DMFR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
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 Fidler, A.
Right arrow Articles by Skaleric, U.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Fidler, A.
Right arrow Articles by Skaleric, U.

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Vol 31, Issue 6 379-384, Copyright © 2002 by British Institute of Radiology

ARTICLES

Comparative evaluation of JPEG and JPEG2000 compression in quantitative digital subtraction radiography

A. Fidler, B. Likar, F. Pernus and U. Skaleric
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics, Ljubljana, Slovenia.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the impact of JPEG and the novel JPEG2000 compression standard on quantitative digital subtraction radiography (DSR) and to determine the acceptable JPEG2000 compression ratios for DSR. METHODS: Nine dry pig mandible sections were radiographed three times ('Baseline', 'No change', and 'Gain') with standardized projection geometry. Bone gain was simulated by adding artificial bone chips (1, 4 and 15 mg). Images were registered, compressed by JPEG and JPEG2000 using compression ratios (CR) of 1 : 7, 1 : 16, 1 : 22, and 1 : 31, and then subtracted. Image distortion was assessed objectively by calculating average pixel error and peak signal to noise ratio. No change areas in compressed and subtracted 'No change-Baseline' images and bone gain volumes in compressed and subtracted 'Gain-Baseline' images were calculated for both compression standards and compared. RESULTS: JPEG introduced less distortion at low CRs, while JPEG2000 was superior at higher CRs. At CR of 1 : 7, no significant difference between JPEG and JPEG2000 was found. JPEG2000 yielded better results for no change measurements at higher CRs. Volumes of simulated bone gain were overestimated when JPEG and underestimated when JPEG2000 compression was used. CONCLUSIONS: At CR of 1 : 7 JPEG and JPEG2000 performed similarly, which indicates that CR of 1:7 in JPEG2000 can be used for DSR if images are registered before compression. At higher CRs, JPEG2000 is superior to JPEG but image distortions are too high for reliable quantitative DSR. doi:10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600724


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Dentomaxillofac RadiolHome page
A Fidler, B Likar, and U Skaleric
Lossy JPEG compression: easy to compress, hard to compare.
Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., March 1, 2006; 35(2): 67 - 73.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING ALL BIR JOURNALS
Copyright © 2002 by the British Institute of Radiology.