I have heard of this..is it also referred to as RTR ( real time radiography? ). Maybe I'm confusing two different processes here...
We do both manual ( chems ) processing and have an automatic processor at another site. The auto processor can do just about any film type you'd normally use - such as M100 or T film... though we tend to use either AGFA or Kodak AA400 with the auto processor ). But I have a computer background also and am really interested in this new method of Kodaks, so looking forward to coming back and hearing about it :). BTW, someone mentioned using 'less radiation'. Can I assume you mean using a weaker source? Does that have no impact on shot times? And the reusable screen, it goes into a cassette just like any other film? Do these screens come in a variety of sizes?
There is a difference between digital radiography, and computed radiography. DR utilizes real time sensors similar to your digital camera except the wavelength converted to image is that of the x/gamma range. Recordings are digitally stamped by the system recording it, and as mentioned, has tamper tale tells.
What you refer to "wrapping the film" is CR radiography. A specialized phospor plate is utilized in place of the film. In a general sense, the plate is first exposed, then is scanned into a reader via a laser scanner. The plate contains multiple layers, which are translated into muiltiple image layers via the differences in refraction from the various layers within the plate.
The later case is already code accepted in many cases. CR typically takes only 1/2 or less the original R factor to expose, it can reveal far more than a standard radiograph, and produces a permanent electronic record. Due to the reduced R factor, the multiple scan layers, it also makes it ideally suited to selenium, which again reduces exposure concerns and also improves the resulting shot due to the typically inherent smaller cross section of those sources.
The secondary effect on the environment and cost is also not to be forgotten. No chemicals for development. A standard office with a computer screen is sufficient for a dark room. The plates also are reusable though they do get brittle with usage.
The down side to CR radiography is initial cost. The plates are expensive, but balance out against the cost of film over time. Also, you can't use your standard screen for output.
The monitor is specialized and puts even the best HD screens to shame. With that fine resolution comes a higher cost. Trying to view a CR image on a standard screen can only be done by first setting the image on the specialized monitor, then converting it within the system software for wide spread viewing. (typically)
Over all, it is the way to go despite the cost in my opinion if your going to stay on the radiography train. I still say UT is the way to go, but for those who just can't turn loose of RT, CR is your best bet.
Regards,
Gerald
Forum
