Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gould, R. G.
Right arrow Articles by Genant, H. K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gould, R. G.
Right arrow Articles by Genant, H. K.

Radiology, Vol 138, 195-201, Copyright © 1981 by Radiological Society of North America


ARTICLES

Quantitative and qualitative comparison of two microfocus-tube imaging systems

RG Gould and HK Genant

Two microfocus-tube magnification systems were compared: one used an RSI tube (stationary anode, Pierce-gun cathode) and the other used a GE tube (rotating anode, biased cathode). Imaging parameters for body parts of three thicknesses, the hand (low), knee (medium), and hip (high), were considered at a magnification of 2. The focal-spot MTF was measured on and off the central ray of the beam, as well as beam quality and the intensity of scatter in the image plane. Patient exposures were also determined. While both systems gave high-quality images at acceptable exposure levels, the RSI unit was judged superior for body parts up to 15 cm thick. For thicker parts, scatter degraded contrast with the RSI unit, making the GE unit superior.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1981 by the Radiological Society of North America.