pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2602.20668 · v2 · submitted 2026-02-24 · ⚛️ physics.ins-det

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Development and characterization of the efficient portable X-ray imaging device based on Raspberry Pi camera

Nguyen Duc Ton , Nguyen Thanh Luan , Faizan Anjum , D. Joseph Daniel , Sunghwan Kim , Suchart Kothan , Jakrapong Kaewkhao , Hong Joo Kim
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 20:06 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.ins-det
keywords portable X-ray imagingRaspberry Pi camerascintillation screenmodulation transfer functionspatial resolutionindirect detectionGd2O2S:Tb
0
0 comments X

The pith

A Raspberry Pi camera paired with a scintillation screen forms a portable X-ray imager that reaches 25 lp/mm spatial resolution under X-ray exposure.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper describes building a compact X-ray imaging device from Raspberry Pi parts, using a 12.3-megapixel camera and Gd2O2S:Tb screen for indirect detection. Settings for ISO and exposure time are tuned after basic optical checks with ambient light. Spatial resolution is quantified via the slanted-edge method, producing MTF20 values of 68 lp/mm in ambient conditions and 25 lp/mm with 50-70 kV X-rays. Modularity is shown by successful swaps to LYSO:Ce and GAGG:Ce screens. The resulting performance lines up with clinical radiography systems, pointing to practical uses where portability and low cost are priorities.

Core claim

The developed device achieves MTF20 values of 68 lp/mm under ambient light and 25 lp/mm under X-ray irradiation at 50 and 70 kV, demonstrating spatial resolution comparable to clinical radiography systems while confirming modularity through tests with alternative scintillation screens.

What carries the argument

The indirect detection assembly of a Gd2O2S:Tb scintillation screen that converts X-rays to visible light for capture by the Raspberry Pi 12.3-megapixel camera.

Load-bearing premise

The slanted-edge method for deriving the modulation transfer function gives an accurate picture of true spatial resolution under X-ray conditions without extra corrections for screen geometry or light conversion effects.

What would settle it

Acquiring images of a standard resolution test pattern or line-pair phantom under the same 50-70 kV X-ray conditions and measuring the finest resolvable lines directly would show whether the reported 25 lp/mm holds up.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.20668 by D. Joseph Daniel, Faizan Anjum, Hong Joo Kim, Jakrapong Kaewkhao, Nguyen Duc Ton, Nguyen Thanh Luan, Suchart Kothan, Sunghwan Kim.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Sensitivity spectra of the RPi HQ camera based on Sony IMX477. Data was extracted from [69] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: An example of ROIs selection for contrast calculation. Two regions were selected on the bright and dark sides to determine the bright and dark levels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: (a) Simulated energy spectrum of X-ray at various tube voltages (kV), 40 mAs by using SpekPy toolkit [94, 95] and (b), measured dose at various kV-mAs settings. 3.5 Image Contrast and Signal-to-Noise Ratio Besides the MTF analysis, image contrast and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) are strongly influenced by the X-ray tube voltage, as shown in Figs.19 and 20. The observed inverse relationship between contrast… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

This study reports the development and characterization of an efficient portable X-ray imaging device built from Raspberry Pi components, including a high-quality 12.3-megapixel camera configured for indirect detection with a Gd2O2S:Tb scintillation screen. The device was evaluated under both ambient light and X-ray exposure conditions. Initial characterization under ambient light ensured proper optical focusing; subsequently, camera settings (ISO and exposure time) were evaluated and optimized for X-ray imaging performance. Spatial resolution of the developed device was quantified using the Slanted-Edge method to derive the Modulation Transfer Function (MTF). Besides the low-noise feature, the device achieves MTF20 values of 68 lp/mm under ambient light and 25 lp/mm under X-ray irradiation (50 and 70 kV). Moreover, the modularity of the developed device was confirmed by conducting the tests with LYSO:Ce and GAGG:Ce screens. The results demonstrate that this efficient, scientific-grade, compact platform achieves spatial resolution comparable to that of clinical radiography systems, highlighting its potential for applications in scientific, educational, and medical contexts where efficient and portability are critical considerations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript describes the development of a portable X-ray imaging device based on Raspberry Pi hardware and a 12.3-megapixel camera configured for indirect detection with a Gd2O2S:Tb scintillation screen. The device is characterized under ambient light (yielding MTF20 of 68 lp/mm) and X-ray irradiation at 50 and 70 kV (yielding MTF20 of 25 lp/mm) via the slanted-edge method; modularity is tested by repeating measurements with LYSO:Ce and GAGG:Ce screens. The central claim is that the resulting spatial resolution is comparable to clinical radiography systems.

