD

Regional Medical Physics Department, Newcastle General Hospital, Westgate Road, Newcastle upon Tyne NE4 6BE, UK

In mammography, it is important that the maximum amount of diagnostic information is obtained from each radiograph. One of the factors influencing image quality is the optical density of the film. In this study, a contrast–detail test object was used to establish the optimum optical density value on the basis of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for two mammographic film–screen combinations under particular processing conditions. The optimum optical density, taken as being the point at which the threshold contrast is a minimum varied little with detail size. The optimum optical density for the Fuji film–screen combination with Photosol chemistry was found to be higher than that for the Kodak film–screen combination and Kodak processing conditions studied. Although the actual values of optical density are specific to the fixed processing conditions encountered, the technique has more general applicability.

Received for publication January 26, 1994. Revision received September 20, 1994. Accepted for publication September 30, 1994.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Br. J. Radiol.Home page
A D Dimakopoulou, I A Tsalafoutas, E K Georgiou, and E N Yakoumakis
Image quality and breast dose of 24 screen-film combinations for mammography
Br. J. Radiol., February 1, 2006; 79(938): 123 - 129.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Radiat Prot DosimetryHome page
H. Bosmans, A.-K. Carton, F. Rogge, F. Zanca, J. Jacobs, C. Van Ongeval, K. Nijs, A. Van Steen, and G. Marchal
Image quality measurements and metrics in full field digital mammography: an overview
Radiat Prot Dosimetry, December 1, 2005; 117(1-3): 120 - 130.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Br. J. Radiol.Home page
I A Tsalafoutas, A D Dimakopoulou, E D Koulentianos, A N Serefoglou, and E N Yakoumakis
Variation of the sensitometric characteristics of seven mammographic films with processing conditions
Br. J. Radiol., August 1, 2004; 77(920): 666 - 671.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
J. M. Lewin, R. E. Hendrick, C. J. D’Orsi, P. K. Isaacs, L. J. Moss, A. Karellas, G. A. Sisney, C. C. Kuni, and G. R. Cutter
Comparison of Full-Field Digital Mammography with Screen-Film Mammography for Cancer Detection: Results of 4,945 Paired Examinations
Radiology, March 1, 2001; 218(3): 873 - 880.
[Abstract] [Full Text]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING  ALL BIR JOURNALS 
Copyright © 1995 by the British Institute of Radiology.