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


     

Published online before print July 25, 2006, 10.1148/radiol.2403050519
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
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 Ringl, H.
Right arrow Articles by Schaefer-Prokop, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ringl, H.
Right arrow Articles by Schaefer-Prokop, C.

JPEG2000 Compression of Thin-Section CT Images of the Lung: Effect of Compression Ratio on Image Quality1

Helmut Ringl, MD, Ruediger E. Schernthaner, MD, Alexander A. Bankier, MD, Michael Weber, PhD, Mathias Prokop, MD, Christian J. Herold, MD and Cornelia Schaefer-Prokop, MD

1 From the Department of Radiology, University Hospital Vienna, AKH Wien, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, A-1090, Vienna, Austria (H.R., R.E.S., A.A.B., M.W., C.J.H., C.S.); and Department of Radiology, Utrecht Medical Center, Utrecht, the Netherlands (M.P.). Received March 29, 2005; revision requested May 25; revision received September 2; accepted September 12; final version accepted November 23. Address correspondence to H.R. (e-mail: helmut.ringl{at}meduniwien.ac.at).


Figure 1
View larger version (13K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 1a: (a, b) Error bar charts. The center mark indicates the relative observed percentage of correct determinations of the original image in the forced-choice two-alternative setup. A value of 0.5 indicates no differentiation between the compressed and noncompressed images, and a value of 1.0 indicates that all original images could be differentiated from the compressed image copies. Error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals. (a) Single-detector CT data. (b) Multidetector CT data.

 

Figure 1
View larger version (12K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 1b: (a, b) Error bar charts. The center mark indicates the relative observed percentage of correct determinations of the original image in the forced-choice two-alternative setup. A value of 0.5 indicates no differentiation between the compressed and noncompressed images, and a value of 1.0 indicates that all original images could be differentiated from the compressed image copies. Error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals. (a) Single-detector CT data. (b) Multidetector CT data.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (134K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 2: Four image sections (four rows) from different patients. Sections in the two top rows were derived at single-detector CT, and sections in the two bottom rows were derived at multidetector CT. The compression ratio increases from left to right images. The original image is the first image in each row. The high-contrast areas (rows 1 and 3) are almost unchanged, whereas the low-contrast areas (rows 2 and 4) are susceptible to blurring artifacts. If viewed electronically, a monitor with high brightness and contrast settings should be used to visualize the artifacts clearly.

 




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 2006 by the Radiological Society of North America.