Hello, do you have any information, formula, or program about DR digital radiography with X-source and especially gamma ir192 so that I can calculate the radiation time?
you HAVE TO BE WRONG, when the student asks you, at the 19:33 mark, "if you collimate smaller, will the pixels also be smaller?" You answer to him, "yes, from what you understand that is the case..." etc. However, it is NOT true. the matrix is inherent in the image receptor. So two receptors with the same matrix size (or amount or number of pixels) but with different cassette or actual physical measurement sizes...the smaller physical size of the receptor will have smaller pixels. and therefore higher resolution per physical size than the larger receptor with dame amount of pixels it should not be confused with SIZE OF COLLIMATION. please get back to me if I am missing something here. because I have to take boards again to reinstate my license. and it has been years since I have. I don't want to be wrong.
Good question. Reducing field of view reduces pixel size during image processing on many systems because matrix size is inherent - not in the receptor - but in the computer. We see this in CT all the time. The matrix is fixed at 512x512 but we intentionally reduce the scan field of view in order to increase spatial resolution on the display field of view.
First I would like to say, I really enjoy your very informative videos and thank you for them. I have a question that was brought up on one of my quizzes from school. I know pixel size is the main controller of spatial resolution but are the matrix size and grayscale bit depth size also controllers of spatial resolution?
Great question. Matrix size is indirectly related to pixel size. As matrix size increases (all other factors remaining the same) pixel size decreases. Bit depth influences contrast resolution (not spatial resolution).
Awesome question! The short answers is no. But decreased pixel size can influence detective quantum efficiency. More info here: th-cam.com/video/2UAItBt6zvE/w-d-xo.html
Good question! I'm simplifying a little, but the active part of film is a molecule. The active part of digital is a computer chip. Molecules are smaller than computer chips. So film's spatial resolution is better than digital. Still, digital blows film out of the water for contrast resolution. Why? Because we can change window width and level through thousands of different shade of gray with digital. While with film what you see is what you get.
@@deemabudeiri7206 Exactly! We will never be able to make computer parts smaller than molecules. Also the smaller we make the dexels (detector elements that produce pixels) the lower the detector quantum efficiency (ability of the dexels to detect radiation).
Hey quick question, I'm am xray/ct tech, have been for 3 years. I am taking my boards in 2 weeks and am consistently getting 78-80% on all of my practice tests. I ace patient care and procedures but am struggling with physics.. my practice tests have been out of Mosbys, myregistryreview.com and examedge.com. ive got 78-80% on 5 tests but never below.. do you think I should reschedule the exam or do you think my scores are good enough?
Don't reschedule! Take the test. Chances are you'll pass. If you don't, it's a good learning opportunity for how in-depth the exam is. RadTech Bootcamp has some great videos and lessons on physics and image production.
@@blu8168 Please do! I'm always encouraged when this channel is able to help folks! Also, I wish my second book was out. It has a lot of physics stuff in it. Anyways, you might enjoy the first book, Time, Distance, and Shielding... it's a fun read for rad techs: amzn.to/2Oh3TDI
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 80 | คู่เอก "รักษ์ vs ยอดนำชัย"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ckLMRorsMeY/mqdefault.jpg)
So the smaller the pixel, the increased spatial resolution. That’s an inverse*** relationship.
Thank you so much, I finally got it!! Please keep on making videos. I am subscribed lol
Thanks for the recording!
- BAppSci(MIT) Student from New Zealand
This is A HUGE HELP !!!! THANK YOU!!!
I have enjoyed your lecture and at the same time have learned about managing the resolution of an image.
I really enjoy your very informative videos
Much love
very good imformative vedio just keep posting new ones helps us a lot
Thanks a lot for the video
Hello, do you have any information, formula, or program about DR digital radiography with X-source and especially gamma ir192 so that I can calculate the radiation time?
you HAVE TO BE WRONG, when the student asks you, at the 19:33 mark, "if you collimate smaller, will the pixels also be smaller?" You answer to him, "yes, from what you understand that is the case..." etc. However, it is NOT true. the matrix is inherent in the image receptor. So two receptors with the same matrix size (or amount or number of pixels) but with different cassette or actual physical measurement sizes...the smaller physical size of the receptor will have smaller pixels. and therefore higher resolution per physical size than the larger receptor with dame amount of pixels
it should not be confused with SIZE OF COLLIMATION.
please get back to me if I am missing something here. because I have to take boards again to reinstate my license. and it has been years since I have. I don't want to be wrong.
Good question. Reducing field of view reduces pixel size during image processing on many systems because matrix size is inherent - not in the receptor - but in the computer. We see this in CT all the time. The matrix is fixed at 512x512 but we intentionally reduce the scan field of view in order to increase spatial resolution on the display field of view.
First I would like to say, I really enjoy your very informative videos and thank you for them. I have a question that was brought up on one of my quizzes from school. I know pixel size is the main controller of spatial resolution but are the matrix size and grayscale bit depth size also controllers of spatial resolution?
Great question. Matrix size is indirectly related to pixel size. As matrix size increases (all other factors remaining the same) pixel size decreases. Bit depth influences contrast resolution (not spatial resolution).
If I choose the large matrix machine , do I have to increase dosage bc it’s less photons in the pixel?
Awesome question! The short answers is no. But decreased pixel size can influence detective quantum efficiency. More info here: th-cam.com/video/2UAItBt6zvE/w-d-xo.html
Hi ...why spatial resolution is better in film screen system
Good question! I'm simplifying a little, but the active part of film is a molecule. The active part of digital is a computer chip. Molecules are smaller than computer chips. So film's spatial resolution is better than digital. Still, digital blows film out of the water for contrast resolution. Why? Because we can change window width and level through thousands of different shade of gray with digital. While with film what you see is what you get.
Rock The Registry thanks ....so the main reason for the spatial resolution to be limited is the pixels size
@@deemabudeiri7206 Exactly! We will never be able to make computer parts smaller than molecules. Also the smaller we make the dexels (detector elements that produce pixels) the lower the detector quantum efficiency (ability of the dexels to detect radiation).
Hey quick question, I'm am xray/ct tech, have been for 3 years. I am taking my boards in 2 weeks and am consistently getting 78-80% on all of my practice tests. I ace patient care and procedures but am struggling with physics.. my practice tests have been out of Mosbys, myregistryreview.com and examedge.com. ive got 78-80% on 5 tests but never below.. do you think I should reschedule the exam or do you think my scores are good enough?
Don't reschedule! Take the test. Chances are you'll pass. If you don't, it's a good learning opportunity for how in-depth the exam is. RadTech Bootcamp has some great videos and lessons on physics and image production.
@@RockTheRegistry okay, thanks for the advice! Your videos have been helping me alot. I'll let you know if/when I pass
@@blu8168 Please do! I'm always encouraged when this channel is able to help folks! Also, I wish my second book was out. It has a lot of physics stuff in it. Anyways, you might enjoy the first book, Time, Distance, and Shielding... it's a fun read for rad techs: amzn.to/2Oh3TDI
@@RockTheRegistry I got a 91 yesterday🤩 glad I didn't reschedule!
@@blu8168 YES!! You Rock! Way to go!