Pfeiffer DR

Evaluation of the Medipix Detectors for
Medical X-Ray Imaging, with Special

Consideration of Mammography
Den Naturwissenschaftlichen Fakultaten

der Friedrich-Alexander-Universitat Erlangen-N
urnberg
zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades
vorgelegt von
Karl-Friedrich G. Pfeiffer
aus Ndoungue
Als Dissertation genehmigt von den Naturwissenschaftlichen Fakultaten

der Universit
at Erlangen-N
urnberg
Tag der m
undlichen Pr
ufung:
15.12.2004
Vorsitzender der
Promotionskommission:
Prof. Dr. D.-P. Hader
Erstberichterstatter:
Prof. Dr. G. Anton
Zweitberichterstatter:
Prof. Dr. E. Steffens
Contents
1 Introduction
2 Photon Counting Detectors

2.1 Basic Types of Imaging Detectors
2.2 Advantages of Photon Counting .
2.3 The Medipix1 Detector . . . . .
2.4 The Medipix2 Detector . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
3
5
7
9
3 Basic Quality Definitions

3.1 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2 Determination of MTF and DQE
3.2.1 Measuring the MTF . . .
3.2.2 Calculating the DQE . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
11
11
12
12
13
4 Experimental Setup and ROSI

4.1 Experimental Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1.1 Equipment and Accessories . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1.2 Calibration of the X-ray Source . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2 The Simulation Tool ROSI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3 Reasons for Using ROSI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3.1 Comparison Between Ideal and Non-Ideal Detectors
4.3.2 The Influence of Scattered Radiation . . . . . . . . .
4.3.3 Test of the Image Assembling Routines . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
15
15
15
16
18
19
19
21
23
5 Detector Characterisation
5.1 The Medipix1 Detector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.1.1 Effects of the Detector Bias . . . . . . . . . . .
5.1.2 Threshold Tuning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.1.3 Threshold Calibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.1.4 Fixed-Pattern Correction and Quantum Noise .
5.1.5 MTF, NPS and DQE . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.1.6 Charge Sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2 The Medipix2 Detector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.1 Effects of the Detector Bias . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.2 Threshold Tuning and Calibration . . . . . . .
5.2.3 Quantum Noise and Fixed-Pattern Correction .
5.2.4 MTF, NPS and DQE . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.5 Charge Sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
25
25
25
27
28
31
31
34
38
38
38
38
38
42
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ii
CONTENTS
5.3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
44
44
46
49
49
53
53
6 Large-Scale Images
6.1 Basic Ideas and Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1.1 Move & Tile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1.2 Tile & Move . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1.3 Comparison Between Both Methods . . . . . . . .
6.2 Experimental Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.3 Image Acquisition and Composition . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.3.1 Image Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.3.2 Data Processing and Image Composition . . . . . .
6.4 Examples of Large-Scale Images . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.4.1 Move & Tile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.4.2 Tile & Move . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.5 Further Ideas for Automated Image Assembly . . . . . . .
6.5.1 Image Difference Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.5.2 Autocorrelation Methods and Similar Approaches
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
61
61
61
64
65
65
67
67
67
68
68
68
71
71
73
5.4
Phantoms for Characterisation & Comparison . . . .

5.3.1 Phantoms used for the Basic Characterisation
5.3.2 Mammographic Phantoms . . . . . . . . . . .
Direct Detector Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.4.1 Images of the WMRP 152A . . . . . . . . . .
5.4.2 The CDMAM Phantom: Visual Comparison
5.4.3 The CDMAM Phantom: Measured values . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7 Summary and Outlook
77
8 Zusammenfassung und Ausblick
79
A Phantoms
A.1 Simple Phantoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.1.1 Siemensstar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.1.2 H
uttner grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.1.3 Contrast-Detail Mammographic Phantom . . . . .
A.1.4 Wisconsin Mammographic Random Phantom 152A
.
.
.
.
.
83
83
83
83
84
85
B Technical Specifications of the Equipment

B.1 The Mammomat B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B.2 Translation Stages and Motion Controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B.3 Dose Meters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
87
87
87
88
C Programs and Scripts

C.1 Server/Client Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C.2 MATLAB Scripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
89
89
90
D Glossary
91
List of Figures
92
Bibliography
97
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Chapter 1
Introduction
Semiconductor sensors and detectors have been introduced over 60 years ago [E.H03] and
are by now widely in use. The applications of semiconductor detectors range from the
detection of infrared radiation (e. g. for telecommunication purposes) over X-ray imaging
(e. g. detectors for medical imaging using amorphous silicon) and gamma-ray detectors
(e. g. EPIC on XMM-Newton) up to high energy physics and particle detectors (e.g. ATLAS at CERN).
The work presented here studies two generations of a new kind of semiconductor pixel
detectors which were developed for X-ray imaging in the photon counting regime. They
consist of two layers which are connected via so-called bump bonds: a semiconductor layer
to convert the X-ray photons directly to electron-hole pairs and another layer containing
sophisticated electronics to count the absorbed photons in every pixel separately. A
detailed description of the detectors can be found in chapters 2.3 and 2.4.
Figure 1.1 shows the first good image taken with a Medipix1 detector at the beginning
of this work. One can see a blown fuse1 : the gap in the wire coil can be seen in the
upper right part of the coil. The metal which evaporated there condensed at the glass
housing (encircled spot) and even the fibre bundle supporting the wire coil is visible. A
photograph of this fuse is shown in figure 1.2: one can see the encircled metal droplet just
below the wire coil.
This image is also an example for one of the main advantages of the concept of photon
counting detectors (cf. chapter 2.2), namely the very large dynamic range.
1 This
fuse was actually from the X-ray machine used to take all the images (see chapter 4.1.1).
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
5000
4500
10
4000
3000
30
2500
2000
40
counts / pixel
3500
20
1500
50
1000
500
60
10
20
30
40
50
60
Figure 1.1: The first good image taken with the Medipix1 detector at the beginning of this
work. It shows a blown fuse ( 5 mm): the encircled spot is metal which evaporated from the
wire coil when the fuse was blown and condensed at the colder glass housing. The gap in the
wire coil is also clearly visible. The grey value encodes the number of photons counted in the
respective pixel. The spread white points are noisy pixels set to zero.
Figure 1.2: Photograph of the blown fuse shown in figure 1.1. One can see the metal droplet
encircled in the X-ray image just below the wire coil. By comparing the X-ray image with the
photograph one can also try to find the second metal droplet, which could have been a noisy
pixel just as well (the apparent lateral distance to the coil depends on the angle of rotation of
the fuse!).
Chapter 2
Photon Counting Detectors

2.1
Basic Types of Imaging Detectors
Requirements for Mammography

In the field of medical imaging there are so many different and sometimes conflicting
requirements for the detector that it is very hard to find a single detector that can fulfil
them all. It is therefore probably most promising to optimise a new detector for a more
limited task such as for example angiography or mammography.
Since one probable field for the Medipix detectors is mammography, the particular
requirements are given in more detail: For mammography there are two factors which are
especially important for the diagnostic value of an imaging system: on the one hand the
spatial resolution should be of the order of 50 m (i. e. 10 lp/mm 1 ) or better to resolve
the shape of microcalcifications, since their shape is an indicator for the probability of a
finding to be malignant [YAMY04, FLGB+ 02]. On the other hand the Signal-to-NoiseRatio (SNR) of the imaging system must be very high since the contrast caused by different
types of soft tissue is quite low. Additional requirements are high sensitivity for the X-ray
spectra used to keep the patient dose as low as possible2 and a large dynamic range to
minimise the risk of under- or overexposed images.
Imaging Systems and Comparative Values
There are a number of different parameters which can be taken into account for the
comparison of different imaging systems. Often the maximum resolution of a detector
and the image SNR for a certain object and X-ray dose are given, both of which can
be determined rather easily. Especially for medical imaging another figure of merit is
frequently used although it cannot be determined directly from a single image: the socalled Detective Quantum Efficiency (DQE), which describes the overall efficiency of a
detector as a function of spatial frequency. The DQE and how it can be measured will be
described in detail in chapters 3.1 and 3.2.2.
Simple photographic films offer a very high spatial resolution, but their sensitivity
is very low and there is always the problem of the limited dynamic range, which can
1 line
pairs / mm, a commonly used unit for spatial frequencies.

main argument against routine screening mammography in Germany is the high X-ray dose
needed for good image quality using commercially available systems and the therewith associated risk of
radiation induced disease.
2 The
CHAPTER 2. PHOTON COUNTING DETECTORS
easily lead to under- or overexposed images of little or no diagnostic value. Today the
simple photographic films have been nearly completely replaced by film-screen systems
which have an increased sensitivity due to the added X-ray sensitive scintillating layer
(or layers), but have also a slightly lower spatial resolution due to the spread and the
scattering of the scintillation photons.
Image plates accumulate photon-generated electrons in meta stable trapping levels
when exposed to X-rays.3 These charges can be read out in a dedicated system by scanning
the plate with a laser which stimulates an optical transition of the trapped electrons. The
intensity of this stimulated emission is proportional to the number of the X-ray photons
which were absorbed and thus carries the image information. Image plates are reusable
and the data is available faster than with film screen systems. Since the image information
is extracted by scanning and therefore already digitised, it can be easily processed and
can be archived digitally. The spatial resolution is limited by the grain size and thickness
of the sensitive material and by the resolution of the read-out scanner. The detection
efficiency for typical X-ray spectra for mammography can be as high as 50%.
Another type of detectors are gaseous detectors using avalanche amplification of the
signals. The incoming X-ray photons interact with the gas (e. g. Krypton) of the detector
producing photoelectrons, which are accelerated in an electric field towards the anode. If
the field strength is sufficiently high, each primary photoelectron can undergo avalanche
amplification creating a large number of secondary electrons. This electron cloud can
then in turn be detected with the (segmented) anode, which gives the wanted spatial
information. Since the effects involved in generating the image are all fast processes, this
type of detectors can work in photon counting mode even for a rather high photon flux.
One detector of this type is described in detail in [FEE+ 01]. Depending on the thickness
of the detector and the gas pressure the quantum efficiency and the spatial resolution vary
strongly between different detectors. One detector4 designed for medical applications has
for example a spatial resolution of 10 lp/mm.
Solid state detectors or flat panel detectors are up to now mainly based on the combination of a scintillator layer which converts the incident X-ray photons into visible light
and an array of photodiodes which detect the light emitted by the scintillator. In every
pixel there is a capacitor which integrates the photogenerated charge over the acquisition
time. The spatial resolution is limited by the size of the photodiodes and by the thickness
and structure of the scintillator layer.
The fact that scintillation photons are emitted isotropically and that there is a limiting
angle under which the photons can leave the scintillator due to internal total reflection,
every X-ray photon creates effectively a cone of scintillation photons which are detected by
the photodiodes. The further away from the photodiodes the X-ray photon is absorbed,
the larger is the resulting light cone, which can decrease the spatial resolution drastically.
It is therefore necessary to keep the scintillator as thin as possible, which decreases the
absorption efficiency, or to structure the scintillating layer somehow to achieve high spatial
resolution independent from the interaction depth of the conversion process. Fortunately
it is possible to grow some scintillating materials in needle-like structures (e. g. CsI):
scintillation photons generated inside one of these needles are guided inside it down to the
photodiode beneath.
The main sources of noise in this type of detector are the dark current of the photodiodes and the analogue-to-digital conversion of the accumulated charges. In addition
there is the problem of the scintillator afterglow, read-out errors can occur and there are
3 The
4 The
here.
dynamic range depends on the density of the trapping levels and can be fairly high.
XCounter ; see http://www.xcounter.se/. Unfortunately no efficiency or DQE values are given
2.2. ADVANTAGES OF PHOTON COUNTING
further effects like cross-talk between adjacent pixels and blooming. A good overview of
flat panel detectors, their technology, their characteristics, and their fields of application
is given by J.A. Rowlands and J. Yorkston in [BKM00a].
The Medipix detectors, which are the subject of this work, belong to a new type of solid
state detectors which utilises a physically or electrically structured semiconductor
layer for the direct conversion of X-ray photons into electron-hole pairs and a separate
electronics chip or layer for the signal processing, to which the charge generated in the
pixels of the conversion layer is transferred. In the case of the Medipix detectors both the
sensor and the electronics layer have pixels of the same size and are connected one-to-one
via so-called bump bonds (see figure 2.3). Thus photons impinging on one pixel of the
sensor can be counted within the corresponding pixel of the electronics chip. Therefore
this type of detector is called a hybrid photon counting pixel detector.
Table 2.1 gives an overview over the spatial resolution and DQE values of the different
basic concepts, for a more detailed comparison between the Medipix1 and Medipix2 detectors see table 2.2. Since the DQE values depend strongly on the X-ray spectrum used they
should be treated as approximate values as long as no X-ray spectrum is specified. The
numbers given here are for common medical spectra5 and therefore only an indication
of the limits of the detector type.
The next section will describe the basic concepts and advantages of photon counting
detectors per se, followed by a more detailed description of the Medipix1 and Medipix2
detectors, respectively.
Concept
Film-screen system
Image plate
Gas detectors
Flat panel detectors
Medipix1
Medipix2
Spatial resolution in lp/mm
max. DQE
up to 20
0.30
510
up to 10
58
4.5
12.5
0.45
n.a.
0.80
0.11a
b
Table 2.1: Overview over existing imaging systems and their maximum spatial resolution; all
numbers are approximate values only. The DQE values are given for zero line pairs/mm (lp/mm),
the resolution of the Medipix detectors was determined from measurements (see chapter 5.1.5).
a preliminary
b not
value; 35 kV tube voltage, Mo anode, 2 mm Al filtering

reliable data yet
2.2
Fundamental Concepts and Advantages of

Photon Counting
Due to the fact that the X-ray flux itself is already quantised, it seems most adequate to
detect and process each photon individually. Doing so is the best way to convert the
information contained in the X-ray field into an image and this method is called (single)
photon counting for apparent reasons. There are several advantages to this approach:
5 Tube
voltages in the range of 4080 kV, various anode materials and filters.

1. The information is digitised as soon as possible, only the number of photons detected by each pixel is stored and read out. Therefore typical CCD-effects like
blooming, cross-talk between adjacent pixels or read-out errors due to incomplete
charge transfer cannot occur.
2. By applying a threshold to the charge signal coming from the sensor layer dark
current can be discerned from actual signals and therefore discarded.
3. If more than one threshold and counter are implemented in every pixel, spectroscopic
data can be gained which can improve image quality. In the best case the energy of
every single photon is recorded, giving the maximum information extractable.6
4. The maximum contrast achievable within a single image is only limited by the
available counter depth in each pixel. Thus over-exposed bright regions in an overall
rather dark image and vice versa pose no longer an insolvable problem.
5. The detector shows a completely linear response over the whole exposure range.
Figure 2.1 shows a sample image taken with the Medipix1 detector, illustrating the advantages of a photon counting detector. The different grey levels represent different counts
per pixel, the lighter the grey the lower the counts (just as for X-ray films). In this image
three distinct areas can be seen: the darkest one is only air, the medium grey level is the
shadow of an aluminium sheet (2 mm thick) and the lightest one is the area underneath
2 mm of lead. The histogram (number of pixels vs. counts per pixel) of the image is shown
on the right. Figure 2.2 shows the profile along column 32 of figure 2.1; one can see that
the edges are very sharp because there is no crosstalk between neighbouring pixels and
no blooming effects.
aluminium
10
lead
250
20
number of pixels
200
30
air
40
aluminium
150
air
100
50
50
60
lead
10
20
30
40
50
60
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
counts / pixel
Figure 2.1: Sample image with three different materials between the X-ray source and the
detector (just air, 2 mm aluminium, 2 mm lead). The graph on the right shows the histogram of
the image on the left; the three areas can be distinguished very well.
6 For
some modalities a kind of time stamp or other time information about each photon could possibly
yield extra information, therefore the term maximum information might be debatable.
2.3. THE MEDIPIX1 DETECTOR

1000
counts
800
600
aluminium
lead
air
400
200
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
pixel
Figure 2.2: Profile along column 32 of the image shown in figure 2.1. One should note the
sharp edges, especially between the areas air and lead, where the counts drop from over 900
to almost 0 from one pixel to the next.
2.3
The Medipix1 Detector
Hybrid pixel detectors have evolved rapidly mainly in the field of high energy particle
physics. Especially the RD19 collaboration at CERN has developed several generations of
silicon pixel detectors, one of the most recent ones being the LHC1/Omega3 chip. Based
on this chip the Medipix Collaboration7 developed the first so-called Photon Counting
Chip (PCC). It has 64 64 square pixels with 170 m side length and can be read out
either serially or in parallel. Using this PCC and connecting it via so-called bump bonds
to a semiconductor sensor layer the first Medipix1 detector was manufactured.
A schematic view of the Medipix1 detector can be seen in figure 2.3, showing the sensor
layer, the connecting bump bonds and the ASIC (PCC) on the bottom. Figure 2.4 shows
a schematic view of the pixel cell layout of a single Medipix1 pixel (after [CEM+ 98]). The
most important components for photon counting are the discriminator and the counter in
every pixel cell.
Figure 2.3: Schematic view of a Medipix detector, consisting of the sensor layer, the bump
bonding, and the ASIC (the drawing is not to scale and only a few pixels are shown for clarity).
When a photon is absorbed in the sensor layer, the generated charge is transferred via
the respective bump bond to the corresponding pixel on the ASIC. After a preamplifier the
charge is fed into a discriminator which compares the signal to a previously set threshold.
If the signal is higher than the threshold, the counter of this pixel is increased by one; this
7 http://medipix.web.cern.ch/MEDIPIX/
from previous pixel

3 bit
Threshold
Adjust
Shutter
MUX
Maskbit
Vth
Preamp
Input
Bump bond
Disc
MUX
15 bit
Counter/
Shift
Register
Clock ext
C test
Testbit
to next pixel
Test Input
Analogue Part
Digital Part
Figure 2.4: The simplified pixel cell layout of a single Medipix1 pixel (after [CEM+ 98]). The
counter / shift register acts as the counter of the pixel during image acquisition and as shift
register during read-out.
is done in each pixel independently. When the acquisition is complete, the counters of all
pixels are read out to obtain the image. Between the discriminator and the counter there
is also a switch which is set via a mask bit: if a pixel is known to be defective or noisy, it
can be switched off using the mask bit.
The setting of a threshold for the discriminator allows to suppress signals generated
by electronic noise or dark current of the sensor layer, leading to a background-free image. The threshold is set globally for all pixels, but there is an additional individual 3
bit threshold adjustment to correct for inhomogeneities due to fabrication variations (see
chapter 5.1.2 for details). Because the global threshold can be set within a wide range
it can also be utilised to discard low energy X-ray photons which may reduce the image contrast in some cases. Dynamic range and image contrast are only limited by the
counter depth, which is 15 bit (corresponding to a maximum of 32767 counts per pixel
and acquisition) for the Medipix1.8
Up to now most Medipix1 detectors were fabricated with 300 m thick sensor layers
made of silicon, but a few with other thicknesses or materials such as gallium arsenide
(GaAs) or cadmium (zinc) telluride (Cd(Zn)Te or CZT) were manufactured as well. But
since the ASIC works only with positive charges, GaAs or Cd(Zn)Te are not as suitable as
Si for the sensor layer. Because the hole mobility in these materials is quite low it would
be better to collect electrons instead. This problem has been solved in the design of the
Medipix2, which can handle electrons as well as holes.
The fact that the Medipix detectors are hybrid detectors has an advantage in itself:
both main components, the sensor layer and the ASIC, can be developed independently of
each other. Thus advancements in materials science can improve the sensor layer without
8 Although
depth.
it is possible to use a fast readout method which results effectively in a counter with infinite
altering the ASIC; new CMOS technology and new designs can further the development
of the ASIC, leading for example to smaller pixel cells or added features as can be seen
with the Medipix2 detector.
2.4
The Medipix2 detector was developed as the successor for the Medipix1 detector. Since
it was designed using the 0.25 m CMOS process, it was possible to reduce the pixel cell
size to 55 m 55 m and to add a second discriminator. With this second threshold and
the appropriate additional logic it is possible to use either a single lower energy threshold
or an energy window, counting only photons with an energy lying between the lower and
the upper threshold. Both thresholds can be fine-tuned with a 3 bit threshold adjust
separately, but the counter depth was reduced to 13 bits due to the limited size of the
pixel cell. In addition, the input polarity of the ASIC can be switched between positive
and negative. This design feature allows to use GaAs and Cd(Zn)Te sensor layers more
effectively, since their electron mobility is significantly higher than their hole mobility.
The schematic view of a single pixel cell of the Medipix2 (see figure 2.5) was adopted
from [LCD+ 02]. The main difference to the Medipix1 is the second discriminator, which
enables the setting of an energy window rather than just a single lower threshold. As
there is still only one counter implemented in the design, it is unfortunately not possible
to count photons above the lower and the upper threshold separately.
from previous pixel
3 bit
Threshold
Adjust
Shutter
Maskbit
MUX
Vth High
Disc H
Double
Disc
Logic
Preamp
Input
Bump bond
MUX
Disc L
Vth Low
C test
Clock ext
13 bit
Counter/
Shift
Register
Testbit
to next pixel
Test Input
Analogue Part
Digital Part
Figure 2.5: The simplified pixel cell layout of a single Medipix2 pixel (after [LCD+ 02]). Compared to the Medipix1 pixel cell (see figure 2.4) one can see the additional discriminator and
the following double discriminator logic which makes it possible to use an energy window. The
counter / shift register acts as the counter of the pixel during image acquisition and as shift
register during read-out.
10
Feature
Medipix1
Medipix2
Pixel size
170 m 170 m
55 m 55 m
Number of pixels
Sensitive area
64 64
1.18 cm
256 256
1.98 cm2
Number of thresholds
Number of counters
Counter depth
15 bit
13 bit
Input polarity
pos.
pos. / neg.
CMOS process
1 m
0.25 m
Table 2.2: Technical parameters of the Medipix1 and Medipix2 detectors.
Chapter 3
Basic Quality Definitions

