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


     


DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2282011998
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
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
Right arrow Citation Map
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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Slone, R. M.
Right arrow Articles by Pilgram, T. K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Slone, R. M.
Right arrow Articles by Pilgram, T. K.
(Radiology 2003;228:425-429.)
© RSNA, 2003


Computer Applications

Irreversible JPEG Compression of Digital Chest Radiographs for Primary Interpretation: Assessment of Visually Lossless Threshold1

Richard M. Slone, MD, Edward Muka, MSE and Thomas K. Pilgram, PhD

1 From the Electronic Radiology Laboratory, Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, Box 8131, 510 S Kingshighway Blvd, St Louis, MO 63110. Received December 6, 2001; revision requested February 20, 2002; final revision received October 28; accepted November 11. Address correspondence to E.M. (e-mail: ete@wuerl.wustl.edu).

PURPOSE: To determine if digital chest images could be compressed in a primary interpretation context without perceived loss of fidelity (below the visually lossless threshold) at transilluminated film or cathode ray tube (CRT) display.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred forty-four posteroanterior radiographs were obtained with a digital chest radiography system. At both film and CRT display, an identified original image was presented side by side with a replicate, which was either an unaltered image or an image that had been Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) compressed to 10:1, 20:1, or 50:1 and reconstructed. Each of the 10 readers indicated whether the replicate was "indistinguishable from the original" or "degraded" at clinical reading distance and at close inspection. The readers’ ability to detect compressed images was examined for patterns; 95% CIs were used for statistical testing.

RESULTS: With transilluminated film at clinical reading distance, readers were as likely to rate originals (48 [20%] of 240 readings) as degraded as they were to rate 20:1 replicates (106 [22%] of 480 readings) as degraded, but they frequently identified 50:1 replicates (283 [59%] of 480 readings) as degraded. At close inspection, 20:1 replicates (163 [34%] of 480 readings) were often identified as degraded, but 10:1 replicates (19 [8%] of 240 readings) were not identified as degraded more often than originals (17 [7%] of 240 readings). With CRT display, the results were nearly identical.

CONCLUSION: At reading distance for primary interpretation, full-size digital chest radiographs that have been JPEG compressed to 10:1 or 20:1 and reconstructed are visually lossless at film or CRT display. Images compressed to 10:1 remain visually lossless at close inspection.

© RSNA, 2003

Index terms: Images, digitization • Images, display • Images, processing • Images, quality • Radiography, digital




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
K. J. Kim, B. Kim, K. H. Lee, T. J. Kim, R. Mantiuk, H.-S. Kang, and Y. H. Kim
Regional Difference in Compression Artifacts in Low-Dose Chest CT Images: Effects of Mathematical and Perceptual Factors
Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2008; 191(2): W30 - W37.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
V. Bajpai, K. H. Lee, B. Kim, K. J. Kim, T. J. Kim, Y. H. Kim, and H. S. Kang
Differences in Compression Artifacts on Thin- and Thick-Section Lung CT Images
Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2008; 191(2): W38 - W43.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
B. Kim, K. H. Lee, K. J. Kim, R. Mantiuk, H.-r. Kim, and Y. H. Kim
Artifacts in Slab Average-Intensity-Projection Images Reformatted from JPEG 2000 Compressed Thin-Section Abdominal CT Data Sets
Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2008; 190(6): W342 - W350.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
B. Kim, K. H. Lee, K. J. Kim, R. Mantiuk, S. Hahn, T. J. Kim, and Y. H. Kim
Prediction of Perceptible Artifacts in JPEG 2000 Compressed Chest CT Images Using Mathematical and Perceptual Quality Metrics
Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2008; 190(2): 328 - 334.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
H. S. Woo, K. J. Kim, T. J. Kim, S. Hahn, B. Kim, Y. H. Kim, and K. H. Lee
JPEG 2000 Compression of Abdominal CT: Difference in Tolerance Between Thin- and Thick-Section Images
Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2007; 189(3): 535 - 541.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
S. Suryanarayanan, A. Karellas, S. Vedantham, S. M. Waldrop, and C. J. D'Orsi
Detection of Simulated Lesions on Data-compressed Digital Mammograms
Radiology, July 1, 2005; 236(1): 31 - 36.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]