Scanning technology selection impacts acceptability and usefulness of image-rich content

Authors

  • Kristine M. Alpi Director, William Rand Kenan, Jr., Library of Veterinary Medicine, and Adjunct Assistant Professor, Department of Population Health and Pathobiology, NCSU Libraries,North Carolina State University, 1060 William Moore Drive, Raleigh, NC 27607
  • James C. Brown Jr. formerly, Clinical Assistant Professor Radiology, Department of Molecular Biomedical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, North Carolina State University, 1060 William Moore Drive, Raleigh, NC 27607
  • Jennifer A. Neel Associate Professor of Clinical Pathology, Department of Population Health and Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, North Carolina State University, 1060 William Moore Drive, Raleigh, NC 27607
  • Carol B. Grindem Professor of Clinical Pathology, Department of Population Health and Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, North Carolina State University, 1060 William Moore Drive, Raleigh, NC 27607
  • Keith E. Linder Clinical Associate Professor, Department of Population Health and Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, North Carolina State University, 1060 William Moore Drive, Raleigh, NC 27607
  • James B. Harper formerly, Librarian for Interlibrary and Document Delivery Services, NCSU Libraries, North Carolina State University, Box 7111, Raleigh, NC 27695

Keywords:

Interlibrary Loans, Photographs, Image Enhancement, Image Compression, Pathology, Radiology

Abstract

Objective: Clinical and research usefulness of articles can depend on image quality. This study addressed whether scans of figures in black and white (B&W), grayscale, or color, or portable document format (PDF) to tagged image file format (TIFF) conversions as provided by interlibrary loan or document delivery were viewed as acceptable or useful by radiologists or pathologists.

Methods: Residency coordinators selected eighteen figures from studies from radiology, clinical pathology, and anatomic pathology journals.With original PDF controls, each figure was prepared in three or four experimental conditions: PDF conversion to TIFF, and scans from print in B&W, grayscale, and color. Twelve independent observers indicated whether they could identify the features and whether the image quality was acceptable. They also ranked all the experimental conditions of each figure in terms of usefulness.

Results: Of 982 assessments of 87 anatomic pathology, 83 clinical pathology, and 77 radiology images, 471 (48%) were unidentifiable. Unidentifiability of originals (4%) and conversions (10%) was low. For scans, unidentifiability ranged from 53% for color, to 74% for grayscale, to 97% for B&W. Of 987 responses about acceptability (n¼405), 41% were said to be unacceptable, 97% of B&W, 66% of grayscale, 41% of color, and 1% of conversions. Hypothesized order (original, conversion, color, grayscale, B&W) matched 67% of rankings (n¼215).

Conclusions: PDF to TIFF conversion provided acceptable content. Color images are rarely useful in grayscale (12%) or B&W (less than 1%). Acceptability of grayscale scans of noncolor originals was 52%. Digital originals are needed for most images. Print images in color or grayscale should be scanned using those modalities.

Downloads

Additional Files

Published

2016-01-01

Issue

Vol. 104 No. 1 (2016): January 2016

Section

Papers