3.1
Definitions
In order to compare different sensors or imaging methods it is essential to agree on a set

of parameters to describe the image quality. In the following a few definitions are given
for parameters commonly used in imaging theory as well as in medical imaging.
The modulation transfer function (MTF) characterises the spatial frequency response
of an imaging system and basically just describes how well the object contrast is transmitted through the imaging chain for a given spatial frequency.
It is defined as the ratio between the modulation of a sinusoidal test pattern Min at a
spatial frequency f and the modulation of the obtained image, Mout .
MTF (f ) =
Mout (f )
Min (f )
(3.1)
By definition it ranges between zero and 1 for all frequencies and can be described by
analytical functions or a convolution of functions in simple cases. Assuming for example
square pixels (as it is the case for both Medipix detectors) with lateral dimension l and a
uniform sensitivity over the whole pixel area, the theoretical limit for the MTF is given
by
sin(f l)
=: sinc(f l)
(3.2)
MTF sq =
(f l)
where f denotes the spatial frequency. Comparisons between this theoretical limit and
actual values for the Medipix detectors will be shown in chapters 5.1 and 5.2, respectively.
Whereas the MTF describes only one aspect of the imaging process, the detective
quantum efficiency (DQE) encompasses more than one aspect and is therefore a key
parameter when describing the properties of an imaging system, especially for medical
equipment. The DQE includes the MTF, but it also accounts for the quantum efficiency
and the noise characteristics of the system. It can be defined in terms of the Signal-toNoise-Ratios of the incoming X-ray flux (SNRin ) and the image (SNRout ):
DQE (f ) =
SNR 2out (f )
SNR 2in (f )
(3.3)
Basically, the DQE is a measure for how well the SNR(f ) of the incoming information
is preserved by the imaging system. Unfortunately, only SNR2in is readily available: the
11
12
CHAPTER 3. BASIC QUALITY DEFINITIONS
variance of the photon flux is

SNR2in as follows:
N for N photons in the X-ray field. Hence one can re-write

p
SNR 2in = ( Nin )2 = Nin
(3.4)
This leads to a modified equation for the DQE:

DQE (f ) =
SNR 2out (f )
Nin
(3.5)
This still leaves the problem of obtaining SNR2out , which will be addressed in section 3.2.2.
The concepts of MTF and DQE have been explained in detail by I. Cunningham
[BKM00b] and are now widely used for describing and comparing the performance of
different detectors and systems. It should be kept in mind that the DQE of a detector
depends on the X-ray spectrum used; thus only evaluations made with the same spectrum
can be compared directly.
3.2
Determination of MTF and DQE
Since it is not possible to determine the DQE of an imaging system using the basic
definition given in equation (3.3), it is necessary to measure the MTF of the system and a
few other parameters to obtain its DQE experimentally. The next part will describe two
methods to determine the MTF of a system, followed by a description of how to measure
the values needed to compute the DQE.
3.2.1
Measuring the MTF
There are basically two methods for measuring the MTF of a given system: either by
using a phantom with known modulation at different spatial frequencies or especially
for digital systems or pixel detectors by using a sharp edge and the so-called edge
method after Fujita [FTI+ 92]. The latter one is a derivative of the slit method which uses
a fine slit instead of a sharp edge.
Edge Method
The edge method is a relatively fast and easy method to derive the MTF of a digital imaging system from a single, maybe even rather small, image. This is especially convenient
when working with small detectors and at an early development stage. For this method a
precision edge made from e.g. tungsten is placed slightly tilted to the pixel rows over the
detector and an image is acquired. By projecting the image data along the direction of
the edge, a one-dimensional oversampled1 dataset is obtained from which the edge spread
function is determined and numerically differentiated, leading to the line spread function
(LSF) perpendicular to the edge. Calculating the modulus of the Fourier transform of the
LSF results in the desired MTF, also perpendicular to the edge.
Slit Method
The slit method uses a fine slit instead of the edge employed when using the edge method.
The advantage of the slit method when compared to the edge method is the fact that the
projection of the image data along the slit axis leads directly to the LSF without the need
1 For
a small tilt angle and a pixel size d the sample length s is given by: s = d tan .
3.2. DETERMINATION OF MTF AND DQE
13
to calculate the derivative of the edge spread function. But it has also disadvantages: the
fabrication of a fine, accurate slit is more difficult than that of an edge and the lowest
frequency components are not readily available in the image because only a very narrow
strip of the detector is illuminated. To evaluate the measurement the low frequency
components of the LSF must be extrapolated. Last but not least the positioning of the
slit can be seen as rather difficult because only a nearly perfect alignment produces a
satisfactory slit image; the side walls of the slit must be oriented exactly perpendicular
to the detector plane for the slit to be seen at all. On the other hand it is not easy to
achieve a very good alignment when using a single edge since the edge image does not
show misalignments so clearly.
Square Wave Method
Since it is very difficult to fabricate a phantom which modulates the X-ray attenuation
sinusoidally2 with high precision, it is more convenient to achieve a square wave modulation of the X-ray fluence and to analyse the constituent sinus waves which make up
the square wave by superposition independently. It is thus not a direct measurement
of the MTF as it is defined and one must convert the measured square wave response of
the system to a sinusoidal response first. Equation (3.6) shows the Fourier expansion of
a square wave f (x) with wavelength 2L and amplitude a:
f (x) =
(2n 1)x
4a X 1
sin
n=1 2n 1
L
(3.6)
Using this equation one can extract thus the desired information from the measured
values. The bar pattern grid is positioned slightly tilted with respect to the pixel rows to
avoid sampling artifacts. To evaluate the MTF at a certain frequency the modulation of
the part of the image with this fundamental frequency is read out by projecting the image
data on a line perpendicular to the bar pattern. This projection reduces the influence of
statistical fluctuations. The result is an oversampled one-dimensional dataset of the square
wave response which can be easily analysed. In most cases it would pose no problem here
to derive modulation values even for frequencies beyond the Nyquist limit, thus getting
the pre-sampled MTF.
But by evaluating only the modulation of the fundamental frequency of the respective
part of the bar pattern one can minimise the influence of numerical errors and noise,
finally getting a set of MTF values for certain spatial frequencies. These can be compared
to theoretical values or an otherwise determined MTF.
There are, however, drawbacks to this method: for good results the bar pattern has to
be manufactured with high precision, the data analysis is quite complex, and when using
small detectors one can need several images3 . In contrast to the edge method it is also
impossible to extract the zero-frequency component of the MTF.
3.2.2
Calculating the DQE
Since the definition of the DQE given by equation 3.3 contains parameters which cannot
be measured directly, another formulation must be found which contains parameters that
can be acquired from measurements. One quantity which can be derived from measured
images is the noise power spectrum or NPS. The NPS is the variance of the signal for
2 As
it was assumed for the definition given in equation 3.1.

on the size of the bar patterns and the number of frequencies to be evaluated.
3 Depending
14
CHAPTER 3. BASIC QUALITY DEFINITIONS
different spatial frequencies or simply put the noise content of each spatial frequency.
It can be obtained by calculating the modulus-squared two-dimensional Fourier transform
of a homogeneously exposed image. Using the NNPS (Normalised NPS) one can write
the SNR2out of the image as:
SNR 2out (f ) =
MTF 2 (f )
NNPS (f )
(3.7)
Using equations (3.4) and (3.7), equation (3.3) can be reformulated:

DQE (f ) =
MTF 2 (f )
SNR 2out (f )
=
2
NNPS (f ) Nin
SNR in (f )
(3.8)
The number of photons can be calculated from the tube spectrum and the dose used. To
get reliable results for the NNPS one normally averages over a large set of overlapping
regions of interest, e. g. 256 256 pixels in size. In most cases only one-dimensional subsets
of the full two-dimensional NPS diagonal to the pixel columns or rows are considered for
calculating the DQE as the MTF is also evaluated for these directions. Results of DQE
calculations can be found in chapter 5.1.5 for the Medipix1 detector and in chapter 5.2.4
for the Medipix2.
For more details on special properties and problems of MTF and DQE for digital
systems see for example [BKM00c].
Chapter 4
Experimental Setup and ROSI

4.1
4.1.1
Experimental Setup
Equipment and Accessories
Data Acquisition Hardware and Software

Several hardware parts and dedicated software were used for the acquisition of data with
the Medipix detectors. Since the requirements were different for both detector generations,
two separate data acquisition systems were used.
Medipix1: For the Medipix1 the data acquisition system includes a dedicated, custombuild interface board MUROS11 ., two computer boards and the software Medisoft 3; the
computer boards are plugged into a standard PC running Microsoftr Windows NTr .
The MUROS1 board was developed by NIKHEF, Amsterdam, and has three functions:
it supplies the voltages needed by the Medipix1 chip, it converts signal levels between
the levels the Medipix1 ASIC is using and the standard levels used by the PC, and it
accommodates a pulse generator which can be used for detector testing and calibrating.
The chipboard hosting the Medipix1 detector is connected directly to the MUROS1. It is
possible to use a connecting cable for more flexibility but the standard setup is the direct
connection.
The two computer boards plugged into the PC are a digital input/output PCI board
(NI PCI-6533) and an analogue output ISA board (NI AT-AO-10), both manufactured
by National Instruments2 . These boards handle the communication and data transfer
between the MUROS1 and the PC and supply the voltages needed by the MUROS1. But the
setup has proven to be more stable and to produce better results when an external power
source is used for the 3 V supply instead using one of the boards.
The Medisoft 3 software was developed by the University of Napoli INFN-group
(Italy). It has been written using the LabWindows/CVI programming environment3 and
controls all data handling and communication between the PC and the Medipix1 detector
via the NI boards and the MUROS1. For details of the data acquisition system see [BBA+ 00].
1 Medipix1
reUsable Read-Out System
2 http://www.ni.com
3 Software
by National Instuments.
15
16
CHAPTER 4. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND ROSI
Medipix2: The data acquisition system for the Medipix2 is quite similar to the one
used for the Medipix1: it consists of a custom build interface board (MUROS2, also by
NIKHEF), only one PCI computer board (NI PCI-6533 by National Instruments), and
the software Medisoft 4 (by the University of Napoli INFN-group).
In contrast to the MUROS1 the MUROS2 is able to handle not only a single-detector
chipboard as was used for the work presented here but also a chipboard hosting up to
eight Medipix2 chips which was not yet available during this thesis. The main component
of the MUROS2 board is a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), thus a large part of
the system can be updated electronically without the need to alter the hardware. The
detector chip board is connected to the MUROS2 using a commercially available SCSI cable
which makes the setup more flexible, since there is no need to move the whole MUROS2
board.
Details of the software can be found in [CMM+ 03], details of the MUROS2 in [BvBJ+ 03].
X-ray Source and Mechanical Setup
The X-ray source for all imaging experiments was a Siemens Mammomat B. It has a
Molybdenum anode and four tube voltage settings (25 kV, 30 kV, 35 kV, 40 kV). A radiation proof housing shielded with 1.4 mm lead was used within which the X-ray tube and
the detectors were placed (see figure 4.1). For a more detailed description see [Gie02].
The functional scheme of the experimental setup is shown in figure 4.2. The tube
height can be varied but was set to 65 cm for most of the images. The Medipix detectors
were mounted on a x-y translation stage which could be remote-controlled. An additional
rotating unit was also implemented for a CT-like setup, where the phantom / object
could be rotated instead of moving the X-ray source and the detector as it is done in
conventional CT setups. Since large field imaging had to be simulated by moving the
detector in the x-y-plane and patching the single images afterwards, a small server / client
program4 was implemented which allowed for scripted image acquisition. It controls the
translation stages (via a suitable motion controller), a rotation unit, data acquisition
(which is handled by the aforementioned PC hosting the NI boards), and the X-ray tube.
This program runs under UNIX on a standard PC; the connections to all parts of the setup
are made through serial ports. For dose measurements the dosimeters PTW DIADOS 5
and later the Solidose 400 6 were used; both are equipped with solid state detectors. The
technical specifications of the hardware can be found in B.1 - B.3.
4.1.2
Calibration of the X-ray Source
To ensure the comparability of different measurements it was necessary to calibrate the

X-ray field generated by the tube.
The homogeneity of the field was measured using a scintillating film coated with
Gd2 O2 S and a CCD camera [Gie02]. Figure 4.3 shows the spatial distribution of the
X-ray fluence with a pronounced heel effect [HS91]. This is a desired feature of systems
used for mammography since the absorption near the chest wall is higher due to the higher
tissue thickness and thus a better uniformity of the exposure over the whole image can
be achieved.
The proportionality between the settings of the X-ray generator (anode charge in mAs)
and the dose delivered at a fixed distance was tested using a dose meter. Figure 4.4 shows
4 Written
by Ch. Bert and D. Niederl

ohner, see also appendix C.1.
PTW-Freiburg GmbH, Germany.
6 By RTI Electronics AB, Sweden.
5 By
17
4.1. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
Figure 4.1: The shielded housing of the X-ray tube and detectors (large black box). The casing
of the generator and controlling panel can be seen on the left (the covering has been removed for
maintenance).
Xray tube
switching: on/off
*
adjustable
distance
Computer server / client

(UNIX)
program
Computer
(Windows)
phantom / object
to be imaged
data acqisition
Motion
Controller
position control
Detector on
xy translation stage
Figure 4.2: The functional schema of the experimental setup. The shielding and the generator
of the X-ray source are not shown for clarity.
18
intensity
(a.u.)
front
right side
depth
lateral
position
middle
back
Figure 4.3: The X-ray field of the Mammomat B. The edge with highest intensity corresponds
to the front side of the field; since it is nearly laterally symmetrical, only one half of the field is
shown here for clarity.
the very linear behaviour of the measured dose versus the mAs setting of the Mammomat
using the high dose range, which was also seen for all settings in the low dose range.7
4.2
The Simulation Tool ROSI
Monte Carlo simulations are widely used tools in many fields of research and can also be
very useful for the development of new X-ray imaging systems. On the one hand they
can help to understand experimental data, on the other hand they allow to construct and
evaluate virtual imaging systems. The information gained from virtual setups can lead
to new ideas and a better understanding of the experiment. The X-ray simulation tool
ROSI8 has been developed by J. Giersch [GWA03].9
ROSI is mostly based on the object-oriented C++ simulation library LSCAT-GISMO
[ABB+ 93], the interaction algorithms are based on the established EGS4-code and its
current LSCAT extension. Therefore it gives valid results down to a photon energy of
a few keV. Modelling stochastic physical parameters such as the energy and direction of
photons emitted by the X-ray tube is possible by using random variables; they have been
implemented and put in a separate class-library (RAVAR10 ), which can also be used by
itself.
The simulation has a simple user interface: all necessary data for the modelling of
the setup is put into a single file using C++ code. For the description of more complex
geometries a phantom library with predefined geometric objects has been implemented
and is under constant further development. This facilitates the modelling of realistic
7 The
different settings switch between two anode currents and spot sizes, respectively.
is derived from the German words Roentgen Si mulation.
9 It has also been made available in the internet: www.pi4.physik.uni-erlangen.de/Giersch/ROSI/
10 www.pi4.physik.uni-erlangen.de/Giersch/RAVAR/
8 ROSI
19
4.3. REASONS FOR USING ROSI

140
30 kV
35 kV
40 kV
measured dose / mGy
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
mAs setting
Figure 4.4: The linear behaviour of the dose delivered at a fixed distance versus the mAs setting
(high dose range) of the Mammomat. This kind of measurement was taken with all available
combinations of mAs values and tube voltages. The sets shown here are only an example.
setups and the comparison between simulated and measured results. Another important
part for the simulation of real-life-problems is a broad database of materials, both for
detectors and tissues, following the ICRU reports 44 and 46 [oRUM89, oRUM92].
Figure 4.5 shows a simple black-box model of the simulation ROSI illustrating input
and output data (after [GWA03]).
4.3
Reasons for Using ROSI
There are several reasons why the tool ROSI has been employed in the scope of this work.
It was used to compare the measurements taken with the real detectors to what one would
expect from an ideal one; it allowed to estimate the influence of scattered radiation and
it provided simple image data to test and improve the routines used to assemble larger
images from small detector-sized ones.
4.3.1
Comparison Between Ideal and Non-Ideal Detectors
The tool ROSI was used to simulate the imaging process with an idealised version of
the Medipix detectors: The detectors implemented for the simulations shown in this
work are perfect in the sense that they do not show any charge sharing effects and no
imperfections of the sensor layer. Instead, the simulation was used to track each photon
and to determine whether it is absorbed in the simulated detector or not. In the first case
the lateral position (x- and y-coordinates) of the interaction with the detector is stored
and the photon is detected, in the latter case the photon either passed through the
detector without interaction or was scattered into some other direction by an object in
front of the detector.
Because only the first interaction of a photon with the detector is stored and written
into a two-dimensional histogram representing the appropriately sized pixels, no charge-
20

