Cargando…

Comparison of Epson scanner quality for radiochromic film evaluation

Epson Desktop scanners have been quoted as devices which match the characteristics required for the evaluation of radiation dose exposure by radiochromic films. Specifically, models such as the 10000XL have been used successfully for image analysis and are recommended by ISP for dosimetry purposes....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Alnawaf, Hani, Yu, Peter K.N., Butson, Martin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5718226/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22955661
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v13i5.3957
_version_ 1783284295003013120
author Alnawaf, Hani
Yu, Peter K.N.
Butson, Martin
author_facet Alnawaf, Hani
Yu, Peter K.N.
Butson, Martin
author_sort Alnawaf, Hani
collection PubMed
description Epson Desktop scanners have been quoted as devices which match the characteristics required for the evaluation of radiation dose exposure by radiochromic films. Specifically, models such as the 10000XL have been used successfully for image analysis and are recommended by ISP for dosimetry purposes. This note investigates and compares the scanner characteristics of three Epson desktop scanner models including the Epson 10000XL, V700, and V330. Both of the latter are substantially cheaper models capable of A4 scanning. As the price variation between the V330 and the 10000XL is 20‐fold (based on Australian recommended retail price), cost savings by using the cheaper scanners may be warranted based on results. By a direct comparison of scanner uniformity and reproducibility we can evaluate the accuracy of these scanners for radiochromic film dosimetry. Results have shown that all three scanners can produce adequate scanner uniformity and reproducibility, with the inexpensive V330 producing a standard deviation variation across its landscape direction of 0.7% and 1.2% in the portrait direction (reflection mode). This is compared to the V700 in reflection mode of 0.25% and 0.5% for landscape and portrait directions, respectively, and 0.5% and 0.8% for the 10000XL. In transmission mode, the V700 is comparable in reproducibility to the 10000XL for portrait and landscape mode, whilst the V330 is only capable of scanning in the landscape direction and produces a standard deviation in this direction of 1.0% compared to 0.6% (V700) and 0.25% (10000XL). Results have shown that the V700 and 10000XL are comparable scanners in quality and accuracy with the 10000XL obviously capable of imaging over an A3 area as opposed to an A4 area for the V700. The V330 scanner produced slightly lower accuracy and quality with uncertainties approximately twice as much as the other scanners. However, the results show that the V330 is still an adequate scanner and could be used for radiation dosimetry purposes. As such, if budgetary requirements are limited, the V700 scanner would be the recommended option at a price eight times cheaper than the 10000XL; however, the V330 produces adequate results at a price which is 2.5 times cheaper again. This may be a consideration for smaller institutions or individuals working with radiochromic film dosimetry. PACS number: 87.55.Qr; 87.56.Fc
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5718226
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57182262018-04-02 Comparison of Epson scanner quality for radiochromic film evaluation Alnawaf, Hani Yu, Peter K.N. Butson, Martin J Appl Clin Med Phys Technical Notes Epson Desktop scanners have been quoted as devices which match the characteristics required for the evaluation of radiation dose exposure by radiochromic films. Specifically, models such as the 10000XL have been used successfully for image analysis and are recommended by ISP for dosimetry purposes. This note investigates and compares the scanner characteristics of three Epson desktop scanner models including the Epson 10000XL, V700, and V330. Both of the latter are substantially cheaper models capable of A4 scanning. As the price variation between the V330 and the 10000XL is 20‐fold (based on Australian recommended retail price), cost savings by using the cheaper scanners may be warranted based on results. By a direct comparison of scanner uniformity and reproducibility we can evaluate the accuracy of these scanners for radiochromic film dosimetry. Results have shown that all three scanners can produce adequate scanner uniformity and reproducibility, with the inexpensive V330 producing a standard deviation variation across its landscape direction of 0.7% and 1.2% in the portrait direction (reflection mode). This is compared to the V700 in reflection mode of 0.25% and 0.5% for landscape and portrait directions, respectively, and 0.5% and 0.8% for the 10000XL. In transmission mode, the V700 is comparable in reproducibility to the 10000XL for portrait and landscape mode, whilst the V330 is only capable of scanning in the landscape direction and produces a standard deviation in this direction of 1.0% compared to 0.6% (V700) and 0.25% (10000XL). Results have shown that the V700 and 10000XL are comparable scanners in quality and accuracy with the 10000XL obviously capable of imaging over an A3 area as opposed to an A4 area for the V700. The V330 scanner produced slightly lower accuracy and quality with uncertainties approximately twice as much as the other scanners. However, the results show that the V330 is still an adequate scanner and could be used for radiation dosimetry purposes. As such, if budgetary requirements are limited, the V700 scanner would be the recommended option at a price eight times cheaper than the 10000XL; however, the V330 produces adequate results at a price which is 2.5 times cheaper again. This may be a consideration for smaller institutions or individuals working with radiochromic film dosimetry. PACS number: 87.55.Qr; 87.56.Fc John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2012-09-06 /pmc/articles/PMC5718226/ /pubmed/22955661 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v13i5.3957 Text en © 2012 The Authors. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Technical Notes
Alnawaf, Hani
Yu, Peter K.N.
Butson, Martin
Comparison of Epson scanner quality for radiochromic film evaluation
title Comparison of Epson scanner quality for radiochromic film evaluation
title_full Comparison of Epson scanner quality for radiochromic film evaluation
title_fullStr Comparison of Epson scanner quality for radiochromic film evaluation
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Epson scanner quality for radiochromic film evaluation
title_short Comparison of Epson scanner quality for radiochromic film evaluation
title_sort comparison of epson scanner quality for radiochromic film evaluation
topic Technical Notes
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5718226/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22955661
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v13i5.3957
work_keys_str_mv AT alnawafhani comparisonofepsonscannerqualityforradiochromicfilmevaluation
AT yupeterkn comparisonofepsonscannerqualityforradiochromicfilmevaluation
AT butsonmartin comparisonofepsonscannerqualityforradiochromicfilmevaluation