Literature DB >> 12964056

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

Jihong Wang1, Ken Compton, Qi Peng.   

Abstract

In addition to the inherent qualities of a digital image, the qualities of the monitor and graphics control card as well as the viewing conditions will affect the perceived quality of an image that is displayed on a soft copy display (SD) system. With the implementation of picture archiving and communication systems (PACS), many diagnoses are being made based on images displayed on SD devices, and consequently SD quality may affect the accuracy of diagnosis. Unlike the traditional film-on-lightbox display, optimal SD system parameters are not well defined, and many issues remain unsettled. In this article, the human observer performance, as measured by contrast sensitivity, for several SD devices including an active matrix liquid crystal flat panel monitor is reported. Contrast sensitivities were measured with various display system configurations. Experimental results showed that contrast sensitivity depends on many factors such as the type of monitor, the monitor brightness, and the gamma settings of the graphics card in a complex manner. However, there is a clear correlation between the measured contrast thresholds and the gradient of the display device's luminance response curve. Based on this correlation, it is proposed to use the gradient of luminance response curve as a quality-index or metric for SD devices.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12964056      PMCID: PMC3046472          DOI: 10.1007/s10278-003-1657-8

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


  22 in total

1.  Image quality degradation by light scattering in display devices.

Authors:  M J Flynn; A Badano
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 4.056

2.  Image quality assurance for CRT display systems--Part II.

Authors:  H Roehrig
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 4.056

3.  An interactive method of assessing the characteristics of softcopy display using observer performance tests.

Authors:  Jihong Wang; Qi Peng
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2002-03-19       Impact factor: 4.056

4.  Image quality assurance for CRT display systems.

Authors:  H Roehrig
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 4.056

5.  Image Quality of CRT displays and the effect of brightness of diagnosis of mammograms.

Authors:  H Roehrig; E Krupinski
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 4.056

6.  Quantitative evaluation of overall electronic display quality.

Authors:  N J Hangiandreou; K A Fetterly; S N Bernatz; L J Cesar; D S Groth; J P Felmlee
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 4.056

7.  Perceived fidelity of compressed and reconstructed radiological images: a preliminary exploration of compression, luminance, and viewing distance.

Authors:  T K Pilgram; R M Slone; E Muka; J R Cox; G J Blaine
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 4.056

8.  Comparison of a cathode-ray-tube and film for display of computed radiographic images.

Authors:  L T Cook; G G Cox; M F Insana; M A McFadden; T J Hall; R S Gaborski; F Y Lure
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 9.  A brief review of human perception factors in digital displays for picture archiving and communications systems.

Authors:  J Wang; S Langer
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 4.056

10.  The digital imaging workstation.

Authors:  R L Arenson; D P Chakraborty; S B Seshadri; H L Kundel
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1990-08       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  6 in total

1.  Image quality assurance of soft copy display systems.

Authors:  Emily Seto; Ali Ursani; Joseph A Cafazzo; Peter G Rossos; Anthony C Easty
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 4.056

2.  Assessment of PACS display systems.

Authors:  John E Aldrich; John D Rutledge
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 4.056

3.  Comparison of color LCD and medical-grade monochrome LCD displays in diagnostic radiology.

Authors:  Håkan Geijer; Mats Geijer; Lillemor Forsberg; Susanne Kheddache; Patrik Sund
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 4.056

4.  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

5.  Human contrast-detail performance with declining contrast.

Authors:  Alisa Walz-Flannigan; Ben Babcock; George C Kagadis; Jihong Wang; Steve G Langer
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  Comparison of the commercial color LCD and the medical monochrome LCD using randomized object test patterns.

Authors:  Jay Wu; Tung H Wu; Rou P Han; Shu J Chang; Cheng T Shih; Jing Y Sun; Shih M Hsu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-05-31       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.