List of network
computers
Socket address for

request of status
information
Description of the
physical world
Photon parameters along

the photon trajectory
Xray source data

Material data
Geometrical data
Energy
Momentum
Interaction points
ROSI
Number of
photons
User input
Program output
Figure 4.5: A simple black-box model of the simulation tool ROSI
sharing or other image-degrading effects are simulated. When comparing the thus simulated images with the real ones, one can estimate the influence of detector imperfections
on the image quality.
Measurement
Simulation
50
50
100
100
150
150
200
200
250
250
50 100 150 200 250
50 100 150 200 250

column 159
column 128
2000
50
100
150
pixel number
200
0
250
5000
counts / pixel
counts / pixel
4000
3000
1000
0
50
100
150
200
0
250
pixel number
Figure 4.6: Comparison between a simulated and a measured image of a Siemensstar. It can be
seen that the differences between the simulated (ideal) and the real detector for this high-contrast
object are rather small. The plots below the images are intensity profiles along columns at a fixed
relative position close to the centre of the star.
21
4.3.2
The Influence of Scattered Radiation
It is possible to assess the influence of scattered radiation on the image quality using
ROSI. For every photon emitted by the source one can store the angle of emission. By
comparing this angle to the angle of incidence when the photon hits the detector, one
can distinguish between scattered and unscattered photons, thus simulating anti-scatter
grids with various angular acceptance. That way one can compare images simulated with
a different degree of scattered radiation background, which is known to degrade images
taken with conventional detectors significantly.
For the comparison shown here a setup was chosen which should produce a high
percentage of scattered radiation: an aluminium disc (diameter 1 mm, thickness 500 m)
was embedded in the middle of a large PMMA block (20 cm 20 cm, thickness 4 cm). The
detector consisted of 40 40 square pixels (size 55 m), using 300 m silicon for the sensor
layer. It was placed at a distance of 1 cm behind the centre of the PMMA block and the
X-rays irradiate the complete PMMA block to give a large amount of scattered photons.
For the first image all photons that hit the detector were accepted, which is equivalent
to no anti-scatter grid at all. For two further images the angle of emission from the source
was recorded for all photons and when a photon hit the detector, the angle of incidence
was compared to the angle of emission. The photon was counted if the difference of
these angles was less than 10 or 0.01 , respectively. Thus an anti-scatter grid with an
angular acceptance of 10 and a (nearly) perfect grid were simulated. By comparing the
histograms the image quality was evaluated in terms of contrast and SNR.
All three simulated images are shown in figure 4.7: between no scattered photons
and 10 acceptance there is nearly no visible difference, only the mean photon count per
pixel is slightly higher in the latter one. The grey scales were set for similar appearance
no scattered photons
10 acceptance
all photons
10
10
10
20
20
20
30
30
30
10
20
20
40
30
10
60
20
20
40
30
60
10
40
60
20
30
80
100
Figure 4.7: The images with no scattered photons, 10 acceptance and all photons, respectively.
The grey scales were set for similar appearance of both images.
of all images, but one can see that there is a higher degree of noise in the image with all
photons (which is equivalent to no anti-scatter grid). Figure 4.8 shows the histograms of
all three simulated images.
All numerical values (the intensities of the background Iback and the disc Idisc as well
as the standard deviations RM Sback and RM Sdisc ; all in counts per pixel) were taken
from Gaussian fits to the data. They are given in table 4.1 and were defined as follows:
Cdiff
= Iback Idisc
22
350
all photons
10o acceptance
no scattered photons
number of pixels
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
counts / pixel
Figure 4.8: The histograms of three simulated images: only the angle of acceptance was varied
and thus different anti-scatter grids were simulated. As was already seen in figure 4.7, the
differences between no scattered photons and 10 acceptance are rather small.
Cnorm
SNR
Iback Idisc
Iback
Iback Idisc
p
2
2
RM Sback
+ RM Sdisc
Grid
Cdiff
Cnorm
SNR
no grid
28.5
0.37
2.53
10 acceptance
28.5
0.55
3.12
perfect grid
29.0
0.61
3.41
Table 4.1: Comparison of contrast and SNR values between no anti-scatter grid, a perfect grid
and an intermediate situation. All values were taken from Gaussian fits to the simulated data.
For systems with a limited dynamical range (and probably a non-linear response)
such as the film-screen system the normalised contrast Cnorm is important because an
additional background intensity limits the useable dynamical range of the image. For
counting detectors with a large linear dynamical range (and for a constant X-ray dose)
the simple contrast Cdiff can be used as well, since an additional background can be
treated as a simple offset which does not limit the useable dynamical range and is thus
not very important for the image quality, as can be seen in this example. But because of
the lower SNR it might be advisable to use an anti-scatter grid, especially for low-contrast
objects such as soft tissues.
One has to keep in mind, though, that any real anti-scatter grid not only absorbs
scattered radiation but also part of the primary radiation and thus reduces the SNR in
comparison to an ideal anti-scatter grid. The transmission of primary radiation ranges
23
from about 64% for high resolution grids to about 75% for mammographic grids;11 this
loss of primary radiation leads to a reduced SNR. Taking the SNR of the perfect grid in
the example above, the resulting values would lie between 2.73 (65% transmission) and
2.95 (75% transmission), which is still better than the SNR without a scatter grid. This
example shows that the necessity of an anti-scatter grid should be examined closely for
every setup.
Since no anti-scatter grid was available for the measurements made during the work
for this thesis it was important to gain some insight into how scattered radiation affects
image quality (contrast, SNR) to be able to compare the performance of the Medipix
detectors with existing systems employing anti-scatter grids.
4.3.3
Test of the Image Assembling Routines
Simulated images are also a good method to test the routines which were written for
scripted image assembling. Since it is possible to simulate a wide variety of phantoms,
the simulations were also quite useful to test new ideas for automated image assembly
in the case of an unknown overlap between the images, which would likely occur when
cheaper and less precise translation stages12 are used instead of the high-precision ones
used for the experiments for this work. The assembly routine presented in chapter 6.5.1
(pages 71ff.) was at first tested on very simple simulated images and then with actual
measurements.
11 These
12 I.e.
numbers are given by SIEMENS for some of their grids.

translation stages with a precision of the order of the detector pixel size.
24
Chapter 5
Characterisation of the
Medipix Detectors
5.1
5.1.1
Effects of the Detector Bias
One of the most simple tests that can be done with a Medipix detector is to examine the
dependence of counted photons for a fixed dose on the bias voltage of the sensor layer.
For increasing bias the fraction of the sensor layer which has a non-zero electric field
increases up to the point where the depletion depth is equal to the layer thickness. A
further increase of the bias increases the field strength in the sensor until the breakdown
field strength of the material is reached.
These effects can be seen when taking images at different sensor biases while keeping
the dose constant. Since the conversion of the X-ray photons into electron-hole pairs is
distributed over the whole thickness of the sensor layer1 , but the separation of these carriers happens only in the presence of an electric field, one can expect to collect a different
percentage of the photogenerated carriers at the electrodes for different thicknesses of the
depleted region. Thus the number of photons counted is proportional to the depletion
depth of the sensor layer. In figure 5.1 the average number of counts per unit dose applied
is shown versus the bias voltage of the sensor layer. As long as the sensor is not fully
depleted, the number of counts rises linearly with increasing bias. As soon as the sensor is
fully depleted, the curve shows a plateau. For even higher voltages the number of counted
photons would finally rise again due to avalanche effects until the breakdown field strength
of the sensor is reached. The fit to the measured data was done using the error function,
assuming that the depletion thickness increases proportional to the applied voltage and
that the photon absorption occurs evenly distributed throughout the whole thickness of
the sensor layer.
Another effect of the partial depletion of the sensor layer can be seen in images taken at
low electric field strengths. Due to inhomogeneities of the sensor layer (mainly caused by
non-uniformities in the doping) the depletion depth differs over the detector area. These
differences can be seen in the images as patterns with low spatial frequency which are
not correlated to the X-ray field because they lead to a variation of the counts per pixel.
1 This
can be assumed for the 300 m Si layers and the X-ray energies used for this work.
25
26
CHAPTER 5. DETECTOR CHARACTERISATION
35000
mean counts / Gy
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
mean counts / Gy
fit
5000
0
10
20
30
40
detector bias / V
50
60
70
Figure 5.1: The number of counts/Gy averaged over the whole detector increases up to a plateau
value when the bias of the sensor layer is increased. The plateau shows that full depletion is
reached and all absorbed photons are counted. The fit was done using the error function.
bias voltage: 10 V
bias voltage: 20 V
10
10
20
20
30
30
40
40
50
50
60
60
10
20
30
40
50
60
10
20
30
40
50
60
Figure 5.2: Two flat-field images (raw data) taken with different bias voltages of the sensor.
The grey scales were set differently so that the images look similar despite the different mean
counts (cf. figure 5.1).
27
They change slightly with increasing bias and vanish quite suddenly when the sensor is
fully depleted. This effect has been studied in detail by [TDC+ 03].
Figure 5.2 shows two images taken with different bias voltages (10 V and 20 V). They
show basically the same pattern caused by the inhomogeneous dopant distribution. The
grey scales were set differently so that the overall brightness of both images is comparable.
The following chapters show that there are also fixed patterns with rather high spatial
frequencies; these do not originate from the sensor layer but from the electronics layer
and can be accounted for using an adjustment possibility built into the pixel electronics
and data post-processing.
5.1.2
Threshold Tuning
Threshold Adjustment
As shown in the description of the pixel cell of the Medipix1 detector in chapter 2.3
(page 7), there is a built-in 3-bit threshold adjustment to correct for inhomogeneities of
the single pixel cells due to variances of the ASIC fabrication. The 3-bit adjustment values
are written into a mask file (the so-called threshold adjust mask) which can be loaded onto
the chip. But since this is a digital correction with limited range and only 8 distinctive
levels it cannot remove all differences between the pixels. For greater variability the range
of this adjustment is tuneable via a voltage setting (threshold adjust voltage Vtha ): if
a detector shows stronger inhomogeneities the spread of the adjustment levels can be
increased with the disadvantage of larger steps between the different levels.
Creating the Threshold Adjust Mask
To find the right correction setting for each pixel, there is a pulse generator with tuneable
pulse height built into the MUROS1 board which is controlled via the software Medisoft
3. This pulse generator can be connected to the test input of each pixel (cf. figure 2.4,
page 8) to simulate photogenerated charges coming from the sensor layer. The higher
the pulse is, the higher is the energy of the thus simulated photon. The procedure is
as follows: for a fixed global setting of the threshold voltage (Vth ) and with the 3-bit
threshold adjust set to 0 (lowest setting), the height of the pulses fed to the test input is
varied. This simulates photons of different energies and for each pixel the 50% value of
the resulting S-curve2 of counts vs. pulse height is recorded as its individual threshold.
The distribution of these individual thresholds over the whole detector can be visualised
as a histogram with the pulse height as the abscissa. This is repeated with the threshold
adjust set to 7 (highest setting) and the histograms of both measurements are compared.
They should have an overlap of 1/8th of their width corresponding to the eight settings
of the threshold adjust. The overlap depends on the range of the threshold adjust, which
is determined by the threshold adjust voltage Vtha as mentioned above.
Once the best adjustment range is found, the pulse height is varied for each setting of
the threshold adjust (settings 0-7), so that for each pixel a complete dataset is recorded
which contains the threshold pulse height3 for each threshold adjust setting. Using this
data a threshold adjust mask can be generated which minimises the influence of the pixel
inhomogeneities on the threshold behaviour of the detector. Figure 5.3 shows the uncorrected histograms with the threshold adjust set to 0 and 7, respectively, and the histogram
2 The response of the pixels should ideally be a step function, but mainly due to electronic noise it is
rounded to an S-shaped curve or S-curve for short.
3 The test pulse height for which the 50% value of the S-curve is reached.
28
of the adjusted distribution. The widths of the histograms before the adjustment (as given
by a Gaussian fit to the data) are broader than the adjusted distribution by a factor of
3.81.
4000
setting 0
setting 7
final distribution
number of pixels counting
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
10
20
30
40
threshold pulse height / mV
50
60
Figure 5.3: Histograms of the counting threshold of each pixel. The leftmost distribution
corresponds to the adjust bit setting of 0 and the rightmost to the setting 7, both before the
threshold adjust mask is generated. The narrow distribution in the middle is the result of the
fine tuning. Its width would be ideally 1/8th of the uncorrected width, but in this example it is
1/4th .
As a side remark it should be noted that the response function of each pixel (S-curve)
can be taken as a measure of the quality of the pixel: the steeper the curve the better is
this individual pixel.
Since the image is already quite flat after doing the threshold adjustment it may not
be necessary to do any further data processing in some cases. But in order to work close
to the minimum noise level given by the quantum noise of the X-ray field itself one has
to apply an additional fixed-pattern correction as described in chapter 5.1.4 (page 31).
5.1.3
Threshold Calibration
One big advantage of the Medipix1 detector when compared to integrating detectors is
the tunable threshold which determines whether a photon is counted or not and which
suppresses signals coming from electronics noise and the dark current of the sensor. To
fully use the potential of this threshold one has to know the relation between the threshold
voltage Vth and the corresponding minimum energy for a photon to be counted. Unfortunately this relation is no simple linear proportionality for the Medipix14 : measurements
using synchrotron radiation have shown that the correlation between photon energy and
Vth can be best approximated with an exponential relation:
Ephoton = a 10Vth /b
(5.1)
where a and b are parameters which can differ between different detectors. The procedure
used to calibrate the threshold in terms of photon energy is as follows:
4 The
desirable linearity has been achieved with the Medipix2.
29
1. Using a suitable and if possible monoenergetic source (e.g. 109 Cd) a number of
images is taken with increasing threshold voltage. When plotting the number of
counts versus the threshold voltage for a single pixel or a group of pixels one gets
a curve as shown in figure 5.4 (open squares): as soon as the threshold exceeds the
photon energy, the number of counted photons drops to zero. The steepness of the
curve is a measure of the quality of the pixel: the steeper the better5 . Ideally it
would be a step function. The inflexion point can be identified with the voltage
corresponding to the photon energy of the source. The (numerical) derivative of
the curve shows the shape of the emission line(s) as seen with the detector and can
therefore be used to check the energy resolution of the detector.
2. This process of pairing up threshold voltage with photon energy is repeated with
several known photon energies. The more energies are available, the better will be
the calibration. Using synchrotron radiation is the most accurate way to gauge the
detector.
3. The data gathered from several emission lines is finally fitted using equation (5.1),
resulting in a parametric calibration curve for the detector.
When looking at the numerical derivative in figure 5.4, one can see a small shoulder in
the right hand flank of the peak. It shows that the detector can see that the 109 Cd source
used here has a double line with photon energies 22.1 keV and 25 keV; the 25 keV line has
1/5th of the intensity of the 22.1 keV line and causes the small shoulder.
counts || diff. counts
10000
1000
100
measured counts
num. derivative (x40)
fit to num. derivative
1.5
1.55
1.6
1.65
Vth / V
1.7
1.75
1.8
Figure 5.4: Measured counts vs. threshold voltage Vth and numerical derivative. The counts
were fitted with an error function and the numerical derivative was fitted with the sum of two
Gaussian peaks, because the 109 Cd source which was used here has a double line.
An example of a parametric calibration curve obtained in this way is shown in figure 5.5. Using the data gathered with a 109 Cd source (main photon energies 22.1 keV
5 The
imperfections showing here are mainly threshold noise and charge sharing effects (cf. chapter 5.1.6).
30
and 25 keV) and another mixed nuclide source containing 210 Pb (main photon energy
46.54 keV) it has been possible to fit equation (5.1) to obtain the parameters a = 0.73 and
b = 1.09 for the detector under examination. Since it is difficult to find suitable radioactive sources with emission lines in the range of 10 keV60 keV, the exposure times are
quite long due to the low activity of the sources available and since the absorption probability of the silicon sensor for photons of higher energy is very low, only three data points
have been used. For the purpose of a basic calibration, however, this has been sufficient.
The thus generated parametric curve can now be used to calculate the threshold voltage
needed to cut off the incoming X-ray spectrum at a given photon energy.
50
peak data
fit
photon energy / keV
45
40
35
30
25
20
1.6
1.65
1.7
1.75
1.8 1.85
Vth / V
1.9
1.95
Figure 5.5: Threshold calibration of a Medipix1 detector. The fit was made using equation (5.1).
The parameters of this calibration are fixed for one detector but are different for
different detectors. Thus it would be necessary to perform this calibration for every
detector for best results when using the threshold to cut into the incoming X-ray spectrum.
Possible applications of the threshold set to certain energies include:
Suppression of Compton scattered photons for increased SNR instead of using an
anti-scatter grid.6
Increasing image contrast by using only part of the spectrum: e.g. by making images
with the threshold set below and above an absorption edge (cf. [NBG+ 03]).
Autoradiography: rejection of unwanted emission lines or suppression of background
radiation.
Threshold Variations and Threshold Noise
The above-mentioned applications of the tunable threshold have one key problem in common: the usability of the threshold for image improvement depends on the pixel-to-pixel
variation of the threshold and on the threshold noise. The first one can be (at least partially) corrected using the threshold adjustment mask, the latter is the sum of electronic
6 Simulations
have shown that this helps only for rather large objects, where the ration of Raleigh
scattering to Compton scattering is sufficiently low [Gie02].
31
noise and the statistics of charge generation and transport in the sensor layer. Both the
pixel-to-pixel variation and the noise are the more critical the higher the spectral intensity
at the threshold is, since the difference between the counts of two pixels is given by the
integral over the spectrum from the lower to the higher pixel threshold.
5.1.4
Fixed-Pattern Correction and Quantum Noise
In order to determine whether the detector works close to the Poisson limit, i.e. whether
the detector adds any noise to the basic noise already present in the X-ray flux, one can
have a closer look at flat-field images. From the histograms of the images the width of
the distribution of counts per
pixel can be determined, which should be the square root
of the mean counts per pixel ( N ) for a purely Gaussian distribution and no additional
noise.
Figure 5.6 shows a flat-field image before (left) and after (right) a so-called fixedpattern correction was applied. This was done by scaling the counts of every pixel with an
appropriate gain factor. The fixed-pattern correction eliminates residual inhomogeneities
of the image due to non-perfect threshold adjustment and inhomogeneities of the sensor
layer.
The respective histograms of the flat-field images can be seen in figure 5.7: thecorrected data is quite close to the Poisson limit, the width of the distribution is 1.12 N .
This shows that the detector works very close to the quantum noise limit.
Since the noise in every image is a superposition of the fixed-pattern noise and the
random fluctuations of the quantised X-ray flux itself, it is necessary to average a large
number of flat-field images to calculate the fixed-pattern correction image. The thus
generated correction image shows only the deviations from a truly flat image caused by
the detector and it can therefore be used to improve the image quality without introducing
any artifacts or throwing away any actual data. For the example shown here 40 flat-field
images were used to calculate the fixed-pattern correction image.7 Since this correction
image represents the different gain factors of the individual pixels it is also called a gain
map and the fixed-pattern correction is also called a gain-map correction.
5.1.5
MTF, NPS and DQE
The MTF of the Medipix1 detector has been measured using the edge method as well
as using the square wave method (cf. chapter 3.2.1, page 12). Figure 5.8 shows the
results of the edge method for both the Medipix1 and the Medipix2 detector.8 The
indicated Nyquist frequencies9 were calculated using the physical pixel size (170 m and
55 m, respectively). Measurements using the square wave method however indicate that
the effective pixel size of the Medipix1 is somewhat smaller than 170 m. This can be
seen in figure 5.9, where the MTF values derived from measurements using the square
wave method10 are compared to two theoretical curves given by the sinc-function (cf.
equation 3.2, page 11) and the indicated pixel sizes.
The NPS, which is needed to determine the DQE later on, was calculated using 20
flat-field images. Figure 5.10 shows a cut of the two-dimensional NPS of the Medipix1 at
45 degrees to the axes. The average value was drawn as a horizontal linear fit, it shows
that the NPS is very flat for all but the lowest spatial frequencies. This is equivalent to
7 These
images had in sum about 12 105 counts per pixel.

Matlab scripts used for the calculation were kindly provided by L. Tlustos, CERN.
9 For a definition of the Nyquist frequency see the glossary, page 92.
10 This and all further calculations in this chapter were performed by Dr. M. Hoheisel, Siemens.
8 The
32
10
10
20
20
30
30
40
40
50
50
60
60
10
20
30
40
50
60
10
20
30
40
50
60
Figure 5.6: The left image shows the raw data, the right one the data after a fixed-pattern
correction (using 40 flat-field images) was applied. Mean counts per pixel and grey scales are the
same for both.
raw data
corr. data
number of pixels
1000
800
600
400
200
0
20000
21000
22000
23000
counts/pixel
24000
Figure 5.7: Histograms of the raw data and of the fixed-pattern corrected data of a flat-field
image. The
solid lines are Gaussian fits to the data; the width of the corrected distribution
is 1.12 N .
33
Medipix1, f
Nyq.
= 2.94 lp/mm
Medipix2, f
Nyq.
0.8
= 9.09 lp/mm
Medipix1
presampling resolution 4.63 lp/mm
MTF
0.6
Medipix2
presampling resolution 12.45 lp/mm
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
lp/mm
Figure 5.8: The MTF curves for both the Medipix1 and Medipix2 detectors as obtained via
the edge method. For the presampling resolution a MTF value of 0.3 is used. The Nyquist
frequencies are calculated using the physical pixel size; the effective pixel size can be smaller (e.g.
due to charge sharing effects in the sensor layer).
measured MTF
160 m pixel size
170 m pixel size
MTF
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
3
lp/mm
Figure 5.9: The result for the MTF of the Medipix1 calculated using the square wave method
from measurements with a bar pattern phantom. The two theoretical curves were calculated for
the indicated pixel sizes.
34
white noise or in other words: the detector does not add any spatial noise components,
as could already be seen from the corrected flat-field images themselves. Thus one can
speak of the Medipix1 detector as working at the quantum noise limit.
NPS (meas. data)
average
NPS / mm2
10000
1000
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
lp/mm
3.5
Figure 5.10: The plot shows a cut of the two-dimensional NPS of the Medipix1 detector at 45
degrees to the axes. The line of average NPS demonstrates the very flat behaviour for reasonably
high spatial frequencies which shows that the detector noise is quantum limited.
From the data shown in figures 5.9 and 5.10 the DQE of this detector has been calculated, which can be seen in figure 5.11. The overall shape of the DQE curve is quite
promising, but the maximum value of only 10% is surprisingly low. One reason for the
low DQE is that the silicon sensor layer of the detector has a low integral absorption
probability of only 23.8% for the X-ray spectrum used. Taking this absorption probability into account one can estimate the peak DQE to be approximately 42% for a perfect
absorption layer, which is still quite low.
To clarify the reasons for this, some calculations using flat-field images with precisely
known applied dose were carried out which show that only 19.4% of the incoming Xray quanta were detected. This discrepancy to the theoretical value of 23.8% can be
attributed to a charge collection efficiency of less than 100% and the effect of charge sharing
between neighbouring pixels, which can in conjunction with the threshold energy set to
10 keV lead to a loss of photons. For details of the charge sharing effect see the next
chapter (5.1.6) and [CM01]. Since the X-ray fluence was sufficiently low, there should be
no loss of photons due to the limitations of the count rate of the detector.
Further investigations of the effects leading to the rather low DQE are still necessary.
5.1.6
Charge Sharing
The effect of charge sharing occurs in the sensor layer of the detector. Free carriers in
a semiconductor move by drift and diffusion, where the drift is caused by electric fields
while the diffusion is driven by a slope in the carrier concentration and for high carrier
concentrations the Coulomb repulsion between them. While the drift is needed for the
signal generation at the contacts, the diffusion can decrease the spatial resolution and
even the overall sensitiveness of the detector: when a photon is absorbed near the border
between two pixels, the generated charge clouds move towards the contacts with their
35
measured data
10
DQE / %
7.5
2.5
0
0
0.5
1.5
2
lp/mm
2.5
3.5
Figure 5.11: The DQE of one Medipix1 detector as calculated using the data from figures 5.9
and 5.10.
drift velocity. At the same time the clouds spread perpendicular to the drift direction due
to diffusion. Since the sensor layer is not physically segmented and the pixels are only
defined by the contacts it can happen that the charge generated by a single photon is
partially detected by both neighbouring pixels. Depending on the photon energy this can
lead to three basic cases:
1. The charge detected in one pixel is higher than the threshold and passes the discriminator, thus the photon is counted in this pixel. Meanwhile the charge detected in
the second pixel is too small to pass the discriminator and the photon is not counted
in the second pixel.
2. The charge detected in both pixels is too small to pass the discriminator, so that
the photon is not counted at all.
3. For high energy photons the amount of charge generated can be so large that it
exceeds the threshold in both pixels, thus leading to a double count of this photon.
This can only happen if the photon energy is higher than twice the threshold energy.
Of these possibilities, the first one does not change the image noticeably. The second
one leads to a reduced sensitivity of the detector at the pixel edges: it can be either
described as a reduced pixel sensitivity or as a reduced active pixel area. But it can also
be seen as an increase of the spatial resolution at the expense of sensitivity, especially if a
rather low-energy X-ray spectrum is used (e.g. for mammography). The third possibility
leads to a slight decrease of the spatial resolution or blurring of the image as the photon
is detected in two adjacent pixels. This effect will be stronger if the fraction of photons
with at least twice the threshold energy gets larger, i.e. when the tube voltage is increased
while keeping the detection threshold at the same level. The reverse can be seen also:
when the photon energy is kept constant the number of counts will depend on the energy
threshold. As soon as the threshold is higher than the photon energy, the counts will
drop to zero (as it was already described in chapter 5.1.3). But when the threshold is
below the photon energy one can see effects of charge sharing: the lower the threshold is
36
the more photons are counted due to double counts and due to the fact that a decreasing
fraction of the generated carriers is sufficient for the photon to be counted. Additionally
some Compton-scattered photons might contribute. This is shown in figure 5.12, where a
threshold scan using a 109 Cd11 source is plotted together with a theoretical curve.
The same basic reasoning holds true when the photon hits the detector close to a pixel
corner, where the charge can be split between four pixels. Of course the photon energy
needs to be rather high for a triple or quadruple count.
meas. av. counts

