Observer performance assessment of dry laser versus traditional wet film imaging systems

Elizabeth A. Krupinski

Research output: Contribution to journalConference articlepeer-review


This study compared diagnostic accuracy and image quality for laser imaging film from two systems: traditional 'wet' using chemical processing and the new 'DryView' system from 3M which is wet-chemistry-free. Three separate ROC studies (for CT, MRI, and US) were conducted. The 'wet' and 'dry' laser film imaging systems were connected in parallel and identical images for each case were printed on both systems. For each of the 3 studies, 10 radiologists reviewed each case, reporting diagnostic decision confidence. Evaluations of image quality (overall quality, visibility, sharpness, color, contrast) were also obtained. In all three studies, there were no major differences in diagnostic accuracy (ROC Az) for 'wet' vs 'dry' films, although performance was on average higher for the 'dry' film in all three modalities. Judgments of image quality were comparable for 'wet' and 'dry' films for all three modalities. There were no significant differences in viewing time in any of the studies. Thus, 'dry' processing represents a very useful, cost-effective and pollution-free alternative to currently used 'wet' laser imaging systems.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)361-368
Number of pages8
JournalProceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering
StatePublished - 1996
EventMedical Imaging 1996: Image Display - Newport Beach, CA, United States
Duration: Feb 11 1996Feb 11 1996


  • Dry processing
  • Image quality
  • Laser printed film
  • Observer performance

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Electronic, Optical and Magnetic Materials
  • Condensed Matter Physics
  • Computer Science Applications
  • Applied Mathematics
  • Electrical and Electronic Engineering


Dive into the research topics of 'Observer performance assessment of dry laser versus traditional wet film imaging systems'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this