Significance. If the reported MTF values can be shown to isolate the optical/camera contribution after proper accounting for scintillator blur, the work would demonstrate a low-cost, modular platform with potential utility in educational and field applications. The experimental testing across three scintillator materials and the use of a standard slanted-edge protocol are strengths that support reproducibility of the basic setup.

major comments (2)
  1. [Results (X-ray MTF characterization)] Results section on X-ray MTF: the reported MTF20 of 25 lp/mm is the composite system response (scintillator + optics + sensor). No deconvolution or subtraction of the known Gd2O2S:Tb screen MTF (which typically rolls off at 10–20 lp/mm in the 50–70 kV range) is performed, so the claim of comparability to clinical radiography systems rests on an unseparated measurement and cannot be evaluated from the presented data.
  2. [Methods (camera settings) and Results (MTF curves)] Methods and Results on camera optimization: ISO and exposure time are varied and selected, yet no uncertainty propagation, repeated measurements, or error bars on the derived MTF20 values are reported. This omission prevents assessment of whether the 25 lp/mm figure is statistically distinguishable from screen-limited performance alone.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'scientific-grade' is used without definition or quantitative criteria; a brief clarification of what performance metrics qualify the device as scientific-grade would improve precision.
  2. [Figures (MTF plots)] Figure presentation: MTF plots should explicitly label the kV setting, screen type, and whether the curve is raw or corrected; current captions leave this ambiguous for the X-ray data.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our manuscript describing the portable X-ray imaging device. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to improve clarity and rigor while preserving the focus on the integrated system performance.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Results section on X-ray MTF: the reported MTF20 of 25 lp/mm is the composite system response (scintillator + optics + sensor). No deconvolution or subtraction of the known Gd2O2S:Tb screen MTF (which typically rolls off at 10–20 lp/mm in the 50–70 kV range) is performed, so the claim of comparability to clinical radiography systems rests on an unseparated measurement and cannot be evaluated from the presented data.

    Authors: We agree that the reported MTF20 of 25 lp/mm is the composite system response. For characterizing a complete portable device intended for practical applications, the overall system MTF is the relevant figure of merit, as clinical radiography systems are likewise evaluated at the system level (including scintillator contributions). To address the concern, we will revise the Results and Discussion sections to explicitly clarify that the value is the integrated system MTF, add literature-based comparisons to typical clinical system MTF20 values (often 5–15 lp/mm), and note the expected scintillator contribution from published Gd2O2S:Tb data. This provides context without performing deconvolution, which was outside the scope of demonstrating device modularity and portability. revision: partial

  2. Referee: Methods and Results on camera optimization: ISO and exposure time are varied and selected, yet no uncertainty propagation, repeated measurements, or error bars on the derived MTF20 values are reported. This omission prevents assessment of whether the 25 lp/mm figure is statistically distinguishable from screen-limited performance alone.

    Authors: We acknowledge that uncertainty quantification strengthens the results. In the revised manuscript, we will update the Methods section to describe a protocol of at least three repeated measurements per condition and include uncertainty propagation in the slanted-edge MTF analysis. The Results section will present error bars on the MTF curves and MTF20 values, enabling readers to assess the statistical significance of the 25 lp/mm figure relative to scintillator-limited performance. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely experimental device characterization with direct measurements

full rationale

The paper reports hardware construction of a Raspberry Pi-based X-ray imager and its experimental evaluation via standard slanted-edge MTF measurements under ambient light and X-ray conditions. No derivations, predictions, fitted parameters, or self-citations are used to generate the central claims (MTF20 values of 68 lp/mm ambient and 25 lp/mm under X-ray). All reported quantities are direct outputs of the measurement protocol applied to the physical device; the analysis contains no equations that reduce results to inputs by construction and no load-bearing self-citations. This is a self-contained experimental report whose claims stand or fall on the validity of the measurements themselves rather than on any internal logical loop.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work is experimental device development with few explicit assumptions beyond standard imaging metrology.

free parameters (1)
  • ISO and exposure time
    Camera parameters tuned empirically for X-ray performance; specific values not stated in abstract.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Slanted-edge method yields accurate MTF for indirect X-ray detection with the chosen screen
    Invoked when reporting spatial resolution; standard technique assumed valid without additional validation steps described.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5535 in / 1111 out tokens · 40373 ms · 2026-05-15T20:06:49.069771+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 91 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    On a New Kind of Rays,

    W. C. Röntgen, “On a New Kind of Rays,” Science 3, (1896) 227.https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3.59.227

    work page doi:10.1126/science.3.59.227

  2. [2]

    From Röntgen to Magnetic Resonance Imaging,

    J. H. Scatliff and P. J. Morris, “From Röntgen to Magnetic Resonance Imaging,” North Carolina Medical Journal 75, (2014) 111.https://doi.org/10.18043/ncm.75.2.111

    work page doi:10.18043/ncm.75.2.111 2014

  3. [3]

    Zentai, X-Ray Imaging for Homeland Security, in 2008 IEEE International Workshop on Imaging Systems and Techniques, IEEE, (2008).https://doi.org/10.1109/IST.2008.4659929

    G. Zentai, X-Ray Imaging for Homeland Security, in 2008 IEEE International Workshop on Imaging Systems and Techniques, IEEE, (2008).https://doi.org/10.1109/IST.2008.4659929

    work page doi:10.1109/ist.2008.4659929 2008

  4. [5]