no charge sharing
3500
3000
av. counts
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1.35
1.4
1.45
1.5
1.55 1.6
Vthr
1.65
1.7
1.75
1.8
Figure 5.12: Counts vs. threshold voltage using a 109 Cd source. The slope of the measured
curve (average counts/pixel) for voltages below 1.6 volts is at least partly due to charge sharing
effects. The dashed line shows what would be expected without charge sharing.
Lateral Charge Diffusion

The spread of the charge clouds can be estimated using some very simple formulas [SH85,
HGMB04]. The diffusion length x perpendicular to the drift direction can be calculated
as:
x = 2Dt
(5.2)
where D is the diffusion coefficient of the carriers and t is the respective drift time. Since
the diffusion coefficient is proportional to the mobility of the carriers, whereas the drift
time is inversely proportional to it, the diffusion length can be expressed in terms of drift
length and electric field:
r
r
r
d
d
kB T
[m]
(5.3)
x = 100 2
= 23
e
E
E
where kB is the Boltzmann constant, T the temperature, e the elementary charge, d the
drift length in m, and E the electric field in units of V/cm. The scaling factor 100
is due to the different length units of d and E. The resulting factor of 23 (for room
temperature) does thus not depend on the material or carrier type (electrons or holes).
A few calculations are shown in table 5.1. A drift length of 300 m corresponds to an
11 Main
photon energies 22.1 keV and 25 keV.
37
absorption of the photon near the top of the sensor layer, whereas a drift length of 150 m
occurs when the photon is absorbed about halfway between top and bottom contact.
The bias voltages used for the measurements were in the range of 3560 V. One should
drift length
detector bias
lateral diffusion length
300 m
50 V
9.76 m
300 m
100 V
6.90 m
150 m
50 V
6.90 m
150 m
100 V
4.88 m
Table 5.1: Diffusion lengths for different setups: the drift length of 300 m is the worst case
scenario, but even with only 150 m drift the diffusion length is considerable.
keep in mind, though, that also the initial size of the charge cloud can vary significantly
(dependent on the primary X-ray photon energy and sensor material), mainly due to the
generation of fluorescence photons [HGMB04].
Since the diffusion length depends only on detector thickness and bias voltage, the
effects of charge sharing should decrease with increasing detector bias. This can be seen
in figure 5.13, where the average counts per pixel vs. the detector bias are shown. The
delivered X-ray dose is kept constant, but the counts/pixel decrease slightly instead of
staying level. This is mainly due to the fact that less photons are counted twice in
adjacent pixels. For smaller pixels the charge sharing effects increase (see chapter 5.2.5)
because the ratio of diffusion length to pixel size gets larger.
12000
average counts / pixel
10000
8000
6000
4000
av. counts
fit with lin. detrending
2000
0
10
20
30
40
50
detector bias / V
60
70
80
Figure 5.13: Average counts vs. bias voltage: due to the decreasing charge sharing for higher
voltages, the number of double counts decreases.
The effects of charge sharing on the performance of the Medipix1 have been studied
in detail in [CM01].
38
5.2
5.2.1
Effects of the Detector Bias
The effects of the detector bias are basically the same as they are for the Medipix1 detector
(cf. chapter 5.1.1), but because of the smaller pixel size it is better to apply a higher voltage
to minimise the effect of charge sharing (see also chapter 5.2.5) between adjoining pixels.
In the scope of this work there have been no further studies concerning the detector bias
and the effects of a partially depleted sensor, but since the low-frequency patterns seen
with the Medipix1 detector in underdepletion were caused by the sensor layer, one can
expect to see the same effect with the Medipix2, too.
5.2.2
Threshold Tuning and Calibration
In contrast to the Medipix1 the Medipix2 detector has two discriminators and therefore
two adjustable thresholds. These two thresholds allow for two different image acquisition
modes: one using only the lower threshold (effectively just like the Medipix1) and one
using both thresholds for energy windowing, i.e. only photons with an energy between
both thresholds are counted.
Creating the threshold adjust mask works very similar to the method described for
the Medipix1 (cf. chapter 5.1.2) with two simplifications. Since the Medipix2 shows good
linearity for the threshold adjustment settings, only the lowest and the highest setting for
the 3-bit adjust are measured using test pulses, all intermediate values are interpolated.
In addition it is also possible to use the electronic noise of the preamplifier of the pixel
instead of an external pulser to test the threshold characteristics of each pixel, which is
the faster method to create a threshold mask. Detailed measurements which show the
good performance of the detector have been carried out by [LC03].
The threshold calibration works exactly like it was described in chapter 5.1.3 for the
Medipix1 detector. A sample threshold scan using the 109 Cd source is shown in figure 5.14.
As already mentioned in the description of the Medipix2 detector in chapter 2.4, it has
been shown that the relation between the threshold voltage and the photon energy is
linear (in contrast to the Medipix1) as can be seen exemplarily in figure 5.15.
5.2.3
Quantum Noise and Fixed-Pattern Correction
Just as described for the Medipix1 detector in chapter 5.1.4, the Medipix2 detector shows a
certain residual fixed-pattern noise which cannot be corrected completely by simply using
the built-in 3-bit threshold adjustment. But after correcting for this fixed-pattern noise12
the histogram of a flat field image shows that the Medipix2 can also work very close to the
quantum noise limit. Figure 5.16 demonstrates this effect, the respective histograms are
shown in figure 5.17. Gaussian fits were applied to theraw data and the corrected data,
giving a width of the corrected distribution of 1.04 N . The fixed-pattern correction
image used here was calculated by averaging 58 flat-field images.13
5.2.4
MTF, NPS and DQE
The MTF of the Medipix2 was determined using the edge method (see figure 5.8) and
also by evaluating an image of a bar pattern phantom (H
uttner grid) using the square
12 As
it was described in chapter 5.1.4.

images had in sum about 110000 counts per pixel.
13 These
39
av. counts || diff. counts
1000
measured counts
num. derivative
100
10
1
165
170
175
180
185
190
THL
Figure 5.14: Threshold scan of a Medipix2 detector using the 109 Cd source (22.1 keV and
25 keV). The abscissa shows the setting of the THL DAC which corresponds to a certain energy
threshold. The numerical derivative shows the two lines of the source quite clearly (cf. figure 5.4).
The energy calibration shown in figure 5.15 is taken from this measurement and another one using
an 241 Am (59.54 keV) source.
60
photon energy / keV
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
0.02
measured points
linear fit
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
threshold setting / a.u.

Figure 5.15: The relation between threshold voltage and photon energy for a Medipix2 detector,
showing the linearity.
wave method.14 Figure 5.18 shows the measured data together with the sinc-function (cf.
equation 3.2, page 11) calculated for pixel sizes of 55 m and 65 m, respectively. The
MTF of both the Medipix1 and Medipix2 detectors can be seen in figure 5.19 in direct
comparison. Here it can be seen that in contrast to the Medipix1 the measured values for
the Medipix2 lie always lower than the theoretical values for the geometrical pixel size.
14 Calculation
by Dr. M. Hoheisel, Siemens.
40
50
50
100
100
150
150
200
200
250
250
50
100
150
200
250
50
100
150
200
250
Figure 5.16: The left image shows the raw data, the right one the data after a fixed-pattern
correction (using 58 flat-field images) was applied. The mean counts per pixel and the grey scales
are the same for both.
4500
4000
raw data
corr. data
number of pixels
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
2500
3000
3500
4000
counts/pixel
4500
Figure 5.17: Histograms of the raw and the fixed-pattern corrected data of a flat-field image.
The solid lines are Gaussian fits to the data; the width of the corrected distribution is 1.04 N .
41
1
0.9
MTF
0.8
0.7
0.6
measured MTF
55 m pixel size
65 m pixel size
0.5
0
5
6
lp/mm
10
Figure 5.18: The MTF of the Medipix2 shown here was calculated using the square wave
method, the data therefore was taken from an image of the H
uttner grid. The two lines with
indicated pixel size were calculated using the sinc-function.
MTF
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Medipix2 (meas.)
55 m pixel size
Medipix1 (meas.)
170 m pixel size
0
10
lp/mm
Figure 5.19: The MTF of both detectors for comparison. For each detector also the theoretical
MTF with the indicated pixel size is shown.
42
0.035
DQE
400
DQE
NPS
350
0.03
300
0.025
250
0.02
200
0.015
150
0.01
100
0.005
50
NPS / mm2
0.04
0
0
6
8
lp/mm
10
12
Figure 5.20: The NPS and the DQE of a Medipix2 detector. They were calculated using 58
flat field images. Since the NPS increases significantly for lower spatial frequencies (mainly due
to the high number of dead pixels), the DQE reaches its peak value not close to zero but at a
higher spatial frequency.
When looking at the NPS and DQE values for this detector, one notices that the
NPS is not as flat as seen for the Medipix1, but increases for spatial frequencies below
6 lp/mm. This is presumably due to the rather poor quality of this assembly as it has
a high number of dead or noisy pixels mainly along the detector edges. These pixels give
rise to a low frequency pattern when the flat field images are assembled into a large image
for the NPS evaluation. Since the DQE curve is inversely proportional to the NPS, the
above mentioned trend of the NPS curve causes the peak of the DQE curve at 6 lp/mm.15
The overall poor results for the DQE are partly due to the low absorption of the
300 m thick silicon detector layer, partly due to the fact that (at least for this particular
assembly) the detector only counts roughly half of the photons that should be absorbed in
the sensor layer16 leading to an integral detection efficiency of 10 % for the given X-ray
spectrum and perhaps partly due to other, hitherto unknown reasons.
5.2.5
Charge Sharing
The effects of charge sharing in general have been addressed in the respective chapter
about the Medipix1 detector (chapter 5.1.6, page 34). For the Medipix2, however, the
effect is much more important. The ratio of the pixel edges to the remaining area of
the pixel is significantly worse, since the length of the edges decreases only linearly with
the pixel dimensions, whereas the area decreases quadratically. To have a look at some
numbers: When the edge area is defined as a 5 m wide strip along the pixel edges17 ,
one can calculate the ratio of this edge area to the rest of the pixel area (i.e. the pixel
area minus the edge area). For the Medipix1 (170 m pixel size) this ratio is 0.13, but for
the Medipix2 (55 m pixel size) it is already 0.5!
15 The highest DQE value is normally quite close to zero lp/mm, as it can be seen for the Medipix1
detector.
16 Part of this can be attributed to charge sharing, see chapter 5.2.5.
17 For the diffusion lengths see table 5.1, page 37.
43
Medipix1
Medipix2 (scaled)
2000
counts / pixel
1500
1000
500
0
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
threshold / a.u.
2.1
Figure 5.21: A comparison between a threshold scan using the Medipix1 and the Medipix2
detector, in each case averaged over an ensemble of pixels. One can see that the slope for
thresholds below the photon energy (at about 2 a.u.) differ significantly: the steeper the slope
the larger the charge sharing effects. These measurements were taken using the 59.54 keV line of
an 241 Am source.
Figure 5.21 shows two threshold scans, one with the Medipix1 and one with the
Medipix2 detector. The X-ray source was a source containing 241 Am for the Medipix1
and a pure 241 Am source for the Medipix2. The steeper slope of the curve measured with
the Medipix2 for low thresholds indicates that the effects of charge sharing are much more
prominent due to its smaller pixel size.
One simple way to lessen the influence of charge sharing is an increased sensor bias,
which leads to shorter drift times and therefore less diffusion of the carriers. This approach
is limited by the breakdown voltage of the sensor or rather the field strength at which
avalanche effects start to appear. Other ideas to counter the effects of charge sharing
include:
Some additional pixel logic which connects each pixel to its nearest neighbours so
that simultaneously detected charge signals can be e.g. added up or compared to
reduce double counts or lost counts in real time. This needs either additional space
(leading to larger pixels) or the next smaller CMOS technology.
Saving the height of each charge pulse together with a time stamp, so that further
data analysis such as comparing signals from next-neighbour pixels can be performed after data read-out. The drawbacks of this methods are the need for some
spectroscopic ability of the pixel electronics and the large amount of gathered data.
44
5.3
Phantoms Used for the Characterisation and Comparison of the Detectors
There are two main reasons for the use of phantoms for the characterisation of the Medipix
detectors. On the one hand phantoms can be used to analyse basic features of a detector,
namely the MTF. On the other hand they can be used for a direct comparison between
two detectors to see the differences between them as clearly as possible.
5.3.1
Phantoms used for the Basic Characterisation
For the measurement of the MTF of the detectors two different phantoms were used. The
most simple phantom is a single metal edge used for determining the MTF via the edge
method (see chapter 3.2.1). Also a lead bar pattern or line pair phantom has been used:
a so-called H
uttner grid18 . It consists of a 0.05 mm thick patterned lead layer sandwiched
between two 1 mm thick PMMA plates and shows several bar pattern groups with spatial
frequencies ranging from 0.05 lp/mm up to 10 lp/mm. Images of this phantom indicate
already quite clearly the spatial resolution of a pixel detector. When the line width comes
close to the pixel size so-called Moiree patterns can be observed (if the lines are not exactly
parallel to the pixel rows or columns). Figure 5.22 shows simulated images of a line pair
phantom with five line groups having spatial frequencies of 2.53.5 lp/mm. The simulation
using the pixel size of the Medipix1 shows the Moiree patterns very nicely; this can even
be used to distinguish between the line groups of different spatial frequencies as the tilt
of this pattern changes. Since the simulation generated the same number of photons for
both detectors, the number of detected photons per pixel is lower by nearly a factor of
ten for the Medipix2, which can be seen by the higher noise level in the background.
20
10
60
20
30
100
40
140
50
180
60
10
20
30
40
50
60
20
60
100
140
180
Figure 5.22: Simulation of a lead strip pattern phantom (cf. images of the H
uttner grid, figures 5.23 and 5.24) as seen with the Medipix1 (left) and the Medipix2 (right). The spatial
frequencies are 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, and 3.5 lp/mm.
For comparison, figure 5.23 shows measured X-ray images of the bar pattern groups of
the H
uttner grid which are at the resolution limit of both detectors, respectively. Images
of the H
uttner grid were used to calculate19 the MTF of the Medipix1 and the Medipix 2
using the square wave method (cf. chapter 3.2.1 and figure 5.9).
18 Named
19 These
after the manufacturer H

uttner, Heroldsbach, Germany.
calculations were done by Dr. M. Hoheisel, Siemens.
45
5.3. PHANTOMS FOR CHARACTERISATION & COMPARISON
20
50
40
100
60
150
80
100
200
120
250
140
300
160
20
40
60
80
100
120
50
100
150
200
250
Figure 5.23: The H

uttner grid as seen with the Medipix1 (left image) and the Medipix2 (right
image). The numbers, which are part of the phantom, indicate the spatial frequency in lp/mm.
Figure 5.24 shows a large stitched image20 of the grid used for the measurement of
the MTF of the Medipix1 detector. It was put together from 80 (16 5) single, slightly
overlapping pictures. It has a total size of 934 296 pixels or 159 mm 50 mm. Figure 5.25
shows the intensity modulation along a pixel row of this image. It can be seen quite clearly
that the modulation is very good as long as the bars are wider than the pixel size and
that it decreases for higher spatial frequencies.
250
200
150
100
50
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Figure 5.24: Image of the H

uttner grid used for measuring the MTF of the Medipix1 detector.
It has a size of 158.8 mm 50.3 mm (934 296 pixel) and was put together from 80 single, slightly
overlapping pictures.
The images of the H

uttner grid are also interesting for direct comparisons between
different detectors. One can see the different spatial resolution of the Medipix1 and the
Medipix2 clearly when looking at the images, but even better when looking at the intensity
modulations shown as profiles along pixel rows, columns, or along lines perpendicular
20 For
details on making large-scale images see chapter 6.1.
46

3.2
2.5
3500
3000
counts
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
pixel
600
700
800
900
Figure 5.25: Profile along one pixel row of the line pair phantom shown in figure 5.24. It
shows the decrease in the intensity modulation when the line width approaches and exceeds the
Nyquist frequency (2.94 lp/mm) of the pixel grid of the Medipix1. Two of the line groups have
their spatial frequency indicated (in lp/mm).
to the bar pattern. Figure 5.26 shows three groups of line pairs with different spatial
frequencies (1.4 lp/mm, 2.0 lp/mm, 2.5 lp/mm) as imaged with both detectors. The
higher spatial resolution of the Medipix2 can be seen very clearly, as all lines are clearly
resolved. But since these profiles are taken along the pixel rows and not perpendicular
to the line groups, they have to be treated with care, because the effective pixel size21 is
slightly higher than the pixel side length. In the case shown here the angle between the
lines and the pixel grid is nearly the same for both images, thus a direct comparison is
justifiable. When making a projection along the line groups to improve the statistics and
the reliability of the data, one can see that the Medipix1 can resolve even the 2.5 lp/mm
pretty well, which is to be expected but cannot be seen in this figure.
Using the Nyquist frequency of the two detectors of 2.94 lp/mm (Medipix1) and
9.09 lp/mm (Medipix2) as a reference value the results of figure 5.27 are not surprising. The top graph shows the line group with 3.2 lp/mm imaged with the Medipix1, the
bottom graph the line group with 10 lp/mm imaged with the Medipix2. In both cases
the spatial frequency of the bar pattern is above the respective Nyquist frequency and
thus the pattern is not clearly resolved. Only nine of the actual ten bright lines can be
seen, the middle one merges with the adjacent dark line and is seen as a intensity value
of about 50% of the other bright lines. The fact that both profiles are so very similar is
partly coincidence, but the fundamental similarity is to be expected since both detectors
are very similar except for the different pixel size.
5.3.2
Mammographic Phantoms
Both mammographic phantoms used for this work were kindly provided by Prof. Dr. med.
R. Schulz-Wendtland22 . All images used for the direct comparison were made with the
same detector dose and equal effective phantom thickness for both detectors.
21 The effective size is the projection of the pixel onto a line perpendicular to the line groups of the
phantom.
22 Lehrstuhl f
ur Diagnostische Radiologie, Friedrich-Alexander-Universit
at Erlangen-N
urnberg.
47
5.3. PHANTOMS FOR CHARACTERISATION & COMPARISON
intensity / a.u.
Medipix1
95
100
105
110
mm
115
120
intensity / a.u.
Medipix2
90
95
100
105
mm
110
115
120
Figure 5.26: Comparison between Medipix1 (top) and Medipix2 (bottom). The groups shown
have spatial frequencies of 1.4 lp/mm, 2.0 lp/mm, and 2.5 lp/mm. The cuts are not perpendicular
to the line groups but parallel to the pixel grids, which increases the effective pixel sizes slightly.
3.2 lp/mm
intensity / a.u.
Medipix1
126
127
128
mm
129
130
131
10 lp/mm
intensity / a.u.
Medipix2
151.2
151.4
151.6
151.8
152
152.2
mm
152.4
152.6
152.8
153
Figure 5.27: Comparison between the highest spatial frequencies the detectors can resolve.
This is (for the H
uttner grid) 3.2 lp/mm for the Medipix1 (top) and 10 lp/mm for the Medipix2
(bottom). Both frequencies are slightly above the respective Nyquist frequencies as calculated
using the physical pixel sizes (cf. figure 5.8) of the detectors.
48
The Wisconsin Mammographic Random Phantom (WMRP) 152A

