Film-based chest radiography: AMBER vs asymmetric screen-film systems.


Journal Article

OBJECTIVE: Contrast-to-noise ratios were measured on radiographs from two types of state-of-the-art chest imaging systems (an Advanced Multiple Beam Equalization Radiography [AMBER] system and an asymmetric screen-film system) to facilitate an objective comparison of image quality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Radiographs of a chest phantom were obtained by using the AMBER system with a medium-latitude screen-film image recorder (Kodak T-MAT L film and Lanex regular screens) and a commercially available asymmetric, zero-crossover screen-film system optimized for chest radiography (Kodak InSight and InSight HC). Conventionally acquired radiographs (T-MAT L/Lanex regular) were also evaluated as a reference. Films were digitized, radiographic contrast and noise were measured in the lung-, mediastinum-, and subdiaphragm-equivalent regions of each image, and contrast-to-noise ratios were computed. RESULTS: Radiographic contrast and contrast-to-noise values were found to be higher on AMBER images in all chest regions when compared with radiographs obtained with the asymmetric screen-film systems (InSight contrast-to-noise ratio approximately 77% of AMBER contrast-to-noise in the lung-equivalent region, 57% in the mediastinum-equivalent region, and 43% in the subdiaphragm-equivalent region). On conventional radiographs, the contrast and contrast-to-noise values were higher than on all other image types in the lung-equivalent region and lower than on all other image types in the less well penetrated chest areas. CONCLUSION: Image quality was higher, most notably in dense phantom regions, on radiographs obtained with the AMBER system than on radiographs obtained with the new asymmetric screen-film systems. Clinical studies are needed to determine whether this level of image improvement justifies the additional expense of the exposure equalization system.

Full Text

Duke Authors

Cited Authors

  • Chotas, HG; Floyd, CE; Ravin, CE

Published Date

  • October 1993

Published In

Volume / Issue

  • 161 / 4

Start / End Page

  • 743 - 747

PubMed ID

  • 8372749

Pubmed Central ID

  • 8372749

International Standard Serial Number (ISSN)

  • 0361-803X

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  • 10.2214/ajr.161.4.8372749


  • eng

Conference Location

  • United States