» Articles » PMID: 10587910

Characterization of Monochrome CRT Display Systems in the Field

Overview
Journal J Digit Imaging
Publisher Springer
Date 1999 Dec 10
PMID 10587910
Citations 6
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

This article presents a review of image quality assessment methods for monochrome CRTs in the field as opposed to the laboratory. The review includes image quality programs at the University of Washington, the University of Texas at Houston, the University of Michigan, and the University of Arizona. CRT manufacturers and display-board suppliers also are concerned with image quality, particularly with respect to the life time of the CRT. The programs show that the need for image quality assessment for CRTs in the clinic is recognized. Although several experimental programs are in place, there is no universally accepted program. In fact, the clinical consequences of degraded monitor performance are not even well known and must be established. The existing programs mainly are based on the most comprehensive test pattern, the SMPTE pattern. The programs permit assessment of maximum luminance, display function, dynamic range, and contrast. They do not permit assessment of spatial resolution. There is no easy method to determine the spatial resolution in the field as precisely as desired simply because there are no visual aids (test patterns) to reliably determine loss of spatial resolution and signal-to-noise ratio using human observers. This report also presents initial and encouraging data obtained at the University of Arizona with a CCD camera. This CCD camera has the potential to be developed into an important tool for practical CRT evaluation for the clinic.

Citing Articles

Contrast sensitivity of digital imaging display systems: contrast threshold dependency on object type and implications for monitor quality assurance and quality control in PACS.

Wang J, Xu J, Baladandayuthapani V Med Phys. 2009; 36(8):3682-92.

PMID: 19746801 PMC: 3910133. DOI: 10.1118/1.3173816.


Determining the MTF of medical imaging displays using edge techniques.

Chawla A, Roehrig H, Rodriguez J, Fan J J Digit Imaging. 2005; 18(4):296-310.

PMID: 16132485 PMC: 3046730. DOI: 10.1007/s10278-005-6977-4.


Frequency and impact of high-resolution monitor failure in a filmless imaging department.

Siegel E, Reiner B, Cadogan M J Digit Imaging. 2004; 13(3):114-8.

PMID: 15359749 PMC: 3452968. DOI: 10.1007/BF03168383.


Proposal of a quality-index or metric for soft copy display systems: contrast sensitivity study.

Wang J, Compton K, Peng Q J Digit Imaging. 2003; 16(2):185-202.

PMID: 12964056 PMC: 3046472. DOI: 10.1007/s10278-003-1657-8.


Contrast-detail characteristic evaluations of several display devices.

Wang J, Anderson J, Lane T, Stetson C, Moore J J Digit Imaging. 2000; 13(2 Suppl 1):162-7.

PMID: 10847389 PMC: 3453272. DOI: 10.1007/BF03167651.


References
1.
CAPP M, Roehrig H, Seeley G, Fisher H, Ovitt T . The digital radiology department of the future. Radiol Clin North Am. 1985; 23(2):349-55. View

2.
Scott Jr W, Bluemke D, Mysko W, Weller G, Kelen G, Reichle R . Interpretation of emergency department radiographs by radiologists and emergency medicine physicians: teleradiology workstation versus radiograph readings. Radiology. 1995; 195(1):223-9. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.195.1.7892474. View

3.
Roehrig H, Blume H, Ji T, Browne M . Performance tests and quality control of cathode ray tube displays. J Digit Imaging. 1990; 3(3):134-45. DOI: 10.1007/BF03167599. View

4.
Huang H, Aberle D, Lufkin R, Grant E, Hanafee W, Kangarloo H . Advances in medical imaging. Ann Intern Med. 1990; 112(3):203-20. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-112-3-203. View

5.
McLelland R, Hendrick R, Zinninger M, Wilcox P . The American College of Radiology Mammography Accreditation Program. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1991; 157(3):473-9. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.157.3.1872231. View