The WMRP 152A was manufactured by Radiation Measurements Inc., Wisconsin.23 It
consists of 16 wax blocks with varying contents (nylon fibres, Al2 O3 specks, and masses)
which are randomly distributed in a 4 4-matrix (see figure 5.28). They are kept in place
by a PMMA frame and two PMMA plates which are held together by Teflon screws. Since
the positions of the wax blocks can be changed easily this phantom can be used for the
evaluation of X-ray imaging equipment [SWAS+ 01, SWAL+ 02] as well as for the training
and testing of observers/radiologists.
The WMRP is quite close to reality but also not very convenient when one has only
small detectors to test: the individual wax blocks have a side length of 2 cm and are
opaque. Therefore the positioning of a small detector relatively to the phantom is rather
difficult when looking for particular details. For the comparison between both Medipix
detectors the main criteria were the visibility of the low contrast objects (masses and
fibres) and the resolution of the high contrast objects (Al2 O3 specks).
Figure 5.28: The Wisconsin Mammographic Random Phantom 152A phantom. In this photograph one can see the largest of the masses in one wax block (second row, third block from the
left). One can also see the Teflon screws holding the phantom together.
The CDMAM phantom

The CDMAM (Contrast-Detail Mammography) phantom, which is shown in figure 5.29,
is manufactured by Nuclear Associates24 and was specifically developed to test mammographic equipment. It consists of an aluminium base with gold discs of varying thicknesses
(0.032.00 m) and thus varying contrast25 and with diameters of 0.062.00 mm. The gold
discs are arranged in a matrix of 16 rows and 16 columns, which are at 45 to the phantom edges. Along the rows and columns the diameter and the thickness are kept constant,
respectively. Since most combinations of disc thickness and diameter can be found in the
23 Now
Gammex RMI, http://www.gammex.com, but the phantom is not manufactured anymore.

Associates
25 0.52 %29.53 % using a Molybdenum anode with 28 kV tube voltage and 30 m Molybdenum filtration.
24 http://www.inovision.com/Nuclear
5.4. DIRECT DETECTOR COMPARISON
49
array, this phantom can be quite easily used to determine the limits of an X-ray imaging
system in terms of detail size and contrast.
In every grid cell there are two gold discs: one is located at the center of the cell
and one is located in one of the four corners. The random distribution of the second,
eccentric disc ensures that learning effects of the observer who is evaluating the test
images are minimised. Figure 5.30 is a closeup of a part of the CDMAM phantom showing
the distribution of the discs.
Figure 5.29: The CDMAM phantom. The rows and columns are at 45 to the edges of the
phantom.
Since this phantom is mainly used for testing medical equipment, there is also a specified procedure for the evaluation of the X-ray images. They have to be evaluated by at
least three experienced observers and a certain correction scheme for the indicated positions of the eccentric discs in every cell has to be employed. This scheme involves the
nearest neighbours of each cell and is used to clarify whether a given combination of size
and contrast can be seen with the imaging system under test.
In the scope of this work the above-mentioned correction scheme was not used. Single
cells were evaluated in terms of detail visibility, contrast, and SNR instead so that a
comparison between the Medipix1 and Medipix2 detectors was possible.
5.4
5.4.1
Direct Comparison Between the Detectors Using

Mammographic Phantoms
Images of the WMRP 152A
The wax blocks of the WMRP can be roughly classified into high-contrast and low-contrast
objects, where the low-contrast objects are partly large (the so-called masses) and partly
rather small (the nylon fibres).
50
Figure 5.30: Closeup view of a part of the CDMAM phantom, showing the random distribution
of the gold discs in the cells.
High-Contrast Details
The most pronounced differences between the Medipix1 and the Medipix2 can be seen
when looking at images of the high-contrast Al2 O3 grains or specks. Here the higher
spatial resolution of the Medipix2 can be seen very clearly as it is shown in figures 5.31
and 5.32. For easier comparison the sections shown are cut to the same dimensions and
are only a part of the complete images as can be seen from the pixel indices.
Just as it could be expected the images taken with the Medipix2 show more details
concerning not only the projected shape (which is important for diagnostics [YAMY04])
but also the thickness of the grains. But for very small grains the lower SNR26 nearly
cancels the benefit from the higher spatial resolution of the Medipix2, which can be seen
in figure 5.33: it is hard to see a few pixels with slightly less counts due to the grain to
be imaged on the noisy background.
Low-Contrast Details
For the imaging of low-contrast details the Medipix1 is sometimes rather better than the
Medipix2, as long as the objects are not too small. The reason for this is the better SNR
at the same detector dose due to the larger pixel area and the thus higher number of
photons per pixel. This can be seen in figure 5.33, where a nylon fibre of the WMRP is
shown. Since the fibre is much larger than the pixels, the better SNR of the Medipix1
detector is of significant advantage. By filtering the image taken with the Medipix2 the
visibility of the fibre can be enhanced but at the same time the spatial resolution is
decreased.
26 All
images were taken using the same detector dose and therefore the dose per pixel and the SNR are
considerably lower for the Medipix2.
51
15
100
140
35
180
55
10
30
220
50
80
120
160
200
Figure 5.31: Detail of the WMRP: Al2 O3 grains. The left image shows the grains as they can
be seen with the Medipix1 detector, the right one shows the same part of the phantom as seen
with the Medipix2. The size of the grains is 1.11.5 mm. For all images used to compare both
detectors the same object X-ray dose was used.
100
10
20
150
30
40
200
50
60
250
10
20
30
40
50
60
50
100
150
Figure 5.32: Detail of the WMRP: Al2 O3 grains. The left image was taken with the Medipix1
detector, the right one with the Medipix2 (the white pixels are dead pixels of which there are
quite a lot close to the edge of this detector). The size of the grains is 0.550.75 mm.
52
80
10
20
120
30
160
40
30
40
50
60
100
140
180
Figure 5.33: Detail of the WMRP: Al2 O3 grains. For these very small grains (size 0.2
0.35 mm) the lower SNR of the Medipix2 nearly cancels the benefit of the higher spatial resolution.
25
10
20
75
30
40
125
10
20
30
40
75
125
175
Figure 5.34: Detail of the WMRP: Nylon fibre. Here the Medipix1 is rather better than the
Medipix2 because of the higher number of photons per pixel for the same detector dose.
53
5.4.2
The CDMAM Phantom: Visual Comparison
The first step when looking at different detectors is a comparison of images because
the visual impression is quite important. Figure 5.35 shows two discs of the CDMAM
phantom: they have a diameter of 0.40 mm and a thickness of 2 m. The image taken
with the Medipix2 was cut to the size of the image taken with the Medipix1. While the
latter image shows a slightly better contrast and homogeneity, the shape of the objects
can only be roughly estimated. The Medipix2 with its smaller pixel size shows more noise
because of the lower number of photons per pixel (cf. chapter 5.4.3 below), but one can
discern the shape of the discs much better.
60
80
10
100
20
120
140
30
160
40
180
200
50
220
240
60
10
20
30
40
50
60
50
100
150
200
Figure 5.35: Detail of the CDMAM phantom. The gold discs have a diameter of 0.40 mm but
high contrast. The left image was taken with the Medipix1, the right image is an equally large
section of an image taken with the Medipix2.
When looking at details with very low contrast, the higher noise level (at the same
detector dose) of the Medipix2 becomes a disadvantage. This can be seen in figure 5.36,
where the discs have a diameter of 1.4 mm but a thickness of only 0.36 m. The image
taken with the Medipix1 shows them quite clearly, but in the image taken with the
Medipix2 they are hardly visible. The main reason the human observer can see them
at all is that they have a rather large area where the grey level is slightly different to
the background and the human eye is quite good at averaging noisy regions. But when
looking at the numbers (cf. figure 5.41) one can see that the SNR is even less than unity,
in other words the background noise level is higher than the signal itself.
5.4.3
The CDMAM Phantom: Measured values
The human observer can be rather easily deceived with respect to image quality, as there
are a number of factors which influence the detail or low contrast visibility, such as patterns
in the object distribution throughout the image.
For comparing two detectors with respect to their imaging qualities it is therefore
necessary to calculate the image contrast and the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) under the
same imaging conditions, as these numbers can be extracted directly and impartially
from measurements. For determining the background intensity27 Ibg and background
27 Intensity
is equivalent to counts per pixel for photon counting detectors.
54

60
80
10
100
20
120
140
30
160
40
180
200
50
220
240
60
10
20
30
40
50
60
50
100
150
Figure 5.36: Low-contrast detail of the CDMAM phantom. The discs imaged here have a
diameter of 1.6 mm but a very low contrast. Whereas the Medipix1 (left) shows the discs quite
clearly, they are hardly visible with the Medipix2 (right image).
noise bg , regions of interest (ROIs) were defined and evaluated in all images made with
the CDMAM phantom. For the intensity of the discs Id either ROIs or single pixels were
used, depending on the disc size. The contrast C was defined as:
C=
The SNR can be defined as:
Ibg Id
Ibg
Ibg Id
SNR = 2 2
bg +d
(5.4)
(5.5)
But because the disc area in the images is often only a few pixels or even a single pixel,
and the noise d is therefor neither well defined nor really meaningful, the SNR for the
comparison using the mammographic phantoms has been defined as follows:
SNR =
Ibg Id
bg
(5.6)
Both detectors show a very similar image contrast for different given disc thicknesses
but constant diameter, which is shown in figure 5.37. This is, however, only true as long
as the disc size is not less than about twice the pixel size. When looking at discs with
the same thickness but varying diameters, it can be seen that for very small discs, i.e.
diameters of about twice the pixel size and smaller, the contrast shown by the Medipix1
detector decreases significantly (see figure 5.38).
This different behaviour of the contrast values measured with the Medipix1 and the
Medipix2 can be explained simply by looking at the geometrical relations (cf. figure 5.39).
The smallest discs visible with the Medipix1 have a diameter of about the pixel size.
When such a disc is placed directly over a single pixel, this pixel shows a strong signal
and the disc can be seen. When it is placed over the corner of four pixels, none of them
shows a signal strong enough to be detected. Therefore the position of the disc has a
strong influence on the measured contrast and SNR values. Since the Medipix2 pixel size
is only 1/3rd of that of the Medipix1, this effect is much smaller for the same disc size.
55
0.2
Medipix1
Medipix2
measured contrast
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
gold disc thickness / m
Figure 5.37: The contrast for both detectors as a function of the gold disc thickness, with
the diameter kept constant. As could be expected there is no significant difference visible. The
straight lines are linear fits to the measured data.
0.25
Medipix1
Medipix2
measured contrast
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4

gold disc diameter / mm
0.45
0.5
Figure 5.38: The contrast for both detectors versus the disc diameter while keeping the thickness
constant. The decrease of the contrast for small discs as seen with the Medipix1 can be explained
by looking at the geometrical relations. The bold, continuous lines are only drawn to visualise
the trend of the measured data.
56
It might be, however, responsible for the rather high contrast value for the smallest disc,
which has a diameter of 0.13 mm. It looks as if this disc was placed directly above the
centre of a single pixel, which causes the high contrast (see figure 5.38) and SNR value
(see figure 5.42).
Figure 5.39: The effect of small discs. On the left side the smallest disc size visible with the
Medipix1 is shown: this disc can only be seen clearly when centred over a single pixel. Thus
the position has a strong influence on the visibility of the disc. On the right hand side the same
disc size is shown in comparison to the Medipix2 pixel size: the disc can be seen regardless of its
position relative to the pixel grid.
Medipix1
Medipix2 (3x3 av.)
0.2
measured contrast
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
Figure 5.40: A comparison between the contrast for small discs as seen with the Medipix1 and
as it can be emulated with the Medipix2 by averaging over 3 3 pixels. The decrease of the
contrast is very similar because of the similar effective pixel size.
The effects of the disc size on the contrast as seen with the Medipix1 can be emulated
with the Medipix2 by averaging over 3 3 pixels and thus using a similar effective pixel
size. When doing this the contrast for small disc decreases just as for the Medipix1. This
is shown in figure 5.40: just as could be expected both contrast curves are quite similar
to each other.
The SNR values of the Medipix2 detector suffer from the lower dose per pixel in
comparison to the Medipix1 detector. Since the pixel area is about 1/9th , the dose per pixel
is equally lower and henceforth the SNR is to be expected to be only about 1/3rd when
compared to the Medipix1. Figure 5.41 shows an average SNR ratio between Medipix1 and
Medipix2 of 2.67. This is in good agreement with the ratio of 3.09 which can be calculated
from the physical pixel sizes, assuming perfect detectors. The fact that the ratio is a little
lower than the theoretical value might be due to the fact that the Medipix2 detector used
57
Medipix1
Medipix2
measured SNR value
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
gold disc thickness / m
Figure 5.41: The SNR values of both detectors with linear fits to the data in comparison. Since
both series of measurements were taken with the same detector dose, it is not surprising that the
Medipix2 has a significantly lower SNR: the pixel area is only 1/9th compared to the Medipix1
and therefore the pixel dose and the expected SNR are about 1/9th and 1/3rd , respectively.
7.5
7
Medipix1
Medipix2
6.5
measured SNR
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4

0.45
0.5
Figure 5.42: The SNR values for small disks with constant thickness. The aforementioned effect
of small discs is clearly visible (cf. figures 5.385.40). The bold, continuous lines are only drawn
to clarify the trend of the measured data.
58
here came very close to the quantum limit after the fixed-pattern correction was applied
(see figure 5.17), whereas the Medipix1 was a little more noisy (see figure 5.7).
To test how far the results from these measurements were influenced by sensor or detector imperfections, a simulation using a simple high-contrast phantom has been carried out
using a molybdenum anode with 2 mm aluminium filtering and a tube voltage of 35 kV,
corresponding to the measurements shown previously. The phantom consists of a few
pieces of aluminium with a thickness of 0.5 mm. They were arranged to depict PI4, the
abbreviation of the department this work has been carried out at. The detectors used for
the simulation have a 300 mthick silicon sensor and 64 64 pixels (170 m pixel size, top
image) and 200 200 pixels (55 m pixel size, lower image), respectively. The number of
photons and therefore the dose were kept the same for all simulations. Figure 5.43 shows
the simulated images together with the corresponding histograms. They show clearly that
the contrasts are the same for both images but the ratio of the SNR values is about 3. The
simulation was then repeated with some changes to the phantom: instead of the 0.5 mm of
aluminium 1 mm of PMMA was used and for a further reduction of the phantom contrast
an additional 1 mm-layer of PMMA was placed over the whole image area. The resulting
low-contrast images are shown in figure 5.44. The upper one is the Medipix1 simulation,
the lower one the simulation with a pixel size of 55 m. Due to the low contrast the
phantom is barely visible in the latter case and the corresponding histogram shows only
a broad peak of nearly Gaussian shape. The simulation of the Medipix1 shows due to
the larger pixel size less detail, but the histogram shows still some features despite the
low contrast. The calculation of contrast and SNR confirms the fact that the contrast is
independent of the dose and therefore the same for both images but the SNR values are
not. Again the ratio of the SNR of the Medipix1 to the one of the Medipix2 detector is
about 3.
The lower SNR of the Medipix2 can be to some degree enhanced by filtering the data,
but by doing so some of the spatial resolution is lost.
59
300
background
10
number of pixels
250
20
30
40
50
200
1 layer
150
2 layers
100
50
60
10
20
30
40
50
60
1000
1400 1800 2200

counts / pixel
2600
1600
1400
1200
number of pixels
50
100
150
1000
800
600
400
200
200
50
100
150
200
100
150
200
counts / pixel
250
300
Figure 5.43: Simulated images and their histograms, the upper one with a pixel size of 170 m,
the lower one with a pixel size of 55 m. The simulated phantom consists of partially overlapping,
0.5 mm thick pieces of aluminium. Thus the histograms show three different peaks: background,
beneath 1 layer of aluminium and beneath 2 layers.
60
120
background
10
number of pixels
100
20
30
40
50
80
1 layer
60
2 layers
40
20
60
10
20
30
40
50
60
1900
2000
2100
2200
counts / pixel
2300
2400
1000
800
number of pixels
50
100
150
200
600
400
200
50
100
150
200
180
200
220 240
counts / pixel
260
280
Figure 5.44: Simulated images and their histograms. The setup is the same as for figure 5.43,
but this time the phantom is made from 1 mm thick PMMA with an additional 1 mm PMMA
plate as background. The Medipix1 is without further data processing or filtering better
suited for this low-contrast situation than the Medipix2 as long as the image details are not too
small.
Chapter 6
Large-Scale Images
Since the Medipix detectors are manufactured using standard semiconductor fabrication
and bonding techniques, the size of a single detector is limited to a few square centimetres at most. When comparing the size of the Medipix1 and Medipix2 detectors
(10.88 mm 10.88 mm and 14.08 mm 14.08 mm, respectively) to typical objects to be
examined, it becomes clear that one must develop methods to acquire larger images using
more than one detector or by moving one or more detectors around, thus generating large
images from single detector-sized sub-images [PGA+ 03].
In the following chapters two basic methods will be described, the particular advantages of each will be pointed out, and the experimental setup and equipment used will be
described.
6.1
6.1.1
Basic Ideas and Concepts