    EARLY CLINICAL USE OF THE X-RAY,

    J. HOWELL, “EARLY CLINICAL USE OF THE X-RAY,” Transactions of the American Clinical and Climatological Association 127, (2016) 341

    work page 2016

  5. [6]

    Arodzero, V

    A. Arodzero, V. Alreja, S. Boucher, P. Burstein, P. Kulinich, R. C. Lanza, V. Palermo and M. Tran, X-Ray Backscatter Security Inspection with Enhanced Depth of Effective Detection and Material Discrimination, in 2021 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (NSS/MIC), IEEE, (2021).https://doi.org/10.1109/NSS/MIC44867.2021.9875935

    work page doi:10.1109/nss/mic44867.2021.9875935 2021

  6. [7]

    A Preliminary Approach to Intelligent X-ray Imaging for Baggage Inspection at Airports,

    I. Uroukov and R. Speller, “A Preliminary Approach to Intelligent X-ray Imaging for Baggage Inspection at Airports,” Signal Processing Research 4, (2015) 1.https://doi.org/10.14355/spr.2015.04.001

    work page doi:10.14355/spr.2015.04.001 2015

  7. [8]

    A review of airport dual energy X-ray baggage inspection techniques: Image enhancement and noise reduction,

    S. U. Khan, I. U. Khan, I. Ullah, N. Saif and I. Ullah, “A review of airport dual energy X-ray baggage inspection techniques: Image enhancement and noise reduction,” Journal of X-Ray Science and Technology: Clinical Applications of Diagnosis and Therapeutics 28, (2020) 481.https://doi.org/10.3233/XST-200663

    work page doi:10.3233/xst-200663 2020

  8. [9]

    Imaging in airport security: Past, present, future, and the link to forensic and clinical radiology,

    O. E. Wetter, “Imaging in airport security: Past, present, future, and the link to forensic and clinical radiology,” Journal of Forensic Radiology and Imaging 1, Elsevier, (2013) 152.https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JOFRI.2013.07.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jofri.2013.07.002 2013

  9. [10]

    X-Ray Baggage Inspection With Computer Vision: A Survey,

    D. Mery, D. Saavedra and M. Prasad, “X-Ray Baggage Inspection With Computer Vision: A Survey,” IEEE Access 8, (2020) 145620.https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3015014

    work page doi:10.1109/access.2020.3015014 2020

  10. [11]

    High-resolution non-destructive three-dimensional imaging of integrated circuits,

    M. Holler, M. Guizar-Sicairos, E. H. R. Tsai, R. Dinapoli, E. Müller, O. Bunk, J. Raabe and G. Aeppli, “High-resolution non-destructive three-dimensional imaging of integrated circuits,” Nature 543, (2017) 402.https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21698

    work page doi:10.1038/nature21698 2017

  11. [12]

    Understanding X-ray cargo imaging,

    G. Chen, “Understanding X-ray cargo imaging,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 241, North-Holland, (2005) 810.https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NIMB.2005.07.136

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nimb.2005.07.136 2005

  12. [13]

    A review of X-ray explosives detection techniques for checked baggage,

    K. Wells and D. A. Bradley, “A review of X-ray explosives detection techniques for checked baggage,” Applied Radiation and Isotopes 70, Pergamon, (2012) 1729.https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APRADISO.2012.01.011

    work page doi:10.1016/j.apradiso.2012.01.011 2012

  13. [14]

    Automated X-ray image analysis for cargo security: Critical review and future promise,

    T. W. Rogers, N. Jaccard, E. J. Morton and L. D. Griffin, “Automated X-ray image analysis for cargo security: Critical review and future promise,” Journal of X-Ray Science and Technology 25, IOS Press, (2017) 33.https://doi.org/10.3233/XST-160606

    work page doi:10.3233/xst-160606 2017

  14. [15]

    Detection of concealed cars in complex cargo X- ray imagery using Deep Learning,

    N. Jaccard, T. W. Rogers, E. J. Morton and L. D. Griffin, “Detection of concealed cars in complex cargo X- ray imagery using Deep Learning,” Journal of X-Ray Science and Technology 25, IOS Press, (2017) 323.https://doi.org/10.3233/XST-16199

    work page doi:10.3233/xst-16199 2017

  15. [16]

    Anderson and D

    D. Anderson and D. Vukadinovic, X-Ray Baggage Screening and Artificial Intelligence (AI) A Technical Review of Machine Learning Techniques for X-Ray Baggage Screening, in JRC Science for Policy Report, (2022).https://doi.org/10.2760/46363

    work page doi:10.2760/46363 2022

  16. [17]

    Rakay and M

    R. Rakay and M. Vagas, The Comparison of Machine Vision Approaches for Standard Industrial Solutions, in 2024 25th International Carpathian Control Conference (ICCC), IEEE, (2024).https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCC62069.2024.10569872

    work page doi:10.1109/iccc62069.2024.10569872 2024

  17. [18]

    18F‐Fluorocholine PET/CT and Parathyroid 4D Computed Tomography for Primary Hyperparathyroidism: The Challenge of Reoperative Patients,

