Computed Radiography: Physics and Technology

  • Euclid Seeram


This chapter describes the essential physics and technical considerations of computed radiography (CR). Firstly, a brief history of CR is reviewed including terms synonymous with CR, followed by a description of three main processes involved in CR including image acquisition, image processing, and image display, storage, and communication. Secondly, the basic physics of CR is described focusing on the nature of photostimulable storage phosphor (PSP), latent image formation and photostimulable luminescence (PSL), and PSL characteristics. Thirdly, the major topic outlined is the technological aspects of CR. These include the structure of CR imaging plate (IP), the IP imaging cycle, CR reader types and scanning technologies, features of the CR workstation, and computer networking and CR. Furthermore, image processing is elaborated and described in terms of pre-processing and post-processing operations. Fourthly, radiation exposure control in CR is explained in terms of the IP response to exposure, exposure indicators, and exposure indicator guidelines. Fifthly, an important topic described in this chapter deals with image quality descriptors including spatial resolution, density resolution, noise, and detective quantum efficiency. In addition, an overview of the nature of CR image artifacts is briefly reviewed. The final topic included in this chapter addresses continuous quality improvement (CQI) which includes quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC).


  1. 1.
    Lanca L, Silva A. Digital imaging systems for plain radiography. New York: Springer Science+Business Media; 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rowlands JA. The physics of computed radiography. Phys Med Biol. 2002;47:R123–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Neitzel U. Status and prospects of digital detector technology for CR and DR. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2005;14(1-3):32–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Seibert JA. Computed radiography technology. In: Goldman LW, Yester MV, editors. Specifications, performance, and quality assurance of radiographic and fluoroscopic systems in the digital era. College Park. Maryland: American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM); 2004.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fuji Photo Film Company. Fuji computed radiography technical review. No 14, Imaging Plate (IP). Tokyo, Japan. 2002; 1–23.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Flynn MJ. Processing digital radiographs of specific body parts. In: Samei E, editor. Advances in digital radiology, categorical course in diagnostic radiology physics. Illinois: RSNA; 2003.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    International Electrotechnical Commission. IEC 62494-1 ed. 1 Medical electrical equipment: exposure index of digital X-ray imaging systems-part 1: definitions and requirements for general radiography. Geneva, Switzerland: IEC. 2008.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Report No 116. An exposure indicator for digital radiography. College Park, MD: American Association of Physicists in Medicine; 2009.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bushong S. Radiologic science for technologists. 11th ed. St Louis, MO: Elsevier; 2017.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Willis CE, Thompson SK, Shepard SJ. Artifacts and misadventures in digital radiography. Appl Radiol. 2004;33(1):11–20.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cesar LJ, Schuelar BA, Zink FE, Daly TR, Taubel JP, Jorgenson LL. Artefacts in computed radiography. Brit J Radiol. 2001;4:195–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Honey ID, Mackenzie A. Artifacts found during quality assurance testing of computed radiography and digital radiography detectors. J Digit Imaging. 2009;22(4):383–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shetty CM, Barthur A, Kambadakone A, Narayanan N, Kv R. Computed radiography image artifacts revisited. Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196:W37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Herrmann TL, Fauber TL, Gill J, Hoffman C, Orth DK, Peterson PA, et al. Best practices in digital radiography. Albuquerque, NM: American Society of Radiologic Technologists (ASRT); 2012. p. 1–26.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM). Acceptance testing and quality control of photostimulable storage phosphor imaging systems. Report No 93. 2006. College Park, MD.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Euclid Seeram
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Medical Radiation Sciences University of SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Medical Radiation Sciences, Faculty of Health SciencesUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia
  3. 3.Adjunct Associate Professor, Medical Imaging and Radiation SciencesMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia
  4. 4.Adjunct Professor, Faculty of ScienceCharles Sturt UniversityWagga WaggaAustralia
  5. 5.Adjunct Associate Professor, Medical Radiation Sciences, Faculty of HealthUniversity of CanberraBruceAustralia

Personalised recommendations