Move & Tile
Since the image is acquired by moving the detector first and tiling the single images
afterwards to assemble one composite image this method here is called Move & Tile (or
shortly M&T) in contrast to the method described in the next part.
This method is a straightforward application of the x-y translation stages. To cover
an object larger than the Medipix1 chip, the necessary field of view is scanned with the
detector until the whole area has been imaged (see figure 6.1): after the first image has
been taken the chip is moved in one direction so that the part of the object seen by
the second image has some overlap with the first one.1 This is indicated by the numbers
1 and 2 in the left hand part of figure 6.1 and the small arrow above. The shaded
squares represent the regions of the single exposures. The middle part of figure 6.1 shows
the completed first row of sub-images for which the detector has been moved several times
by the same amount. By repeating this several times, one has finally covered the whole
object or region of interest with rows of single images, each overlapping the neighbouring
ones.
The scanning steps can be chosen freely as long as they are not larger than the detector
size. Because of the overlap between two images, dead pixels in one image can sometimes
be replaced by data taken from the other one. The advantage of this can be clearly seen
by comparing figure 6.2, which shows a single image with some defective pixels, with
1 The
overlap can be of course zero, but a finite overlap is of advantage.
61
62
CHAPTER 6. LARGE-SCALE IMAGES
Figure 6.1: Move & Tile method: schematic process of image acquisition. On the left hand
side the first two images were taken with a certain overlap, in the middle the first row of images
is completed and on the left side the whole object has been covered.
figure 6.3, which shows a larger tiled image of a radial resolution phantom, a so-called
Siemensstar2 . Here almost none of the defective detector pixels can be seen in the image
because of the data replacement. Only along the edges of the final image where no other
data was available one can see the defects (e.g. in the lower left hand corner). Since the
Medipix detectors have a large linear range and the image data consists only of the number
of counted photons, data handling is very easy and pixel-wise data averaging is simply
done by calculating mean values (as it was done for figure 6.3). Because fluctuations
in the X-ray dose emitted by the tube can occur, each sub-image should be normalised
accordingly and therefore the dose applied for each image should be monitored for optimal
image quality.
When applying this method one has to keep in mind, though, that the noise in an
image depends on the X-ray dose used for this image. Thus in the regions of overlap the
noise is reduced due to the effectively doubled dose in this part of the composite image.
As long as the noise level is rather low or, in other words, the SNR is good, this will not
change much, but it might result in artifacts which can affect the image quality especially
for low contrast images. In this case it can become visible as a pattern of regions with
reduced noise, which might overlay important image details or distract the observer.
10
20
30
40
50
60
10
20
30
40
50
60
Figure 6.2: Move & Tile method: single sub-image taken with the Medipix1 chip which shows
some isolated dead pixels, the defective first row and the defective lower left corner (all purely
white pixels).
2 0.05 mm
lead embedded in 2 mm PMMA, 2 segmentation, 45 mm. See also appendix A.1.1.
63
6.1. BASIC IDEAS AND CONCEPTS
50
45 mm
100
150
200
250
50
100
150
200
250
Figure 6.3: Move & Tile method: 5 5 images with 10 pixels overlap to get rid of the defective
first row and the defective pixels in the lower left corner of the detector (as shown in figure 6.2).
The object imaged here is a so-called Siemensstar.
64
This method is very flexible for different object sizes and geometries, the main advantage being that only a single detector with readout electronics is needed. However,
the larger the object is, the longer it takes and the more dose is applied. Therefore it is
suitable for lab applications and detector testing, but not really useful for industrial or
medical applications.
6.1.2
Tile & Move
In order to image larger objects more effectively a second method has been developed: the
method is referred to as Tile & Move (or shortly T&M), because here several detectors
are tiled into a fixed array, which is subsequently moved to gather all necessary data.
This approach works in the following way: at first several detectors are tiled as close
to each other as possible to form a fixed array, which results in a large field image with
small gaps. The left part of figure 6.4 shows this detector array schematically. The next
step is a suitable movement of this array with subsequent image acquisition to cover the
gaps between the single detectors. As it is shown in the middle of figure 6.4, the most
convenient direction for the movement is diagonal to the array rows and columns, as this
covers most of the gaps of the first image. And by finally moving the detector a second
time diagonally and taking a third image, one has a complete set of data for most of the
scanned area. This effective field of view is shown hatched in the right part of figure 6.4.
Thus only three exposures are needed (provided that the gaps are less than half the size
of the single detectors) and the resulting image has a quite high photon statistics in the
overlapping areas, which leads to a very good SNR. But as a consequence of this there are
also smaller areas of the image which are not covered by all three exposures and therefore
show a lower SNR due to the lower effective dose. This can lead to a more or less visible
noise pattern with varying impact on the overall image quality, depending on the object
to be imaged.3 Another tell-tale sign of this method are the L-shaped missing corners
and blank rectangles along the image edges, which are caused by the gaps in the array.
They can be seen for example in the right hand side image of figure 6.9.
One disadvantage of this method are the high hardware requirements, since a large
number of detectors and a controlling and read-out system capable of handling the high
data rate are needed.
Figure 6.4: Tile & Move method: schematic process of image acquisition. The detector array
is moved twice diagonally to cover the whole object. This process is partly shown in the middle,
where the first and second position of the detector array is indicated. The effective field of view
without any gaps in the data is drawn black in the leftmost part and is shown hatched in the
rightmost part of the scheme.
3 Especially
difficult.
in the low-dose, low-contrast regime this could possibly make diagnostics noticeably more
6.2. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
65
For the Medipix2 detector, there is a chipboard designed to carry 8 detectors, which
will be available soon. On this chipboard the detectors are arranged in a 2 4-pattern
with no gaps at all between the read-out chips. It is planned to cover all 8 chips with a
single sensor layer providing a sensitive area of 512 1024 pixels (3 cm 6 cm) without
gaps. But since there is a necessary margin between the outermost pixels of the read-out
electronics and the chip edge, the pixel grid of the sensor layer is not homogeneous over
the whole area: there are significant larger sensor pixels along the boundaries of the 8
underlying read-out chips. This 2 4 chipboard would be very well suited for the Tile
& Move method. For more details on this chipboard see for example [LC03].
6.1.3
Comparison Between Both Methods
When comparing both the Move & Tile and the Tile & Move methods, there are
several factors that have to be considered, which make one or the other more suited for
different imaging requirements and applications:
Flexibility: The M&T approach is more flexible for different objects and requirements than the T&M approach since the image area can be adjusted better to the
area of interest. This is very useful for lab work and research.
Hardware Requirements: The M&T method needs only a single detector and
data acquisition system, whereas the T&M method requires a lot of detectors4 and
a data acquisition system capable of handling the high amount of data per image
very fast. On the other hand the first method needs two translation stages, which
should be rather long whereas the latter one needs only a single, rather short one.
Cost: Due to the large number of detectors needed for the T&M technique, it will
be probably significantly more expensive than the M&T technique, although the
latter one needs two high precision translation stages.
Speed: Since there are only three exposures needed for the T&M approach, it is
quite fast. The M&T approach however is rather slow, strongly depending on the
object size and the load capacity of the X-ray tube, which might be the constraining
factor when many exposures are needed.
Applicability: For medical imaging only the T&M method is feasible since it
is quite fast and needs only three exposures, which keeps the X-ray dose for the
patient quite low. The M&T method is more suited for research and perhaps nondestructive testing or testing random samples from some manufacturing process,
since it is rather time-consuming and due to the large number of single exposures a
high dose is applied.
6.2
Experimental Setup
There are two basically different ways to implement both the Move & Tile and the
Tile & Move methods. One can either move the detector and keep the object stationary
or move the object to be imaged between the X-ray source and the stationary detector.
For technical purposes such as non-destructive testing (NDT) or manufacturing control
the second method might be the method of choice: when using the detector somewhere
4 For
an area of 18 cm 20 cm about 130140 Medipix2 detectors would be needed!
66
Factor

Move & Tile
Tile & Move
Flexibility
++
Hardware
++
Research
Medical Imaging
Cost
Speed
Applications
Table 6.1: Comparison between the Move & Tile and the Tile & Move method. The rating
is of course slightly subjective.
in an assembly line it would be more convenient to move the objects which are handled
anyway and keep the detector stationary.
But in most cases only the first possibility is practical: it is much easier to attach
the detector or the detector array to some kind of translation stage and move it with the
required accuracy than to keep the detector at a fixed position and move the object. This
is especially obvious for medical imaging where it is desirable to keep the proceeding as
close to the conventional imaging procedure as possible.
When the detector is moved, the size of the object is limited by the size of the X-ray
field and by the limits of movement of the detector. In the case of the Move & Tile
approach the detector must be moved across the whole area to be imaged, which can
require rather large translation stages. Figure 6.5 shows the basic setup with the detector
mounted on two translation stages for scanning the image area, the X-ray source and the
object between source and detector.
Figure 6.5: The experimental setup for large-scale imaging. Moving the detector is the most
convenient method as it makes the further processing of the obtained images quite easy. Due to
the precision of the translation stages the detector can be positioned with sub-pixel accuracy so
that there are no misalignment artifacts in the large field images visible.
6.3. IMAGE ACQUISITION AND COMPOSITION
67
This was the way all large field images presented in this work were obtained, and the
travel range of the translation stages was the limiting factor for the object size. The movement of the translation stages, the triggering of the X-ray tube and the data acquisition
are all computer controlled (see the following chapter for details).
6.3
6.3.1
Automation of Image Acquisition and Image Composition

Image Acquisition
For the ease of image acquisition a server/client software5 (see appendix C.1) was used
to control the translation stages, the X-ray tube, and the data acquisition software. It
consists of a server program which controls and coordinates several clients connecting
to it and the individual client programs. The single client programs control e.g. the
communication with the motion controller managing the translation stages or read out
the dose meter. All relevant data can be written to a log file for further processing or
trouble shooting. The server/client program runs under UNIX and communicates via
serial ports with the rest of the hardware, including the computers running the data
acquisition software for the Medipix1 and Medipix2 detectors6 . Since both detectors
required slightly different hard- and software two separate computers were used for the
data acquisition with that particular detector generation.
While the object to be imaged was kept at a fixed position the translation stages were
used to move the detector. At every given position the server/client program started a
single exposure and triggered the X-ray tube. Then the detector was moved to the next
position and the next image was taken and so on until the complete image data was
collected. Since this moving and triggering was a simple scripted procedure, the only part
that needed direct manual control was the proper positioning of the object.
Due to the accuracy of the translation stages it was also possible to acquire a large
field image of an object and a flat field image with identical detector positions to allow
for correction of the Heel effect and other time-independent inhomogeneities of the X-ray
field without much difficulties.
6.3.2
Data Processing and Image Composition
The data processing and the image composition were done mostly with MATLAB7 . Simple
procedures to be done with all images like dose correction or fixed pattern correction were
scripted so that they could be executed with little user input. Since the translation stages
allowed exact positioning of the detector, the well-known spatial relation of the single
exposures to each other could be used to automatise the composition of the final image.
Thus the input of the image data, the relative movement of the detector between two
exposures and if necessary and available some fixed-pattern data or flat field image
were sufficient to create large field images without visible artifacts due to the composition
process. In the scope of this work up to 80 single images were used for large objects (see
figure 5.24).
5 Written
by Ch. Bert and D. Niederl

ohner, Universit
at Erlangen.
3 and MEDISOFT 4, respectively.
r
7 MATLAB
by The MathWorks, Inc., USA, http://www.mathworks.com/
6 MEDISOFT
68
6.4
6.4.1
Examples of Large-Scale Images

Move & Tile
One example for a large image using the Move & Tile technique was already shown
in figure 6.3. Here the image of a Siemensstar is put together from 25 (5 5) single
exposures. A very large one (80 images) showing an H
uttner grid was shown in figure 5.24.
Another example is shown in figure 6.6. This image was made using a slightly redesigned
H
uttner grid8 and the Medipix2 detector. It shows quite a lot of dead pixels due to the
unfortunately rather bad quality of this particular detector assembly. The size of the
image is 2896 1076 pixels or 159.3 mm 59.2 mm and was assembled from 65 (13 5)
single images with overlaps of 36 and 51 pixels in the x- and y-direction, respectively.
200
400
600
800
1000
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Figure 6.6: A large field image of a H

uttner grid taken with the Medipix2 detector. The image
size is 2896 1076 pixels or 159.3 mm 59.2 mm; it was assembled from 65 (13 5) single images,
the overlap was 36 and 51 pixels in the x- and y-direction, respectively.
6.4.2
Tile & Move
For this technique only one example is shown here as it was not possible to follow the
method exactly, because only one data acquisition system was available. Therefor the
single detector was moved to simulate an array of detectors with a fixed gap between the
single positions. Assembling all these images into one resulted in an image one would get
from a real array of detectors. This virtual array was then moved twice, leading to a
set of three images of the object as they would look like when taken with a real detector
array. Figure 6.7 shows one of the so collected array images, the black stripes between
the image parts being the gaps between the detectors of the (virtual) array. Finally the
three assembled images were superimposed to form the final picture as shown in figure 6.8.
The resulting image size is 291 291 pixels or 49 mm 49 mm.
8 The
lines with the lowest spatial frequency are now put together in a single group at one end, whereas
they were split into two groups at both ends in the previous design.
6.4. EXAMPLES OF LARGE-SCALE IMAGES
69
50
100
150
200
250
50 100 150 200 250
Figure 6.7: One image of the Siemensstar taken with the virtual array of detectors (assembled from 16 images taken with a single detector). The image size is 271 271 pixels or
46 mm 46 mm.
50
100
150
200
250
50 100 150 200 250
Figure 6.8: Completely assembled image consisting of three images taken with the virtual
array of detectors. The L-shaped white fields in the lower left hand corners is a characteristic
sign of the Tile & Move method (see also the right image of figure 6.9). The size of this final
image is 291 291 pixels or 49.5 mm 49.5 mm.
70
50
50
100
100
150
150
200
200
250
250
50 100 150 200 250
50 100 150 200 250
Figure 6.9: The images from figures 6.7 and 6.8 with different gray scales to enhance the
visibility of the gaps in the array and the remainders of these gaps in the final image (pure white
rectangles along the image edges and the lower left corner). One can also see the writing on the
rim of the Siemensstar, which cannot be seen clearly in the previous gray scale settings but are
nonetheless included in the image data.
6.5. FURTHER IDEAS FOR AUTOMATED IMAGE ASSEMBLY
6.5
71
Further Ideas and Strategies for Automated Image

Assembly
While it is rather simple to assemble large images from sub-images when the relative
position of the images is well-known, it is important to find methods for the image composition which do not rely on high-precision translation stages for the exact placement of
the sensor. In this chapter some ideas on how this could be achieved are presented.
6.5.1
Image Difference Method
One method to find the right offset between two images is to calculate some kind of image
difference. It works as follows for a movement of the detector in only one direction, but
this can be easily generalised for two dimension:
1. A region of interest (ROI) is identified in the first image. It must contain some
objects or structures which are also in the area shown in the second image. It
should preferably contain some small, high-contrast detail. This ROI1 can be as
simple as the last few columns of the first image. An example for this is shown in
figure 6.10 where the chosen ROI1 of a simple simulation is shown as a hatched area
at the right hand edge of the image.
2. In the next step a ROI of the same size as the ROI1 is designated in the second
image and the difference between this second ROI (ROI2 ) and the first ROI1 is
calculated as follows: for each pixel from ROI2 the number of counted photons is
subtracted from the number of counts of the corresponding pixel of ROI1 . The sum
of the absolute values of these differences for each pixel of the ROIs is taken as a
measure of the difference between both ROIs.
3. Then the position of the ROI2 in the second image is moved and the difference is
calculated again. This movement of the ROI2 is equivalent to a movement of the
second image relative to the first image and thus to another overlap between both
images. This procedure is repeated until all possible (or feasible) overlaps between
both images have been used and the differences have been calculated.
4. When plotting the differences versus the corresponding overlap, the right overlap
is shown by the minimum difference value.
This method is very fast and efficient when the displacement between the images is known
at least roughly. It can be automated further by using some simple search algorithm to
find the ROI1 or by simply using the last few columns of the respective first image.
At first it was tested using two simulated Medipix1 images showing a phantom with
two thin aluminium discs embedded in PMMA. The discs are completely visible on both
images, but the ROI1 of the first image includes only parts of the discs. This can be seen
in figure 6.10, where both images are shown separately. Figure 6.11 shows the assembled
image. The higher statistics in the region of overlap can be seen as a less noisy area in
the centre. The difference of the ROIs as a function of the offset between both images is
shown in figure 6.12: the minimum difference corresponding to the optimum offset is quite
clear. The histogram of the ROI1 (figure 6.13) indicates that the information contained
in the ROI does not necessarily have to be very much.
Figures 6.146.15 show the same method applied to two images from a Siemensstar.
They are two actual images which were used to put together the image shown in figure 6.3.
72
Image 1
Image 2

10
10

20
20

30
30

40
40

50
50

60

10
20
30
40
50
ROI 1
60

60
10
20
30
40
50
60
Figure 6.10: The first image with ROI1 , which consists of the last five columns and is indicated
by the hatched area, and the second image.
10
20
30
40
50
60
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
Figure 6.11: The composite image using the automatically calculated offset. One can see that
the noise is a little reduced in the area of overlap due to the higher statistics.
x 10
1.8
ROI difference
1.6
optimum offset
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0
10
20
30
offset / pixel
40
50
60
Figure 6.12: The differences between the ROIs for different image offsets. The minimum
difference marking the optimum offset can be seen clearly.
73
35
number of pixels
30
25
discs
background
20
15
10
5
0
50
100
150
200
counts / pixel
250
300
Figure 6.13: Histogram of the ROI1 of the left hand side image of figure 6.10. It demonstrates
how little information can be enough to facilitate automatic image composition.
This example illustrates that this method works reliably for small ROIs and even if part
of the detector is defective (here: the lower left corner).
Image 1
Image 2
10
10
20
20
30
30
40
40
50
50
60
60
10
20
30
40
50
60
10
20
30
40
50
60
Figure 6.14: The two images to be stitched together. The ROI1 in the first image comprises
only the rightmost three columns. Even though the lower left corner of the detector is badly
damaged, the image difference method works reliably.
Figures 6.186.20 finally show two Medipix2 images which were assembled using this
simple difference method. Although the detector edges are quite noisy, there is a sizable
cluster of dead pixels near the top left corner, and the right hand side of the first image
shows very little object details, the method works very well.
6.5.2
Autocorrelation Methods and Similar Approaches
The image difference method works well for determining offsets on the pixel level, but is
not really suitable to achieve sub-pixel accuracy, which might be desirable at least for the
Medipix1 with its rather large pixels. Sub-pixel accuracy could perhaps be realised using
autocorrelation methods or other image processing techniques. But since the emphasis
of this work was put on the characterisation of the Medipix detectors, these approaches
have not been pursued.
74
10
20
30
40
50
60
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100 110
Figure 6.15: The composite image stitched together using the automatically calculated offset.
There are no additional artifacts due to the assembly.
30
number of pixels
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
counts / pixel
Figure 6.16: Histogram of the ROI1 of the left hand side image of figure 6.14. Although there
is nearly no discernible structure in the histogram, it suffices for the finding of the right offset.
5
x 10
ROI difference
0
0
10
20
30
offset / pixel
40
50
60
Figure 6.17: The differences between the ROIs for different offsets of the two Medipix1 images.
Even though the images show some nearly periodic structures, which lead to the oscillations of
the difference, the correct offset can be determined without problems.
75

Image 1
Image 2
50
50
100
100
150
150
200
200
250
250
50
100
150
200
250
50
100
150
200
250
Figure 6.18: Two images taken with the Medipix2 detector. They are part of the large image
of the H
uttner grid (see fig. 6.6). It should be noted that the right hand side edge of the first
image shows very little object details.
50
100
150
200
250
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Figure 6.19: The assembled image; although there is very little image structure to be found in
the ROI in the first image and there are quite a number of defects in both images, the algorithm
works very well.
6
3.5
x 10
ROI difference
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
50
100
150
offset / pixel
200
250
Figure 6.20: The difference between the ROIs of both Medipix2 images shown in figure 6.18.
There are quite a lot of features, but the minimum value is still unambiguous.
76
Chapter 7
Summary and Outlook