    C. Amadou, G. Bera, M. Ezziane, L. Chami, T. Delbot, A. Rouxel, M. Leban, G. Herve, F. Menegaux, et al., “18F‐Fluorocholine PET/CT and Parathyroid 4D Computed Tomography for Primary Hyperparathyroidism: The Challenge of Reoperative Patients,” World Journal of Surgery 43, (2019) 1232.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-019-04910-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s00268-019-04910-6 2019

  18. [19]

    M. S. Hofman, N. Lawrentschuk, R. J. Francis, C. Tang, I. Vela, P. Thomas, N. Rutherford, J. M. Martin, M. Frydenberg, et al., “Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET-CT in patients with high-risk prostate cancer before curative-intent surgery or radiotherapy (proPSMA): a prospective, randomised, multicentre study,” The Lancet 395, (2020) 1208.https://doi...

    work page doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(20)30314-7 2020

  19. [20]

    Harness the Power of Upconversion Nanoparticles for Spectral Computed Tomography Diagnosis of Osteosarcoma,

    Y. Jin, D. Ni, L. Gao, X. Meng, Y. Lv, F. Han, H. Zhang, Y. Liu, Z. Yao, et al., “Harness the Power of Upconversion Nanoparticles for Spectral Computed Tomography Diagnosis of Osteosarcoma,” Advanced Functional Materials 28, (2018).https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.201802656

    work page doi:10.1002/adfm.201802656 2018

  20. [21]

    Contrast-detail evaluation and dose assessment of eight digital chest radiography systems in clinical practice,

    W. J. H. Veldkamp, L. J. M. Kroft, M. V. Boot, B. J. A. Mertens and J. Geleijns, “Contrast-detail evaluation and dose assessment of eight digital chest radiography systems in clinical practice,” European Radiology 16, Eur Radiol, (2006) 333.https://doi.org/10.1007/S00330-005-2887-6,

    work page doi:10.1007/s00330-005-2887-6 2006

  21. [22]

    Scintillator materials for x-ray detectors and beam monitors,

    T. Martin, A. Koch and M. Nikl, “Scintillator materials for x-ray detectors and beam monitors,” MRS Bulletin 42, (2017) 451.https://doi.org/10.1557/mrs.2017.116

    work page doi:10.1557/mrs.2017.116 2017

  22. [23]

    High‐Performance Next‐Generation Perovskite Nanocrystal Scintillator for Nondestructive X‐Ray Imaging,

    J. H. Heo, D. H. Shin, J. K. Park, D. H. Kim, S. J. Lee and S. H. Im, “High‐Performance Next‐Generation Perovskite Nanocrystal Scintillator for Nondestructive X‐Ray Imaging,” Advanced Materials 30, (2018).https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201801743

    work page doi:10.1002/adma.201801743 2018

  23. [24]

    Lens coupled scintillating screen-CCD X-ray area detector with a high detective quantum efficiency,

    A. Koch, “Lens coupled scintillating screen-CCD X-ray area detector with a high detective quantum efficiency,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 348, North-Holland, (1994) 654.https://doi.org/10.1016/0168- 9002(94)90818-4. – 19 –

    work page doi:10.1016/0168- 1994

  24. [25]

    Recent developments in digital radiography detectors,

    J. Yorkston, “Recent developments in digital radiography detectors,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 580, North- Holland, (2007) 974.https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NIMA.2007.06.041

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2007.06.041 2007

  25. [26]

    Recent developments in X-ray imaging with micrometer spatial resolution,

    T. Martin and A. Koch, “Recent developments in X-ray imaging with micrometer spatial resolution,” Journal of Synchrotron Radiation 13, (2006) 180.https://doi.org/10.1107/S0909049506000550

    work page doi:10.1107/s0909049506000550 2006

  26. [28]

    A Novel Method for Developing Thin Resin Scintillator Screens and Application in an X-ray CMOS Imaging Sensor,

    D. Linardatos, G. Fountos, I. Valais and C. Michail, “A Novel Method for Developing Thin Resin Scintillator Screens and Application in an X-ray CMOS Imaging Sensor,” Sensors 2023, Vol. 23, Page 6588 23, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, (2023) 6588.https://doi.org/10.3390/S23146588

    work page doi:10.3390/s23146588 2023

  27. [30]

    Advances in digital radiography: Physical principles and system overview,

    M. Körner, C. H. Weber, S. Wirth, K. J. Pfeifer, M. F. Reiser and M. Treitl, “Advances in digital radiography: Physical principles and system overview,” Radiographics 27, Radiographics, (2007) 675.https://doi.org/10.1148/RG.273065075,

    work page doi:10.1148/rg.273065075 2007

  28. [31]

    Recent measurements on scintillator-photodetector systems,

    E. S.-I. T. on N. Science and undefined 1987, “Recent measurements on scintillator-photodetector systems,” ieeexplore.ieee.orgE SakaiIEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, 1987•ieeexplore.ieee.orghttps://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/4337375/

    work page arXiv 1987

  29. [32]

