Re:Why Are Ultrasound Machines So Expensive?
by grahar64 on Wednesday February 24, 2016 @04:58PM
(#11170570)
In the post there is a link to a paper where someone used a 40x40 array for 3d ultrasound imaging and there is a 64x array at 35MHz used for high resolution imaging of things like eyes. That is pretty low resolution for such interesting applications. Imagine the applications for a high resolution 3D ultrasound scanner combined with a high-resolution camera.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Why Are Ultrasound Machines So Expensive?
by conceit on Wednesday February 24, 2016 @09:29PM
(#11171968)
A 40x40 ultrasound array can scan with a much better resolution, look at prenatal imaging for example. The phased array is modulated in the time and space domains, so one cell can substitute many fixed ones. With the speed of sound, the receivers resolution of depth information extracted from a reflection's timing information would be a million times better. ...
Re:Why Are Ultrasound Machines So Expensive?
by conceit on Thursday February 25, 2016 @09:10AM
(#11174462)
I'm not sure I would understand my own description, let me go again: The transducer sends a modulated signal and receives the reflections. From the time difference information is gained. The signal is steered using beamforming as known from radar technology. This creates many different impulses that can be correlated from the received reflections.
The key is that the 1600 sells deliver more than one input over time, from a nonstatic signal, which is like shooting photos from different perspectives. I believe cell correlation or whatchamacallit is done in all kinds of variation for CCD data, too.