The wide range of applications of the Medipix detectors includes autoradiography using the 5.9 keV line of 55 Fe or low-energy -radiation from tracers (3 H, 14 C and others)
[BCM+ 02, MMR04], X-ray imaging in different modalities and for various purposes. The
Medipix detectors have also been applied quite successfully to transmission electron microscopy, electron crystallography [FC02], and even to neutron imaging using conversion
layers (made of 6 LiF or 10 B) on top of the sensor.
This work has been carried out to evaluate the applicability of both generations of
the Medipix detector for medical imaging in the low-energy regime (below 40 keV photon
energy) with special interest in mammography. Since mammography is a field where high
spatial resolution and the visibility of small changes in contrast are crucial, the concept
of photon counting is very promising.
Using low-contrast phantoms it was shown that the Medipix1 detector can provide very
homogeneous images which are necessary to see the small contrast differences between the
different types of soft tissue.
It could also be shown that the Medipix2 is able to resolve high-contrast details (such
as the so-called microcalcifications) down to the range of 100 nm. In order to give really
good results it would be necessary to have other sensor layers (i.e. with higher absorption)
than the 300 m Si layers which were available for the experiments.
However, simulation studies using sensor materials with higher atomic numbers (e.g.
GaAs or CdTe) have shown that the spatial resolution of detectors with direct conversion
layers might be limited rather by physical effects inside the sensor (especially the generation of fluorescence photons at the K-edges of the materials, which have a rather large
absorption length) than by the pixel size of the detector [HGB04, HGMB04].
One problem which should be addressed in the near future is the rather low detective
quantum efficiency (DQE) of the detectors, which is still not fully understood and can
only be partially attributed to the effect of charge sharing between neighbouring pixels.
This latter problem could possibly be solved by some hardware cross-linking between
neighbouring pixels or data post-processing as it was shortly described at the end of
chapter 5.2.5.
Another issue of further development of the Medipix or similar detectors would be the
implementation of more than one counter per pixel in combination with several tunable
thresholds. This could increase the amount of information gained from a single image,
by doing some basic spectroscopy, by applying image subtraction techniques, or by using
energy weighting techniques [GNA04].
77
78
CHAPTER 7. SUMMARY AND OUTLOOK
Alternatively or in addition it could be advisable to implement a finer threshold adjustment to minimise the need for a fixed pattern corrections of the data using the average
of a large number of flat field images.
Chapter 8
Zusammenfassung und
Ausblick
Die Detektoren
Im Rahmen dieser Arbeit wurden zwei Generationen von Halbleiter-Rontgendetektoren
(Medipix1 und Medipix2) charakterisiert und auf ihre Eignung f
ur die medizinische Bildgebung unter besonderer Ber
ucksichtigung der Anforderungen der Mammographie hin untersucht.
Die Medipix-Detektoren sind hybride, photonenzahlende Pixeldetektoren, die im Rahmen der Medipix-Kollaboration1 aus Detektoren der Hochenergie-Teilchenphysik entwickelt wurden. Sie bestehen aus einer Halbleiterschicht, die die eintreffenden Rontgenquanten
in Ladungstr
ager umwandelt, und einer Elektronikschicht, die die erzeugten Ladungstrager
pixelweise registriert und weiterverarbeitet. Dazu werden die Ladungspulse verstarkt und
mit einer Schwelle verglichen; bei Uberschreiten

dieser einstellbaren Schwelle wird das
Ereignis als absorbiertes Photon mit einer Mindestenergie gewertet und der Zahlerstand
des Pixels um eins erh
oht.
Tabelle 8.1 zeigt die grunds
atzlichen Eigenschaften der beiden Detektorgenerationen
Medipix1 und Medipix2 im Vergleich. Die Schemata der jeweiligen Pixelelektronik sind
auf Seite 8 (Medipix1, Abb. 2.4) beziehungsweise Seite 9 (Medipix2, Abb. 2.5) zu finden.
Beiden Detektoren zu eigen ist eine ausgezeichnete Bilddynamik, die der Bildqualitat
zugute kommt; auch bei sehr starken Kontrasten im Bild sind bei entsprechender Fensterung auch noch geringe Kontrastunterschiede erkennbar. Als Beispiel daf
ur kann Abbildung 6.9 (Seite 70) dienen: die aufgedruckte Beschriftung des Phantoms ist bei passender
Fensterung deutlich zu sehen.
Die Anwendungsgebiete der Medipixdetektoren reichen von der Autoradiographie mit
niedrigenergetischen Photonen (z.B. die 5.9 keV-Linie von 55 Fe) oder -emittierenden
Tracern wie 3 H oder 14 C [BCM+ 02, MMR04] u
ber Rontgenbildgebung in verschiedenen Modalit
aten und Energiebereichen bis hin zur Elektronenkristallographie [FC02];
es ist sogar Bildgebung mit Neutronen moglich, indem der Detektor mit zusatzlichen
Konvertierungsschichten aus 6 LiF oder 10 B ausger
ustet wird, die u
ber Neutroneneinfang
geladene Teilchen erzeugen, welche dann wiederum mit dem Medipix detektiert werden.
1 http://medipix.web.cern.ch/MEDIPIX/
79
80
CHAPTER 8. ZUSAMMENFASSUNG UND AUSBLICK
Eigenschaft
Medipix1
Medipix2
Pixelgr
oe
170 m 170 m
55 m 55 m
Anzahl Pixel
Sensitive Fl
ache
Anzahl Energieschwellen
64 64
1.18 cm
256 256
1.98 cm2
3 bit DAC
3 bit DAC
Zahlertiefe
15 bit
13 bit
Verwendbare Ladungstr
ager
Locher
Locher / Elektronen
1 m
0.25 m
300 m Si
300 m Si
Feinabgleich der Schwellen

Anzahl Z
ahler
CMOS Prozess
Verwendete Sensorschichten
Tabelle 8.1: Die grunds

atzlichen Eigenschaften und Unterschiede von Medipix1 und Medipix2.
Detektorcharakterisierung und grundlegende Eigenschaften

Eine Charakterisierung der Detektoren mit verschiedenen Methoden und Phantomen ergab folgende, grundlegende Eigenschaften:
Bildrauschen: Beide Detektoren zeigen aufgrund ihrer Funktionsweise auch bei
langen Belichtungszeiten keinerlei Dunkelrauschen. Ausserdem ist es mithilfe des
pixelweisen Feinabgleichs der Schwellen und einer nachtraglichen sogenannten FixedPattern-Korrektur m
oglich, das Bildrauschen bis auf das Quantenrauschen der Photonen zu dr
ucken (siehe Abb. 5.6/5.7 bzw. Abb. 5.16/5.17 f
ur Medipix1 bzw. Medipix2). Die Fixed-Pattern-Korrektur kann die zeitunabhangigen Empfindlichkeitsschwankungen zwischen den einzelnen Pixeln kompensieren, die teils auf einen unvollst
andigen Schwellenabgleich und teils auf lokale Unterschiede der Sensorschicht
zur
uckgehen.
MTF: Die Modulations
ubertragungsfunktion (MTF) entspricht ihn ihrer Form bei
beiden Detektoren gut der erwarteten theoretischen Kurve f
ur quadratische Pixel.
Allerdings sind die Absolutwerte vor allem beim Medipix1 ein Hinweis darauf, dass
die effektive Pixelgr
oe etwas kleiner als die geometrische ist, was vermutlich am
sogenannten Charge-Sharing-Effekt2 liegt. Abbildung 5.19 (Seite 41) zeigt beide
MTF-Kurven im direkten Vergleich.
DQE: Der Verlauf der DQE-Kurve ist beim Medipix1 grundsatzlich wie erwartet,
jedoch ist die Quanteneffizienz der verwendeten Sensorschicht aus Silizium auch f
ur
das relativ weiche Spektrum einer Mammographierohre sehr gering. Des weiteren
scheint durch den sogenannten Charge-Sharing-Effekt die Effizienz noch weiter vermindert zu sein. Selbst unter Annahme einer perfekten Sensorschicht betr
uge die
DQE nur etwa 42%; eine genauere Untersuchung und Aufschl
usselung der einzelnen
Gr
unde hierf
ur konnte im Rahmen dieser Arbeit nicht durchgef
uhrt werden.
Die DQE-Auswertung f
ur den Medipix2 leidet hauptsachlich unter einem relativ
2 Im Sensor generierte Ladungstr
ager verteilen sich aufgrund der Diffusion auf zwei oder mehr Kontakte und werden deswegen nicht nur in einem Pixel verarbeitet; dies kann zur Folge haben, dass das
entsprechende Photon u
ahlt wird.
berhaupt nicht gez
81
schlechten Noise-Power-Spektrum, welches zum groten Teil auf die hohe Anzahl
an defekten Pixeln im Randbereich des untersuchten Detektors zur
uckzuf
uhren sein
drfte. Auerdem ist deutlich zu sehen, dass die wesentlich kleineren Pixel signifikant
mehr Charge-Sharing-Effekte zeigen, welches die Quanteneffizienz im Vergleich zum
Medipix1 nochmals verschlechtert.
Energieaufl
osung: Aufgrund von Schwellenrauschen, Inhomogenitaten und Charge
Sharing liegt die Energieaufl
osung des Medipix1 bei ungefahr 23 keV, wie die Messungen mit der 109 Cd-Quelle zeigen (siehe Kapitel 5.1.3). F
ur den Medipix2 liegen
noch keine genauen Daten vor; allerdings kann man bei der 109 Cd-Quelle die Doppellinie (22.1 keV und 25 keV) relativ deutlich trennen (siehe Kapitel 5.2.2).
Ein direkter Vergleich der beiden Detektorgenerationen mit Hilfe zweier Mammographiephantome3 ergab folgende Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede:
1. Die Bilddynamik ist bei beiden Detektoren sehr hoch; die kleinere Zahlertiefe des
Medipix2 hat sich in der Praxis nicht wesentlich bemerkbar gemacht.
2. Die Niedrigkontrasterkennbarkeit ist bei konstanter Dosis beim Medipix1 deutlich h
oher, da die gr
oere Pixelflache eine hohere Statistik und damit ein niedrigeres
relatives Quantenrauschen zur Folge hat.
3. Die Ortsaufl
osung ist erwartungsgema beim Medipix2 wesentlich hoher, beide
Detektoren liegen nahe an den theoretisch zu erwartenden Werten. Somit liefert
der Medipix2 die in der Mammographie geforderte Auflosung von 10 lp/mm oder
besser. Allerdings ist eine relativ hohe Dosis notwendig, um auch niedrige Kontraste
gut abzubilden.
Grofl
achige Aufnahmen
Das Problem der geringen Gr
oe der einzelnen Detektoren kann durch geeignete Aufnahmemodi gel
ost werden. In dieser Arbeit wurden zwei grundlegende Ansatze vorgestellt
und mit ihren jeweiligen Vor- und Nachteilen erlautert.
Zum einen kann man einen einzelnen Detektor verwenden, um das gesamte Bildfeld
abzurastern und danach aus diesen Einzelbildern das Gesamtbild zu erstellen: diese Methode erfordert einen relativ geringen Materialaufwand, ist aber langwierig und deswegen
nicht oder nur sehr bedingt f
ur Aufgaben der medizinischen Bildgebung geeignet. F
ur
den Laboreinsatz oder unter Umst
anden auch als zerstorungsfreies Pr
ufverfahren in der
Produktion ist sie jedoch durchaus gut verwendbar. Da bei dieser Aufnahmeweise zuerst
der Detektor vielfach verfahren und danach das Gesamtbild aus den Einzelaufnahmen
gekachelt wird, wird die Methode mit Move & Tile bezeichnet.
Zum anderen kann man ein Array aus vielen Einzeldetektoren aufbauen; die unvermeidlichen L
ucken in diesem k
onnen durch zweimaliges Verschieben des Arrays und an
schlieender Uberlagerung
der drei entstandenen Bilder gef
ullt werden. Diese Methode
erfordert eine groe Zahl an Detektoren mit entsprechender Ansteuerung und Datenverarbeitung, ist aber wesentlich schneller und deswegen auch f
ur die medizinische Bildgebung geeignet. Im Gegensatz zur erstgenannten Methode wurde hierf
ur der Begriff Tile
& Move gepr

agt, da hier ein ganzes Array aus Detektoren bewegt wird.
3 Beide
Phantome wurden freundlicherweise von Prof. Dr. med. R. Schulz-Wendtland zur Verf
ugung
gestellt (Lehrstuhl f
ur Diagnostische Radiologie, Friedrich-Alexander-Universit
at Erlangen-N
urnberg).
82
Gesichtspunkt
Flexibilit
at
Hardware-Aufwand
Kosten
Geschwindigkeit
Typische Anwendung
CHAPTER 8. ZUSAMMENFASSUNG UND AUSBLICK

Move & Tile
Tile & Move
++
++
Forschung
med. Bildgebung
Tabelle 8.2: Vergleich zwischen der Move & Tile - und der Tile & Move - Methode. Die
einzelnen Bewertungen sind unvermeidlicherweise in gewissem Rahmen subjektiv.
Fazit und Ausblick

Eine M
oglichkeit zur Verbesserung der Quanteneffizienz der Detektoren waren entweder dickere Sensorschichten oder die Verwendung anderer Halbleitermaterialien wie GaAs
oder Cd(Zn)Te. Allerdings leidet bei dickeren Sensorschichten die Ortsauflosung zumindest etwas unter den l
angeren Driftzeiten der Ladungstrager, welche sich auch in groeren
Diffusionsl
angen niederschlagen. Bei der Verwendung anderer Materialien ist auerdem
zu ber
ucksichtigen, dass die Ortsauflosung auch durch unerw
unschte Effekte bei der Absorption im Sensor begrenzt sein kann: hier ist vor allem die Erzeugung von Fluoreszenzphotonen an den K-Kanten der verwendeten Materialien zu beachten, die eine erhebliche
Reichweite innerhalb des Sensors haben [HGB04, HGMB04].
F
ur die Weiterentwicklung des Medipix-Detektors f
ur die medizinische Bildgebung bieten sich mehrere M
oglichkeiten an. Um den Informationsgehalt der Bilder zu erhohen,
konnte die Pixelzelle mit mehreren Energieschwellen und mehreren Zahlern ausgestattet werden, um den unterschiedlichen Informationsgehalt verschiedener Energiebereiche
des R
ontgenspektrums auszunutzen. Eine grundlegende Untersuchung zum Nutzen der
spektroskopischen Information findet sich in [GNA04].
Zus
atzlich oder alternativ w
are es von Nutzen, den Feinabgleich der Energieschwellen
zu verbessern, was es eventuell ermoglichen konnte, auf eine nachtragliche Bildkorrektur
(Fixed-Pattern-Korrektur) zu verzichten.
Appendix A
Phantoms
A.1
A.1.1
Simple Phantoms
Siemensstar
The so-called Siemensstar is a radial resolution phantom consisting of a 0.05 mm thick

lead layer embedded in 2 mm PMMA. It has a 2 segmentation and a diameter of 45 mm.
This type of phantom is especially useful to test whether the spatial resolution is isotropic
or not and can be used to determine the resolution limit quite precisely.
Figure A.1: Photograph of the Siemensstar.
A.1.2
H
uttner grid
The so-called H
uttner grid is a line pair or bar pattern phantom made from a 0.05 mm
thick lead layer embedded in 2 mm PMMA. It features several groups of lines with different widths and therefore different spatial frequencies, ranging from 0.05 lp/mm up to
10 lp/mm. It was manufactured by H
uttner, Heroldsbach, Germany. There were two
83
84
APPENDIX A. PHANTOMS
slightly different designs: the one shown in figure A.2 (used for the measurements with
the Medipix1 detector) and another one, which has two line pairs of lowest spatial frequency at one end of the phantom instead of one pair at each end.
Figure A.2: Photograph of a H

uttner grid. This specimen is the one used for measurements
with the Medipix1 detector; later on a slightly redesigned grid was used.
A.1.3
Contrast-Detail Mammographic Phantom
The CDMAM phantom (see figure 5.29, page 49) is manufactured by Nuclear Associates1
and was specifically developed to test mammographic equipment. It consists of an aluminium base with gold discs of varying thicknesses and diameters to evaluate the contrast
and detail resolution of a detector with a single image. The gold discs are arranged in
a matrix of 16 rows and 16 columns. Along the rows and columns the diameter and
the thickness are kept constant, respectively. Table A.1 gives the range of the different
parameters.
Parameter
Range
Disc thicknesses
0.03 m2.00 m
Disc contrasts
0.52 %29.53 %
Disc diameters
0.06 mm2.00 mm
Table A.1: Technical details of the CDMAM phantom. The contrast values are given for images
taken with a Mo-anode, 30 m Mo-filtration and 28 kV tube voltage.
1 http://www.inovision.com/Nuclear
Associates
85
A.1. SIMPLE PHANTOMS
A.1.4
Wisconsin Mammographic Random Phantom 152A
The WMRP 152A was manufactured by Radiation Measurements Inc., Wisconsin (now
Gammex RMI, http://www.gammex.com) and is unfortunately no longer available. It
consists of 16 wax blocks with varying contents (Al2 O3 specks, nylon fibres, and masses)
which are randomly distributed in a 4 4-matrix (see figure 5.28, page 48). The sizes of
the wax block contents are given in table A.2. This phantom is quite close to reality
and therefore very good for the testing of medical imaging systems but due to its opacity
not very convenient for testing small detectors.
Objects
Dimensions
Al2 O3 specks
200 m740 m diameter
Nylon fibres
0.4 mm1.6 mm diameter
Masses
5 mm14 mm thickness
Table A.2: Specifications of the WMRP 152A. The overall phantom thickness used for the images (45 mm) was the sum of the thicknesses of the wax blocks, the PMMA casing and additional
PMMA slabs.
86
APPENDIX A. PHANTOMS
Appendix B
Technical Specifications of the

Equipment
B.1
The Mammomat B
Manufacturer
Siemens
Anode material
Molybdenum
Tube voltages
25 kV, 30 kV, 35 kV, 40 kV
Spot size low dose
0.42 mm 0.63 mm
Spot size high dose
0.52 mm 0.63 mm
mAs-values
depending on voltage and spot size
Triggering
manual or computer controlled (customised)
Table B.1: Technical specifications of the Mammomat B, manufactured by Siemens.
The spot sizes for the low dose and high dose ranges were measured by Christoph Bert
and Daniel Niederlohner [BN02]. The triggering of the X-ray generation can be done by
hand or computer controlled using the server/client program (see appendix C.1), which can
also read out the dose meter and trigger the data acquisition software package MEDISOFT
(developed by the University and INFN of Napoli for the Medipix Collaboration).
B.2
Translation Stages and Motion Controller
The translation stages were fixed at right angles on top of each other and mounted on
a PMMA base plate so that they allowed for precise x-y-scanning within an area of
150 mm 150 mm. An adaptor plate was made for each detector generation with which
they could be screwed onto the second stage. For the Medipix1 the dedicated MUROS1
was fixed to the stage; for the Medipix2 only the connector of the cable between the
chip board and the MUROS2 had to be screwed onto the upper translation stage. The
translation stages can also be controlled via the motion controller using the server/client
program mentioned above.
87
88
APPENDIX B. TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS OF THE EQUIPMENT

Manufacturer
Newport
Controller
MM4005
Encoder resolution
0.5 m
Stage 1
M-UTM 150 CC1DD
Stage 2
M-UTM 150 CC.1
Travel range
150 mm
Repeatability
1.4 m
Table B.2: Technical specifications of the motion controller and the two translation stages.
B.3
Dose Meters
Manufacturer
RTI Electronics AB, Sweden
Type
Solidose 400
Detector
Silicon solid state detector
Accuracy
1%
Manufacturer
PTW-Freiburg GmbH, Germany
Type
DIADOS
Detector
Silicon solid state detector
Accuracy
1%
Table B.3: Technical specifications of the two solid state dose meters used during this work.
The Solidose 400 can be read out using a serial connection; the read-out is implemented
as a client of the server/client program (see appendix C.1). The DIADOS was used only
at the beginning of this work.
Appendix C
Programs and Scripts

C.1
Server/Client Program
The server/client program used for controlling the translation stages (via the motion
controller), the X-ray tube, the data acquisition, and for the read-out of the dose meter and
a thermometer monitoring the temperature of the X-ray tube was written by Christoph
Bert and Daniel Niederlohner during their work for their diploma theses. Figure C.1 shows
a schematic view of the working of this software bundle. The central part (the server ),
controls all clients and passes information from one client to another if necessary. The
server is controlled via a simple user-edited script containing instructions for the different
clients and the server itself. Contents of this script can be e.g. movement instructions for
the translation stages or requests to read out the dose meter and write the result to a log
file.
motionControl
(motion controller)
redButton
(Xray tube trigger)
IBA
(dose meter)
Clients
RemoteMediSoft
(data acquisition)
Server
file *.conf
(user program interface)
ME32
(thermometer)
log files *.log, *.tab

(data logging, e.g. dose, time)
Figure C.1: Schematic view of the structure of the server/client program.
89
90
APPENDIX C. PROGRAMS AND SCRIPTS
C.2
MATLAB Scripts
For the ease of using Matlabr for the image processing and tiling, several small scripts
were used. Since they consist mainly of routines needed to read the image data and to
put it in larger matrices and do only very basic data processing, i.e. calculating mean
values from two or more pixel counts, no actual example will be given here. There is an
extensive online helpdesk to be found at the website of The MathWorks, Inc.1 . There are
also a lot of books which can be helpful for getting started (e.g. [Ben00, HLR01, Kni99])
or are written for special fields of interest.
The scripts used for the calculation of the MTF via the edge method were kindly
provided by Lukas Tlustos (currently working at CERN, Switzerland) and include fitting,
filtering and FFT routines.
1 http://www.mathworks.com/
Appendix D
Glossary
A selection of the terms used in this work.
Charge Sharing: The effect that the photo-generated charge can be split up between
two or even more pixels in the sensor layer. This can lead to double counts or no count of
this photon or it can have no visible effect. The severeness of the charge sharing effects
depends on sensor material, sensor bias, pixel size, and photon energy in comparison to
the threshold energy set for the discriminators of the single pixels. See chapter 5.1.6,
page 34.
Chipboard: The chipboard is the board onto which the Medipix detector is glued and
wire-bonded. It also carries a connector to plug into the MUROS1 board or the cable leading
to the MUROS2 board and makes the handling of the detectors quite comfortable. There
are single-detector chipboards for the Medipix1 and Medipix2, respectively. A chipboard
designed to carry 8 Medipix2 detectors is also under test.
Fixed-Pattern Correction: The fixed-pattern correction is applied to minimise the
influence of inhomogeneities of the sensor layer and of residual electronic inhomogeneities
not corrected by the () threshold mask. The fixed-pattern correction is a step of the
data processing which refines the raw image data. See chapter 5.1.4, page 31.
Fixed-Pattern Correction Image: The image data used for the () fixed-pattern
correction. It is the average of a large number of () flat-field images and shows how
homogeneous the detector is.
Fixed-Pattern Noise: The term fixed-pattern noise is slightly misleading, since it
describes image inhomogeneities which are fixed in time (and therefore not really noise
such as the electronics noise) and are caused by pixel-to-pixel variations of the electronics
and by inhomogeneities of the sensor layer.
Flat-Field Image: A flat-field image is an image taken without any phantoms between
the X-ray source and the detector. It is ideally as homogeneous as the X-ray flux. Flatfield images are needed for the () fixed-pattern correction as well as for determining the
image noise or the DQE of a detector.
91
92
APPENDIX D. GLOSSARY
Fluence / Flux: The flux is defined as the rate of particles across a given surface,
whereas the fluence is the time-integrated flux, i.e. the total number of particles delivered
to a given area.
Gain Map:
Gain map is another term for the () fixed-pattern correction image.
Nyquist Frequency: The highest frequency that can be represented in a digital signal
of a specified sampling frequency. For the Medipix detectors this sampling frequency is
given by the pixel size.
Raw (Image) Data: The numbers of photons per pixel as they are read from the
detector, without any further data processing. The only correction is the application
of the () threshold mask, i.e. the fine tuning of the detection threshold via the 3-bit
threshold adjust.
Threshold Adjust: The 3-bit correction possibility which adjusts the globally set
threshold for the individual pixel. This adjustment minimises the pixel-to-pixel variation due to the manufacture of the electronics chip. Since the capacitors and transistors
are not exactly identical for each pixel, there are slight variations in their electrical behaviour. The threshold adjust does not correct for inhomogeneities of the sensor layer (
fixed pattern correction). See chapter 5.1.2, page 27.
Threshold Mask: A file which contains the bit setting of the () threshold adjust for
each pixel. This mask is normally loaded before using the detector. See chapter 5.1.2,
page 27.
List of Figures
Images taken with the Medipix1 and Medipix2 are indicated by M1: and M2:, respectively. For simulated images, ROSI: is used.
1.1
1.2
M1: Image of a blown fuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Photograph of the fuse shown in fig. 1.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
M1: High contrast image . . . . . . .