    High energy X-ray radiation sensitive scintillating materials for medical imaging, cancer diagnosis and therapy,

    L. Lu, M. Sun, Q. Lu, T. Wu and B. Huang, “High energy X-ray radiation sensitive scintillating materials for medical imaging, cancer diagnosis and therapy,” Nano Energy 79, Elsevier, (2021) 105437.https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NANOEN.2020.105437

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nanoen.2020.105437 2021

  30. [33]

    Experimental measurement of a high resolution CMOS detector coupled to CsI scintillators under X-ray radiation,

    C. Michail, I. Valais, I. Seferis, N. Kalyvas, G. Fountos and I. Kandarakis, “Experimental measurement of a high resolution CMOS detector coupled to CsI scintillators under X-ray radiation,” Radiation Measurements 74, Pergamon, (2015) 39.https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RADMEAS.2015.02.007

    work page doi:10.1016/j.radmeas.2015.02.007 2015

  31. [34]

    Digital radiography — a review of detector design,

    R. H. Harrison, “Digital radiography — a review of detector design,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 310, North- Holland, (1991) 24.https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-9002(91)90995-3

    work page doi:10.1016/0168-9002(91)90995-3 1991

  32. [35]

    Digital compared with screen-film mammography: Measures of diagnostic accuracy among women screened in the Ontario breast screening program,

    M. V. Prummel, D. Muradali, R. Shumak, V. Majpruz, P. Brown, H. Jiang, S. J. Done, M. J. Yaffe and A. M. Chiarelli, “Digital compared with screen-film mammography: Measures of diagnostic accuracy among women screened in the Ontario breast screening program,” Radiology 278, Radiological Society of North America Inc., (2016) 365.https://doi.org/10.1148/RADI...

    work page doi:10.1148/radiol.2015150733 2016

  33. [36]

    Screen- film versus computed radiography imaging of the hand: A direct comparison,

    R. G. Swee, J. E. Gray, J. W. Beabout, R. A. McLeod, K. L. Cooper, J. R. Bond and D. E. Wenger, “Screen- film versus computed radiography imaging of the hand: A direct comparison,” American Journal of Roentgenology 168, American Roentgen Ray Society, (1997) 539.https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.168.2.9016243

    work page doi:10.2214/ajr.168.2.9016243 1997

  34. [37]

    Screen film processing systems for medical radiography: a historical review.,

    A. G. Haus and J. E. Cullinan, “Screen film processing systems for medical radiography: a historical review.,” Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc 9, Radiographics, (1989) 1203.https://doi.org/10.1148/RADIOGRAPHICS.9.6.2685941,

    work page doi:10.1148/radiographics.9.6.2685941 1989

  35. [38]

    Enzymatic recovery of silver from waste radiographic film: Optimize with response surface methodology,

    A. Engidayehu and O. Sahu, “Enzymatic recovery of silver from waste radiographic film: Optimize with response surface methodology,” Sustainable Chemistry and Pharmacy 15, (2020) 100224.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scp.2020.100224

    work page doi:10.1016/j.scp.2020.100224 2020

  36. [39]

    Identification of cellulose nitrate X-ray film for the purpose of conservation: Organic elemental analysis,

    K. Konstantinidou, S. Strekopytov, E. Humphreys-Williams and M. Kearney, “Identification of cellulose nitrate X-ray film for the purpose of conservation: Organic elemental analysis,” Studies in Conservation 62, (2017) 24.https://doi.org/10.1080/00393630.2016.1150411

    work page doi:10.1080/00393630.2016.1150411 2017

  37. [40]

    Recent Development in X-Ray Imaging Technology: Future and Challenges,

    X. Ou, X. Chen, X. Xu, L. Xie, X. Chen, Z. Hong, H. Bai, X. Liu, Q. Chen, et al., “Recent Development in X-Ray Imaging Technology: Future and Challenges,” Research 2021, (2021).https://doi.org/10.34133/2021/9892152

    work page doi:10.34133/2021/9892152 2021

  38. [41]

    Storage phosphors for medical imaging,

    P. Leblans, D. Vandenbroucke and P. Willems, “Storage phosphors for medical imaging,” Materials 4, Materials (Basel), (2011) 1034.https://doi.org/10.3390/MA4061034,

    work page doi:10.3390/ma4061034 2011

  39. [42]

    Advances in computed radiography systems and their physical imaging characteristics,

    A. R. Cowen, A. G. Davies and S. M. Kengyelics, “Advances in computed radiography systems and their physical imaging characteristics,” Clinical Radiology 62, (2007) 1132.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2007.07.009

    work page doi:10.1016/j.crad.2007.07.009 2007

  40. [43]

    The physics of computed radiography,

    J. A. Rowlands, “The physics of computed radiography,” Physics in Medicine and Biology 47, (2002) R123.https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/47/23/201

    work page doi:10.1088/0031-9155/47/23/201 2002

  41. [44]

