Literature DB >> 10342247

Image quality degradation by light scattering in display devices.

M J Flynn1, A Badano.   

Abstract

Veiling glare and ambient light reflection can significantly degrade the quality of an image on a display device. Veiling glare is primarily associated with the diffuse spread of image signal caused by multiple light scattering in the emissive structure of the device. The glare ratio associated with a test image with a 1-cm-diameter black spot is reported as 555 for film, 89 for a monochrome monitor, and 25 for a color monitor. Diffuse light reflection results from ambient light entering the display surface and returning at random emission angles. The diffuse reflection coefficient (luminance/illuminance, 1/sr) is reported as 0.026 for film, 0.058 for a monochrome monitor, and 0.025 for a color monitor with an antireflective surface coating. Both processes increase the luminance in black regions and cause contrast reduction. Specular reflections interfere with detail in the displayed scene. The specular reflection coefficient (luminance/luminance) is reported as 0.011 for film, 0.041 for a monochrome monitor, and 0.021 for a color monitor with an antireflective coating.

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10342247      PMCID: PMC3452495          DOI: 10.1007/BF03168843

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Digit Imaging        ISSN: 0897-1889            Impact factor:   4.056


  5 in total

1.  Flare as applied to photographic lenses.

Authors:  S Matsuda; T Nitoh
Journal:  Appl Opt       Date:  1972-08-01       Impact factor: 1.980

2.  Intraocular light scattering in vision, artistic painting, and photography.

Authors:  C Beckman; O Nilsson; L E Paulsson
Journal:  Appl Opt       Date:  1994-07-20       Impact factor: 1.980

3.  Effect of luminance on suprathreshold contrast perception.

Authors:  E Peli; J A Yang; R Goldstein; A Reeves
Journal:  J Opt Soc Am A       Date:  1991-08       Impact factor: 2.129

4.  Calculation of modulation transfer functions of x-ray fluorescent screens.

Authors:  R K Swank
Journal:  Appl Opt       Date:  1973-08-01       Impact factor: 1.980

5.  Image presentation in digital radiology: perspectives on the emerging DICOM display function standard and its application.

Authors:  H Blume; B M Hemminger
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  1997 May-Jun       Impact factor: 5.333

  5 in total
  9 in total

1.  Active matrix liquid crystal displays for clinical imaging: comparison with cathode ray tube displays.

Authors:  W Pavlicek; J M Owen; M B Peter
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 4.056

2.  Effect of room illuminance on monitor black level luminance and monitor calibration.

Authors:  K Chakrabarti; R V Kaczmarek; J A Thomas; A Romanyukha
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2004-01-30       Impact factor: 4.056

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

Authors:  Jihong Wang; Ken Compton; Qi Peng
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2003-09-11       Impact factor: 4.056

4.  The effect of ambient illumination on handheld display image quality.

Authors:  Peter Liu; Fahad Zafar; Aldo Badano
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 4.056

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

Authors:  Jihong Wang; Jun Xu; Veera Baladandayuthapani
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  Development of a randomised contrast detail digital phantom for observer detectability study.

Authors:  Ms Nizam; Kh Ng; Bjj Abdullah
Journal:  Biomed Imaging Interv J       Date:  2006-07-01

7.  ACR-AAPM-SIIM practice guideline for determinants of image quality in digital mammography.

Authors:  Kalpana M Kanal; Elizabeth Krupinski; Eric A Berns; William R Geiser; Andrew Karellas; Martha B Mainiero; Melissa C Martin; Samir B Patel; Daniel L Rubin; Jon D Shepard; Eliot L Siegel; Judith A Wolfman; Tariq A Mian; Mary C Mahoney
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 4.056

Review 8.  Computer and visual display terminals (VDT) vision syndrome (CVDTS).

Authors:  J K S Parihar; Vaibhav Kumar Jain; Piyush Chaturvedi; Jaya Kaushik; Gunjan Jain; Ashwini K S Parihar
Journal:  Med J Armed Forces India       Date:  2016-05-25

9.  Accuracy of Portable Face-Scanning Devices for Obtaining Three-Dimensional Face Models: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Hang-Nga Mai; Jaeil Kim; Youn-Hee Choi; Du-Hyeong Lee
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-12-25       Impact factor: 3.390

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.