Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

A comparative study of popular interpolation and integration methods for use in computed tomography

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contributionpeer-review

41 Scopus citations

Abstract

We compare various popular methods available for projection and backprojection in CT. Assuming linear rays and a simple density integration along them, we consider both line- and area-based methods. Here, two key components govern the quality of a projection result, given the discrete nature of the data and reconstruction result: interpolation and integration. Both of these are studied here. In order to separate these fundamental issues from those related to perspective fan and cone-beam effects, we restrict ourselves to a parallel-beam projection geometry. We also compare these different methods in light of a possible efficient implementation on programmable commodity graphics hardware (GPUs). To this end, we propose a new method for interpolation based on hexagonal sub-sampling, which achieves superior results. In order to achieve a data-independent comparison, we employ a dataset of very high and uniform frequency content, the so-called Marschner-Lobb dataset.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publication2006 3rd IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging
Subtitle of host publicationFrom Nano to Macro - Proceedings
Pages1252-1255
Number of pages4
StatePublished - 2006
Event2006 3rd IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: From Nano to Macro - Arlington, VA, United States
Duration: Apr 6 2006Apr 9 2006

Publication series

Name2006 3rd IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: From Nano to Macro - Proceedings
Volume2006

Conference

Conference2006 3rd IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: From Nano to Macro
Country/TerritoryUnited States
CityArlington, VA
Period04/6/0604/9/06

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'A comparative study of popular interpolation and integration methods for use in computed tomography'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this