Influence of edge enhancement applied in endoscopic systems on sharpness and noise.

edge enhancement endoscopy modulation transfer function noise sharpening

Journal

Journal of biomedical optics
ISSN: 1560-2281
Titre abrégé: J Biomed Opt
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9605853

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
10 2022
Historique:
received: 13 06 2022
accepted: 15 09 2022
entrez: 7 10 2022
pubmed: 8 10 2022
medline: 12 10 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Flexible endoscopes are essential for medical internal examinations. Digital endoscopes are connected to a video processor that can apply various operations to enhance the image. One of those operations is edge enhancement, which has a major impact on the perceived image quality by medical professionals. However, the specific methods and parameters of this operation are undisclosed and the arbitrary units to express the level of edge enhancement differ per video processor. Objectively quantify the level of edge enhancement from the recorded images alone, and measure the effect on sharpness and noise Edge enhancement was studied in four types of flexible digital ear nose and throat endoscopes. Measurements were performed using slanted edges and gray patches. The level of edge enhancement was determined by subtracting the step response of an image without edge enhancement from images with selected settings of edge enhancement and measuring the resulting peak-to-peak differences. These values were then normalized by the step size. Sharpness was characterized by observing the normalized modulation transfer function (MTF) and computing the spatial frequency at 50% MTF. The noise was measured on the gray patches and computed as a weighted sum of variances from the luminance and two chrominance channels of the pixel values. The measured levels were consistent with the level set via the user interface on the video processor and varied typically from 0 to 1.3. Both sharpness and noise increase with larger levels of edge enhancement with factors of 3 and 4 respectively. The presented method overcomes the issue of vendors expressing the level of edge enhancement each differently in arbitrary units. This allows us to compare the effects, and we can start exploring the relationship with the subjectively perceived image quality by medical professionals to find substantiated optimal settings.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36203241
pii: JBO-220135GR
doi: 10.1117/1.JBO.27.10.106001
pmc: PMC9535298
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Commentaires et corrections

Type : ErratumIn

Références

Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2014 Aug;271(8):2227-32
pubmed: 24515919
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1998 Oct;107(10 Pt 1):855-9
pubmed: 9794615
J Biomed Opt. 2022 Oct;27(10):
pubmed: 36203241
Laryngoscope. 2002 Mar;112(3):559-64
pubmed: 12148871
PLoS Biol. 2015 Dec 10;13(12):e1002322
pubmed: 26656622
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2021 Jun;278(6):1927-1932
pubmed: 33606082
Laryngoscope. 2013 Jan;123(1):215-9
pubmed: 23070976
Clin Otolaryngol. 2020 Jan;45(1):119-125
pubmed: 31747481
J Voice. 2008 Nov;22(6):746-50
pubmed: 18207364
J Voice. 2009 May;23(3):389-95
pubmed: 19185459

Auteurs

Geert Geleijnse (G)

Erasmus University Medical Center, Department of Ear, Nose, & Throat, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, The Netherlands.

Bernd Rieger (B)

Delft University of Technology, Department of Imaging Physics, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Delft, The Netherlands, The Netherlands.

Articles similaires

Humans Male Urethral Stricture Retrospective Studies Prostatic Hyperplasia
Humans Male Adult Cervical Vertebrae Diskectomy
Humans Robotic Surgical Procedures Papillary Muscles Reoperation Endoscopy

Classifications MeSH