    Recent Developments of Amorphous Selenium-Based X-Ray Detectors: A Review,

    H. Huang and S. Abbaszadeh, “Recent Developments of Amorphous Selenium-Based X-Ray Detectors: A Review,” IEEE Sensors Journal 20, (2020) 1694.https://doi.org/10.1109/JSEN.2019.2950319

    work page doi:10.1109/jsen.2019.2950319 2020

  42. [45]

    Digital radiography with large-area flat-panel detectors,

    E. Kotter and M. Langer, “Digital radiography with large-area flat-panel detectors,” European Radiology 12, (2002) 2562.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-002-1350-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s00330-002-1350-1 2002

  43. [47]

    Digital Chest Radiography with a Solid-state Flat-Panel X-ray Detector: Contrast-Detail Evaluation with Processed Images Printed on Film Hard Copy,

    H. G. Chotas and C. E. Ravin, “Digital Chest Radiography with a Solid-state Flat-Panel X-ray Detector: Contrast-Detail Evaluation with Processed Images Printed on Film Hard Copy,” Radiology 218, (2001) 679.https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.218.3.r01mr27679

    work page doi:10.1148/radiology.218.3.r01mr27679 2001

  44. [48]

    Flat detectors and their clinical applications,

    M. Spahn, “Flat detectors and their clinical applications,” European Radiology 15, (2005) 1934.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-005-2734-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s00330-005-2734-9 2005

  45. [49]

    Status and prospects of digital detector technology for CR and DR,

    U. Neitzel, “Status and prospects of digital detector technology for CR and DR,” Radiation Protection Dosimetry 114, (2005) 32.https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/nch532

    work page doi:10.1093/rpd/nch532 2005

  46. [50]

    The Dexela 2923 CMOS X-ray detector: A flat panel detector based on CMOS active pixel sensors for medical imaging applications,

    A. C. Konstantinidis, M. B. Szafraniec, R. D. Speller and A. Olivo, “The Dexela 2923 CMOS X-ray detector: A flat panel detector based on CMOS active pixel sensors for medical imaging applications,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 689, North-Holland, (2012) 12.ht...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2012.06.024 2012

  47. [51]

    Solid-state, flat-panel, digital radiography detectors and their physical imaging characteristics,

    A. R. Cowen, S. M. Kengyelics and A. G. Davies, “Solid-state, flat-panel, digital radiography detectors and their physical imaging characteristics,” Clinical Radiology 63, (2008) 487.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2007.10.014

    work page doi:10.1016/j.crad.2007.10.014 2008

  48. [52]

    X-ray detectors for digital radiography,

    M. J. Yaffe and J. A. Rowlands, “X-ray detectors for digital radiography,” Physics in Medicine and Biology 42, (1997) 1.https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/42/1/001

    work page doi:10.1088/0031-9155/42/1/001 1997

  49. [53]

    Performance of scintillating waveguides for CCD-based X-ray detectors,

    X. Badel, B. Norlin, P. Kleimann, L. Williams, S. J. Moody, G. C. Tyrrell, C. Frojdh and J. Linnros, “Performance of scintillating waveguides for CCD-based X-ray detectors,” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 53, (2006) 3.https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.2005.862981

    work page doi:10.1109/tns.2005.862981 2006

  50. [54]

    An experimental comparison of detector performance for direct and indirect digital radiography systems,

    E. Samei and M. J. Flynn, “An experimental comparison of detector performance for direct and indirect digital radiography systems,” Medical Physics 30, John Wiley and Sons Ltd, (2003) 608.https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1561285;CTYPE:STRING:JOURNAL

    work page doi:10.1118/1.1561285;ctype:string:journal 2003

  51. [55]

    Digital radiography: Image quality and radiation dose,

    J. A. Seibert, “Digital radiography: Image quality and radiation dose,” Health Physics 95, (2008) 586.https://doi.org/10.1097/01.HP.0000326338.14198.a2

    work page doi:10.1097/01.hp.0000326338.14198.a2 2008

  52. [56]

    Towards patient dose optimization in digital radiography,

    G. Andria, F. Attivissimo, G. Guglielmi, A. M. L. Lanzolla, A. Maiorana and M. Mangiantini, “Towards patient dose optimization in digital radiography,” Measurement 79, Elsevier, (2016) 331.https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MEASUREMENT.2015.08.015

    work page doi:10.1016/j.measurement.2015.08.015 2016

  53. [57]

    Digital radiography. A comparison with modern conventional imaging,

    G. J. Bansal, “Digital radiography. A comparison with modern conventional imaging,” Postgraduate Medical Journal 82, (2006) 425.https://doi.org/10.1136/PGMJ.2005.038448

    work page doi:10.1136/pgmj.2005.038448 2006

  54. [58]

    Development of a lens-coupled CMOS detector for an X-ray inspection system,

    H. K. Kim, J. K. Ahn and G. Cho, “Development of a lens-coupled CMOS detector for an X-ray inspection system,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 545, North-Holland, (2005) 210.https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NIMA.2005.01.310

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2005.01.310 2005

  55. [59]

