Literature DB >> 10587910

Characterization of monochrome CRT display systems in the field.

H Roehrig1, C E Willis, M A Damento.   

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10587910      PMCID: PMC3452426          DOI: 10.1007/BF03168851

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


  12 in total

1.  Performance tests and quality control of cathode ray tube displays.

Authors:  H Roehrig; H Blume; T L Ji; M Browne
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  1990-08       Impact factor: 4.056

2.  The American College of Radiology Mammography Accreditation Program.

Authors:  R McLelland; R E Hendrick; M D Zinninger; P A Wilcox
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1991-09       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 3.  Advances in medical imaging.

Authors:  H K Huang; D R Aberle; R Lufkin; E G Grant; W N Hanafee; H Kangarloo
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1990-02-01       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  Standardization of image quality and radiation dose in mammography.

Authors:  R E Hendrick
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1990-03       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  The total digital radiology department: an alternative view.

Authors:  G W Seeley; T Ovitt; M P Capp
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1985-02       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 6.  Digital radiography of the chest: promises and problems [publihsed erratum appears in AJR 1988 Sep;151(3):preceding 641].

Authors:  L R Goodman; C R Wilson; W D Foley
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1988-06       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  Introduction to perceptual linearization of video display systems for medical image presentation.

Authors:  B M Hemminger; R E Johnston; J P Rolland; K E Muller
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 4.056

8.  Interpretation of emergency department radiographs by radiologists and emergency medicine physicians: teleradiology workstation versus radiograph readings.

Authors:  W W Scott; D A Bluemke; W K Mysko; G E Weller; G D Kelen; R L Reichle; J C Weller; J N Gitlin
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  The digital radiology department of the future.

Authors:  M P Capp; H Roehrig; G W Seeley; H D Fisher; T W Ovitt
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  1985-06       Impact factor: 2.303

10.  Subtle orthopedic fractures: teleradiology workstation versus film interpretation.

Authors:  W W Scott; J E Rosenbaum; S J Ackerman; R L Reichle; D Magid; J C Weller; J N Gitlin
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1993-06       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  6 in total

1.  Contrast-detail characteristic evaluations of several display devices.

Authors:  J Wang; J Anderson; T Lane; C Stetson; J Moore
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 4.056

2.  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

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

Authors:  E L Siegel; B I Reiner; M Cadogan
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 4.056

5.  Determining the MTF of medical imaging displays using edge techniques.

Authors:  Amarpreet S Chawla; Hans Roehrig; Jeffrey J Rodriguez; Jiahua Fan
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 4.056

6.  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 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.