M1: Intensity profile of fig. 2.1 . . . .
Schematic view of a Medipix detector
M1: Pixel cell layout . . . . . . . . . .
M2: Pixel cell layout . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
7
7
8
9
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
Photograph of the X-ray shielded setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Schema of the experimental setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Intensity map of the X-ray field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Linear dose-mAs relation of the X-ray tube . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ROSI: simple black box model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ROSI, M1: Comparison between simulated and measured Siemensstar
ROSI: Three images with different degree of scattering . . . . . . . . .
ROSI: Histograms of simulated images (cf. fig. 4.7) . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
17
18
19
20
20
21
22
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.10
5.11
5.12
5.13
5.14
5.15
5.16
5.17
M1:
M1:
M1:
M1:
M1:
M1:
M1:
M1,
M1:
M1:
M1:
M1:
M1:
M2:
M2:
M2:
M2:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
26
26
28
29
30
32
32
33
33
34
35
36
37
39
39
40
40
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Number of counts vs. detector bias . . . . . . . . . .

Flat-field images with under-depleted sensor layer . .
Threshold histograms before and after adjustment . .
Threshold scan using a 109 Cd source . . . . . . . . .
Threshold calibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Raw data and fixed-pattern corrected image . . . . .
Histograms of fig. 5.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
M2: Comparison of MTF curves (edge method) . . .
MTF curve (square wave method) . . . . . . . . . . .
NPS curve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DQE curve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Charge sharing effect on threshold scan . . . . . . . .
Charge sharing effect on count rate vs. detector bias
Threshold scan using a 109 Cd source . . . . . . . . .
Threshold-energy relation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Raw data and fixed-pattern corrected image . . . . .
Histograms of fig. 5.16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
93
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
94
LIST OF FIGURES
5.18
5.19
5.20
5.21
5.22
5.23
5.24
5.25
5.26
5.27
5.28
5.29
5.30
5.31
5.32
5.33
5.34
5.35
5.36
5.37
5.38
5.39
5.40
5.41
5.42
5.43
5.44
M2: MTF (square wave method) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

M1, M2: Comparison of the MTF curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
M2: NPS and DQE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
M1, M2: Comparison between threshold scans . . . . . . . . . . .
ROSI: Simulation of a lead strip pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
M1, M2: Parts of the H
uttner grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
M1: Complete image of the H
uttner grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
M1: Line scan of fig. 5.24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
M1, M2: Comparison of line scans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
M1, M2: Line scans of the highest resolved frequencies . . . . . .
Photograph of the WMRP 152A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Photograph of the CDMAM phantom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Photograph of the CDMAM phantom (detail) . . . . . . . . . . .
M1, M2: High-contrast detail of the WMRP 152A . . . . . . . .
M1, M2: Low-contrast detail of the WMRP 152A . . . . . . . . .
M1, M2: High-contrast detail of the CDMAM phantom . . . . .
M1, M2: Low-contrast detail of the CDMAM phantom . . . . . .
M1, M2: Comparison of contrast vs. disc thickness (CDMAM) .
M1, M2: Comparison of contrast vs. disc diameter . . . . . . . .
Schema of the effect of small discs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
M1, M2: Small discs effect on contrast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
M1, M2: Comparison of SNR values (CDMAM) . . . . . . . . . .
M1, M2: Small discs effect on SNR values . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ROSI: Comparison of images simulated with different pixel sizes
ROSI: Comparison of simulated images (cf. fig. 5.43) . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
41
41
42
43
44
45
45
46
47
47
48
49
50
51
51
52
52
53
54
55
55
56
56
57
57
59
60
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
6.16
6.17
6.18
6.19
6.20
Schema of the Move & Tile method . . . . . . . . . .

M1: Image of a Siemensstar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
M1: Example image of theMove & Tile method . . . .
Schema of theTile & Move method . . . . . . . . . . .
Experimental setup for large-scale imaging . . . . . . . .
M2: Large image of a H
uttner grid . . . . . . . . . . . .
M1: Siemensstar (emulated tiled detector array) . . . .
M1: Siemensstar (emulated Tile & Move image) . . .
M1: Images from figs. 6.7, 6.8 (different gray scales) . .
ROSI: Example images for automated image assembling
Assembled images (cf. fig. 6.10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ROI difference (cf. fig. 6.10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ROI histogram (cf. fig. 6.10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
M1: Example images for automated image assembling .
M1: Assembled images (cf. fig. 6.14) . . . . . . . . . . .
ROI histogram (cf. fig. 6.14) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
M2: Example images for automated image assembling .
M2: Assembled images (cf. fig. 6.18) . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
62
62
63
64
66
68
69
69
70
72
72
72
73
73
74
74
74
75
75
75
A.1 Photograph of the Siemensstar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
83
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
LIST OF FIGURES
95
A.2 Photograph of a H
uttner grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
84
C.1 Schematic view of the structure of the server/client program . . . . . . . .
89
96
LIST OF FIGURES
Bibliography
[ABB+ 93]
W. Atwood, A. Breakstone, D. Britton, T. Burnett, D. Myers, and G. Word.

The GISMO Project (C++ ). C++ Report, 5(3):3843, 1993.
[BBA+ 00]
G. Bardelloni, E. Bertolucci, A.L.J. Boerkamp, D. Calvet, M. Conti,

M. Maiorino, P. Russo, and J.L. Visschers. A New Read-out System for
an Imaging Pixel Detector. IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical
Imaging Conference, 2(12):5760, October 2000.
[BCM+ 02]
E. Bertolucci, M. Conti, G. Mettivier, M. C. Montesi, and P. Russo. BETAview: a digital -imaging system for dynamic studies of biological phenomena. Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A, 478(12):109113, February 2002.
[Ben00]
Hans Benker. Mathematik mit Matlab. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 2000.
[BKM00a]
Jacob Beutel, Harold L. Kundel, and Richard L. Van Metter, editors. Handbook of Medical Imaging, volume 1 Physics and Psychophysics, chapter 4 Flat
Panel Detectors for Digital Radiography, pages 223328. SPIE Press, 2000.
[BKM00b]
Jacob Beutel, Harold L. Kundel, and Richard L. Van Metter, editors. Handbook of Medical Imaging, volume 1 Physics and Psychophysics, chapter 2
Applied Linear-Systems Theory, pages 79159. SPIE Press, 2000.
[BKM00c]
Jacob Beutel, Harold L. Kundel, and Richard L. Van Metter, editors. Handbook of Medical Imaging, volume 1 Physics and Psychophysics, chapter 3
Image Quality Metrics for Digital Systems, pages 161222. SPIE Press, 2000.
[BN02]
C. Bert and D. Niederlohner. Computertomographie mit dem Medipix1Detektor. Abschlussbericht, October 2002.
[BvBJ+ 03] D. San Segundo Bello, M. van Beuzekom, P. Jansweijer, H. Verkooijen, and
J. Visschers. An interface board for the control and data acquisition of the
Medipix2 chip. Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A, 509(13):164170, August 2003.
[CEM+ 98]
M. Campbell, E.H.M. Heijne, G. Meddeler, E. Pernigotti, and W. Snoeys.

Readout for a 64 64 Pixel Matrix with 15-bit Single Photon Counting.
IEEE Trans.Nucl.Sci., 45(3):751753, June 1998.
[CM01]
M. Chmeissani and B. Mikulec. Performance limits of a single photon counting pixel system. Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A, 460:8190, 2001.
[CMM+ 03] M. Conti, M. Maiorino, G. Mettevier, M.C. Montesi, and P. Russo. Preliminary Test of Medisoft 4: Control Software for the Medipix2 Readout Chip.
IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, 50(4):869877, August 2003.
97
98
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[E.H03]
E.H.M. Heijne. Semiconductor detectors in the low countries. Nucl. Instr.

and Meth. A, 509(13):116, August 2003.
[FC02]
A. R. Faruqi and D. M. Cattermole. Digital detectors for electron microscopy.

Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A, 478(12):8894, February 2002.
[FEE+ 01]
T. Francke, M. Eklund, L. Ericsson, T. Kristoffersson, V. Peskov, J. Rantanen, S. Sokolov, J. Soderman, C. Ullberg, and N. Weber. Dose reduction
using photon counting x-ray imaging. In L.E. Antonuk and M.J. Yaffe, editors, Medical Imaging 2001: Physics of Medical Imaging, volume 4320 of
Proc. SPIE, pages 127132, June 2001.
[FLGB+ 02] E. Fondrinier, G. Lorimier, V. Guerin-Boblet, A.F. Bertrand, C. Mayras, and

N. Dauver. Breast microcalcifications: multivariate analysis of radiologic and
clinical factors for carcinoma. World J Surg., 26(3):290296, March 2002.
[FTI+ 92]
H. Fujita, D.-Y. Tsai, T. Itoh, K. Doi, J. Morishita, K. Ueda, and A. Ohtsuka.

A simple method for determining the modulation transfer function in digital
radiography. IEEE Trans. Med. Im., 11:3439, 1992.
[Gie02]
J. Giersch.
Photonenz
ahlende Pixel-R
ontgendetektoren.
Friedrich-Alexander-Universitat Erlangen-N
urnberg, 2002.
[GNA04]
J. Giersch, D. Niederlohner, and G. Anton. The influence of energy weighting on X-ray imaging quality. Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A, 531(12):6874,
September 2004.
[GWA03]
J. Giersch, A. Weidemann, and G. Anton. ROSI an object-oriented and

parallel-computing Monte Carlo simulation for X-ray imaging. Nucl. Instr.
and Meth. A, 509(13):151156, August 2003.
[HGB04]
M. Hoheisel, J. Giersch, and P. Bernhardt. Intrinsic spatial resolution of

semiconductor X-ray detectors: a simulation study. Nucl. Instr. and Meth.
A, 531(12):7581, September 2004.
PhD thesis,
[HGMB04] M. Hoheisel, J. Giersch, M. Mitschke, and P. Bernhardt. Absorbers for medical X-ray detectors with optimum spatials resolution: a simulation study.
In M. J. Yaffe and M. J. Flynn, editors, Medical Imaging 2004: Physics of
Medical Imaging, volume 5368 of Proc. SPIE, pages 386395, 2004.
[HLR01]
B. R. Hunt, R. L. Lipsman, and J. M. Rosenberg. A Guide to MATLAB: for

Beginners and Experienced Users. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
2001.
[HS91]
E. Hoxter and A. Schenz. R

ontgenaufnahmetechnik, volume 14. Siemens AG,
1991.
[Kni99]
Andrew Knight. Basics of MATLAB and Beyond. CRC Press, Inc., Boca
Raton, 1999.
[LC03]
X. Llopart and M. Campbell. First test measurements of a 64k pixel readout

chip working in single photon counting mode. Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A,
509(13):157163, August 2003.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
99
[LCD+ 02]
X. Llopart, M. Campbell, R. Dinapoli, D. San Segundo Bello, and E. Pernigotti. Medipix2: A 64-k pixel readout chip with 55 m square elements working
in single photon counting mode. IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., NS-49:22792283,
2002.
[MMR04]
G. Mettivier, M. C. Montesi, and P. Russo. A digital autoradiography system

based on the Medipix2 chip: images of 3 H and 14 C microscales. Nucl. Instr.
and Meth. A, 518(12):404405, February 2004.
[NBG+ 03]
D. Niederlohner, Ch. Bert, J. Giersch, K.-F. G. Pfeiffer, and G. Anton.

Threshold characterisation of the Medipix1 chip. Nucl. Instr. and Meth.
A, 509(13):138145, August 2003.
[oRUM89]
International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements, editors.

Photon, Electron, Proton and Neutron Interaction Data for Body Tissues,
volume 44. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements,
1989.
[oRUM92]
International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements, editors.

Photon, Electron, Proton and Neutron Interaction Data for Body Tissues,
volume 46. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements,
1992.
[PGA+ 03]
K.-F. G. Pfeiffer, J. Giersch, G. Anton, L. Batz, and M. Hoheisel. Largescale images taken with the Medipix1 chip. Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A, 509(1
3):340345, August 2003.
[PGA04]
K.-F. G. Pfeiffer, J. Giersch, and G. Anton. How good is better? A comparison between the Medipix1 and the Medipix2 chip using mammographic
phantoms. Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A, 531(12):246250, September 2004.
[SH85]
H. G. Spieler and E. E. Haller. Assessment of Present and Future Large-Scale

Semiconductor Detector Systems. IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science,
NS-32(1):419426, February 1985.
[SWAL+ 02] R. Schulz-Wendtland, U. Aichinger, M. Lell, I. Kuchar, and W. Bautz. Erfahrungen mit Phantommessungen bei verschiedenen Mammographiesystemen. Fortschr R
ontgenstr, 174:12431246, 2002.
[SWAS+ 01] R. Schulz-Wendtland, U. Aichinger, M. Sabel, C. Bohner, M. Dobritz, and
W. Bautz. Experimentelle Untersuchungen zur Bildg
ute konventioneller
Film-Folien-Mammographie und digitaler Mammographie mit Speicherfolien
ohne Vergroerungstechnik. electromedica, Heft 1:5355, 2001.
[TDC+ 03]
L. Tlustos, D. Davidson, M. Campbell, E. Heijne, and B. Mikulec. Fixed

pattern deviations in Si pixel detectors measured using the Medipix1 readout
chip. Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A, 509(13):102108, August 2003.
[YAMY04] M. Yunus, N. Ahmed, I. Masroor, and J. Yaqoob. Mammographic Criteria

for determining the Diagnostic Value of Microcalcifications in the Detection
of Early Breast Cancer. J Pak Med Assoc, 54:2429, January 2004.
Acknowledgments
I owe thanks to quite a lot of people without whom I could never have finished this work,
and I can only name some of them and hope nobody will feel left out.
Thanks to Prof. Gisela Anton, who gave me a free hand in my research while offering
her advice whenever asked for. Thanks also to J
urgen Giersch, Daniel Niederl
ohner and
Michaela Mitschke: our discussions were always a rich source of new ideas and insights.
The rest of the SPOC- and Compton-group must be mentioned here, too, because they
made the work and life at our institute much more interesting and entertaining than one
could have expected.
But this work is the result of far more cooperation than with just my colleagues at the
institute: Dr. Martin Hoheisel from Siemens contributed not only some of the calculations
presented here but also a very valuable different perspective of the matter. For the two
mammographic phantoms I used I would like to thank Prof. Dr. med. R. Schulz-Wendtland,
who also represented a doctors point of view on medical imaging.
Of all the colleagues in the Medipix Collaboration I want to mention especially Bettina
Mikulec and Lukas Tlustos, who always had an open ear for my questions.
Last but not least I wish to thank some of the people who did not contribute directly to
this work, but without whom it would have been much harder for me. My parents always
encouraged me to find my own way and to do what I felt was right for me. Kati Kania
has given me invaluable moral support throughout this time and reminded me from time
to time that work is not everything, and my teacher and instructor Efstratios Papadellis
taught me much about Taekwon-Do and thus about life itself.
PI4 - Wir forschen gern!1
1 We
love to do research! - The unofficial motto of our work groups.
100
Lebenslauf
Pers
onliche Angaben
Name:
Karl-Friedrich Gernot Pfeiffer
Anschrift:
Buckenhofer Weg 54, 91058 Erlangen
Telephon:
09131816665
E-Mail:
f pfeiffer@web.de
Geburtsdatum/-ort:
25.04.1973 in Ndoungue/Kamerun
Bildung
Universit
at
(FAU Erlangen-N
urnberg)
15.12.2004
Promotionspr
ufung
01.01.2001
Beginn der Promotion am Physikalischen

Institut, Abteilung 4
01.03.31.12.2000
Arbeit am Institut f
ur Optik
02.12.1999
Diplom in Physik
SS 199801.10.1999
Diplomarbeit am Institut f
ur
Technische Physik
WS 1996/97
Auslandssemester an der University of York,

England
WS 1994/95- WS 1999/2000
Studium der Physik (Diplom)
WS 1993/94SS 1994
Studium der Chemie (Diplom)
Schule
08.07.1992
Abitur in den Fachern Latein, Griechisch,

Mathematik, ev. Religion (Gesamtnote 1.0)
19841992
Johann-Sebastian-Bach-Gymnasium
Windsbach, Lkr. Ansbach
(Jahrgangsstufen 613)
1983/84
Friedrich-Alexander-Gymnasium
Neustadt/Aisch
(Jahrgangsstufe 5)
19791983
Grundschule Diespeck,
Lkr. Neustadt/AischBad Windsheim
Sonstiges
1992/93
Zivildienst im Alten- und Pflegeheim

St. Sebastian, N
urnberg

Pfeiffer DR

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Pfeiffer DR

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Evaluation of the Medipix Detectors for

Medical X-Ray Imaging, with Special

Den Naturwissenschaftlichen Fakultaten

Als Dissertation genehmigt von den Naturwissenschaftlichen Fakultaten

Prof. Dr. D.-P. Hader

Prof. Dr. G. Anton

Prof. Dr. E. Steffens

2 Photon Counting Detectors

3 Basic Quality Definitions

4 Experimental Setup and ROSI

Phantoms for Characterisation & Comparison . . . .

7 Summary and Outlook

8 Zusammenfassung und Ausblick

B Technical Specifications of the Equipment

C Programs and Scripts

Photon Counting Detectors

Basic Types of Imaging Detectors

Requirements for Mammography

pairs / mm, a commonly used unit for spatial frequencies.

CHAPTER 2. PHOTON COUNTING DETECTORS

2.2. ADVANTAGES OF PHOTON COUNTING

Spatial resolution in lp/mm

value; 35 kV tube voltage, Mo anode, 2 mm Al filtering

Fundamental Concepts and Advantages of

CHAPTER 2. PHOTON COUNTING DETECTORS

2.3. THE MEDIPIX1 DETECTOR

The Medipix1 Detector

CHAPTER 2. PHOTON COUNTING DETECTORS

from previous pixel

2.4. THE MEDIPIX2 DETECTOR

The Medipix2 Detector

CHAPTER 2. PHOTON COUNTING DETECTORS

Table 2.2: Technical parameters of the Medipix1 and Medipix2 detectors.

Basic Quality Definitions

In order to compare different sensors or imaging methods it is essential to agree on a set

CHAPTER 3. BASIC QUALITY DEFINITIONS

variance of the photon flux is

N for N photons in the X-ray field. Hence one can re-write

This leads to a modified equation for the DQE:

Determination of MTF and DQE

Measuring the MTF

3.2. DETERMINATION OF MTF AND DQE

Calculating the DQE

it was assumed for the definition given in equation 3.1.

CHAPTER 3. BASIC QUALITY DEFINITIONS

Using equations (3.4) and (3.7), equation (3.3) can be reformulated:

Experimental Setup and ROSI

Data Acquisition Hardware and Software

reUsable Read-Out System

CHAPTER 4. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND ROSI

Calibration of the X-ray Source

To ensure the comparability of different measurements it was necessary to calibrate the

by Ch. Bert and D. Niederl

4.1. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP

Computer server / client

CHAPTER 4. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND ROSI

The Simulation Tool ROSI

4.3. REASONS FOR USING ROSI

measured dose / mGy

Reasons for Using ROSI

Comparison Between Ideal and Non-Ideal Detectors

CHAPTER 4. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND ROSI