    Tradeoffs between image quality and dose,

    J. A. Seibert, “Tradeoffs between image quality and dose,” Pediatric Radiology 34, (2004) S183.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-004-1268-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s00247-004-1268-7 2004

  56. [60]

    Image Quality, Radiation Dose, and Patient Comfort Associated with Wireless Sensors in Digital Radiography: A Systematic Review.,

    C. M. Ardila, A. M. Vivares-Builes and E. Pineda-Vélez, “Image Quality, Radiation Dose, and Patient Comfort Associated with Wireless Sensors in Digital Radiography: A Systematic Review.,” Dentistry journal 12, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI), (2024).https://doi.org/10.3390/dj12080267

    work page doi:10.3390/dj12080267 2024

  57. [61]

    An X-ray imaging detector based on pixel structured scintillator,

    B.-J. Kim, G. Cho, B. Kyung Cha and B. Kang, “An X-ray imaging detector based on pixel structured scintillator,” Radiation Measurements 42, (2007) 1415.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radmeas.2007.05.055

    work page doi:10.1016/j.radmeas.2007.05.055 2007

  58. [62]

    Fabrication and imaging characterization of high sensitive CsI(Tl) and Gd2O2S(Tb) scintillator screens for X-ray imaging detectors,

    B. K. Cha, J. Y. Kim, T. J. Kim, C. Sim and G. Cho, “Fabrication and imaging characterization of high sensitive CsI(Tl) and Gd2O2S(Tb) scintillator screens for X-ray imaging detectors,” Radiation Measurements 45, Pergamon, (2010) 742.https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RADMEAS.2009.12.025

    work page doi:10.1016/j.radmeas.2009.12.025 2010

  59. [63]

    Development of a Mini-Mobile Digital Radiography System by Using Wireless Smart Devices,

    C. W. Jeong, S. C. Joo, J. H. Ryu, J. Lee, K. W. Kim and K. H. Yoon, “Development of a Mini-Mobile Digital Radiography System by Using Wireless Smart Devices,” Journal of Digital Imaging 27, Springer New York LLC, (2014) 443.https://doi.org/10.1007/S10278-013-9659-7,

    work page doi:10.1007/s10278-013-9659-7 2014

  60. [64]

    Detection of visible photons in CCD and CMOS: A comparative view,

    P. Magnan, “Detection of visible photons in CCD and CMOS: A comparative view,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 504, North-Holland, (2003) 199.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9002(03)00792-7

    work page doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(03)00792-7 2003

  61. [65]

    CMOS image sensors: electronic camera-on-a-chip,

    E. R. Fossum, “CMOS image sensors: electronic camera-on-a-chip,” IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices 44, (1997) 1689.https://doi.org/10.1109/16.628824

    work page doi:10.1109/16.628824 1997

  62. [66]

    Physical characterization and performance comparison of active- and passive-pixel CMOS detectors for mammography,

    I. A. Elbakri, B. J. McIntosh and D. W. Rickey, “Physical characterization and performance comparison of active- and passive-pixel CMOS detectors for mammography,” Physics in Medicine and Biology 54, (2009) 1743.https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/54/6/022

    work page doi:10.1088/0031-9155/54/6/022 2009

  63. [67]

    Comparison of CCD, CMOS and Hybrid Pixel x-ray detectors: detection principle and data quality,

    P. Allé, E. Wenger, S. Dahaoui, D. Schaniel and C. Lecomte, “Comparison of CCD, CMOS and Hybrid Pixel x-ray detectors: detection principle and data quality,” Physica Scripta 91, IOP Publishing, (2016) 063001.https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-8949/91/6/063001

    work page doi:10.1088/0031-8949/91/6/063001 2016

  64. [68]

    Raspberry Pi 4 Model B – Raspberry Pi

    “Raspberry Pi 4 Model B – Raspberry Pi”AccessedJuly 2, 2025https://www.raspberrypi.com/products/raspberry-pi-4-model-b/

    work page

  65. [69]

    Raspberry Pi High Quality Camera – Raspberry Pi

    “Raspberry Pi High Quality Camera – Raspberry Pi”AccessedJuly 2, 2025https://www.raspberrypi.com/products/raspberry-pi-high-quality-camera/. – 21 –

    work page

  66. [70]

    Huu-Quoc Nguyen, Ton Thi Kim Loan, Bui Dinh Mao and Eui-Nam Huh, Low Cost Real-Time System Monitoring Using Raspberry Pi, in 2015 Seventh International Conference on Ubiquitous and Future Networks, IEEE, (2015).https://doi.org/10.1109/ICUFN.2015.7182665

    work page doi:10.1109/icufn.2015.7182665 2015

  67. [71]

    A. D. Deshmukh and U. B. Shinde, A Low Cost Environment Monitoring System Using Raspberry Pi and Arduino with Zigbee, in 2016 International Conference on Inventive Computation Technologies (ICICT), IEEE, (2016).https://doi.org/10.1109/INVENTIVE.2016.7830096

    work page doi:10.1109/inventive.2016.7830096 2016

  68. [72]

