Literature DB >> 14596296

Angular dependence of the luminance and contrast in medical monochrome liquid crystal displays.

Aldo Badano1, Michael J Flynn, Sandrine Martin, Jerzy Kanicki.   

Abstract

Active-matrix liquid crystal displays (AMLCDs) are light-modulating devices that generate images by differentially transmitting a nearly uniform luminous field provided by a backlight. While emissive displays exhibit a quasi-Lambertian emission with almost constant contrast at off-normal viewing, the anisotropy of the electro-optic effect that controls light transmission in AMLCDs causes a pixel luminance that varies, sometimes strongly, with viewing angle. These variations are not identical for all gray levels and can eventually cause grayscale inversions. In this paper, we measured the luminance emission of a monochrome medical AMLCD, a medical cathode-ray tube monitor, and a color desktop AMLCD, using a collimated photopic probe positioned on a manual rotation arm, and a research radiometer with automatic readout. The probe measures luminance with a small acceptance angle and provides optical shielding from emissions at other viewing directions that contaminate the readings. We obtained luminance response curves versus angle in the vertical, horizontal and at 45 degrees diagonal directions. The display systems were calibrated to reflect the DICOM Part 3.14 standard grayscale display function (GDF) when measured using the manufacturer's probe and software tools. We analyzed the measurements at different viewing directions with respect to their departure from the GDF by computing the normalized contrast (deltaL/L) as a function of the DICOM just-noticeable difference index. Although cathode-ray tubes are known to be quasi-Lambertian emitters, the luminance at normal viewing is higher than the luminance observed at large angles. This decrease in luminance is however proportionally similar for all gray levels, resulting in a relatively flat contrast response for all angles. In addition to being more pronounced, the angular variation in AMLCDs does not follow the same profile at different intensities with the subsequent variation in the achieved display contrast. The changes due to off-normal viewing are substantial at large angles in the horizontal and vertical directions, and much worse in the diagonal viewing directions.

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14596296     DOI: 10.1118/1.1606449

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  10 in total

1.  Use of a human visual system model to predict observer performance with CRT vs LCD display of images.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Krupinski; Jeffrey Johnson; Hans Roehrig; John Nafziger; Jiahua Fan; Jeffery Lubin
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 4.056

2.  Effect of viewing angle on luminance and contrast for a five-million-pixel monochrome display and a nine-million-pixel color liquid crystal display.

Authors:  Dipesh H Fifadara; Alice Averbukh; David S Channin; Aldo Badano
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 4.056

3.  Differential use of image enhancement techniques by experienced and inexperienced observers.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Krupinski; Hans Roehrig; William Dallas; Jiahua Fan
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 4.056

4.  Assessment of PACS display systems.

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

5.  Visual assessment of angular response in medical liquid crystal displays.

Authors:  Aldo Badano; Sarah Schneider; Ehsan Samei
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 4.056

6.  Increasing the number of gray shades in medical display systems--how much is enough?

Authors:  Tom Kimpe; Tom Tuytschaever
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 4.056

7.  Introduction to grayscale calibration and related aspects of medical imaging grade liquid crystal displays.

Authors:  Kenneth A Fetterly; Hartwig R Blume; Michael J Flynn; Ehsan Samei
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 4.056

8.  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

9.  Effect of angular performance on the chromaticity of grayscale images displayed on medical liquid-crystal displays.

Authors:  Hiroshi Akamine; Junji Morishita; Michinobu Matsuyama; Noriyuki Hashimoto; Yasuhiko Nakamura; Hidetake Yabuuchi
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2012-08-22

10.  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

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.