Thank you Simon. I see that the implementation of the Boellaard method is 
indeed not as complete as in the paper. I will have a go with the other 
methods. Especially the MC one seems interesting.

On 21-02-18 08:50, Simon Rit wrote:
Dear Lotte,
These two options address different issues. The first one deals with the 
patient scatter and the second one with the detector glare which might come 
from the detector scatter (but maybe not (only)). See the work of, e.g., 
Poludniowski to understand the difference<><>
You'll see that the second paper suggests that both must be corrected.
I haven't used those implementations a lot but I think the detector glare 
follows closely Poludniowski's paper but Boellaard does not. Boellaard 
implementation is the simplest option when only a constant is subtracted and I 
actually believe that it's not working properly (but this would need to be 
checked, it's been on my todo list for a long while).
There are other options:
- auto-detection of I0 in air does something similar to Boellaard's but 
- empirical cupping correction:
- Monte Carlo correction if you have a CT image of your object. The tools to do 
this are open source, see
I hope this helps,

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 3:14 PM, Lotte Schyns 
<<>> wrote:

I'm investigating the possibility to perform scatter corrections in RTK.
From what I could find, there seem to be two options  (correct me if I'm

1) rtk::BoellaardScatterCorrectionImageFilter (Boellaard paper)
2) rtk::ScatterGlareCorrectionImageFilter (Poludniowski paper)

Since both methods are based on a deconvolution approach using the
edge-spread function, I was wondering what the difference in
implementation is and in which cases one method would be preferred over
the other.

Rtk-users mailing list<>

Rtk-users mailing list

Reply via email to