    Analyze and Designing Low-Cost Network Monitoring System Using Icinga and Raspberry Pi,

    H. Maulana and Al-Khowarizmi, “Analyze and Designing Low-Cost Network Monitoring System Using Icinga and Raspberry Pi,” IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 704, (2021) 012038.https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/704/1/012038

    work page doi:10.1088/1755-1315/704/1/012038 2021

  69. [73]

    Development of a low-cost vision-based real-time displacement system using Raspberry Pi,

    M. Wang, K. Y. Koo, C. Liu and F. Xu, “Development of a low-cost vision-based real-time displacement system using Raspberry Pi,” Engineering Structures 278, Elsevier, (2023) 115493.https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENGSTRUCT.2022.115493

    work page doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.115493 2023

  70. [74]

    A. M. Botti, L. Barreiro, S. Benas, C. Bonifazi, F. Cammarata, M. Danussi, E. Depaoli, P. López Maggi, J. Pérez Lanzillotta, et al., Low-Cost CMOS Tech for Inclusive High-Energy Physics Education, in Proceedings of 39th International Cosmic Ray Conference — PoS(ICRC2025), Sissa Medialab, Trieste, Italy, (2025).https://doi.org/10.22323/1.501.1239

    work page doi:10.22323/1.501.1239 2025

  71. [75]

    SONY, Product Information: IMX477-AACK Diagonal 7.857 Mm (Type 1/2.3) 12.3 Mega-Pixel CMOS Image Sensor with Square Pixel for Color Cameras, (2018)AccessedFebruary 18, 2026https://www.sony- semicon.com/files/62/pdf/p-13_IMX477-AACK_Flyer.pdf

    work page 2018

  72. [76]

    Fast MTF measurement of CMOS imagers using ISO 12333 slanted-edge methodology,

    M. Estribeau and P. Magnan, “Fast MTF measurement of CMOS imagers using ISO 12333 slanted-edge methodology,” https://doi.org/10.1117/12.513320 5251, SPIE, (2004) 243.https://doi.org/10.1117/12.513320

    work page doi:10.1117/12.513320 2004

  73. [77]

    A method to measure the MTF of digital x ray systems,

    R. A. Sones and G. T. Barnes, “A method to measure the MTF of digital x ray systems,” Medical Physics 11, (1984) 166.https://doi.org/10.1118/1.595493

    work page doi:10.1118/1.595493 1984

  74. [78]

    A method for measuring the presampled MTF of digital radiographic systems using an edge test device,

    E. Samei, M. J. Flynn and D. A. Reimann, “A method for measuring the presampled MTF of digital radiographic systems using an edge test device,” Medical Physics 25, (1998) 102.https://doi.org/10.1118/1.598165

    work page doi:10.1118/1.598165 1998

  75. [79]

    Ehsan Samei, Performance of Digital Radiographic Detectors: Quantification and Assessment Methods 1, (2003)

    work page 2003

  76. [80]

    Modified slanted-edge method and multidirectional modulation transfer function estimation,

    K. Masaoka, T. Yamashita, Y. Nishida and M. Sugawara, “Modified slanted-edge method and multidirectional modulation transfer function estimation,” Optics Express 22, (2014) 6040.https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.22.006040

    work page doi:10.1364/oe.22.006040 2014

  77. [81]

    Medical electrical equipment-Characteristics of digital X-ray imaging devices-Part 1-1: Determination of the Detective Quantum Efficiency-Detectors used in radiographic imaging,

    I. E. Commission, “Medical electrical equipment-Characteristics of digital X-ray imaging devices-Part 1-1: Determination of the Detective Quantum Efficiency-Detectors used in radiographic imaging,” IEC 62220-1- 1, International Electrotechnical Commission, (2015)

    work page 2015

  78. [82]

    Medical Electrical Equipment–Charac-teristics of Digital X-Ray Imaging Devices– Part 1: Determination of the Detective Quantum Efficiency, IEC 62220-1,

    I.-I. E. Commission, “Medical Electrical Equipment–Charac-teristics of Digital X-Ray Imaging Devices– Part 1: Determination of the Detective Quantum Efficiency, IEC 62220-1,” Geneva, Switzerland, (2003)

    work page 2003

  79. [83]

    Point spread-function, line spread-function, and modulation transfer function. Tools for the study of imaging systems.,

    K. Rossmann, “Point spread-function, line spread-function, and modulation transfer function. Tools for the study of imaging systems.,” Radiology 93, (1969) 257.https://doi.org/10.1148/93.2.257

    work page doi:10.1148/93.2.257 1969

  80. [84]

    Dobbins, Image Quality Metrics for Digital Systems, in Handbook of Medical Imaging, Volume 1

    J. Dobbins, Image Quality Metrics for Digital Systems, in Handbook of Medical Imaging, Volume 1. Physics and Psychophysics, SPIE, 1000 20th Street, Bellingham, WA 98227-0010 USA.https://doi.org/10.1117/3.832716.ch3

    work page doi:10.1117/3.832716.ch3

Showing first 80 references.