Liam J Caffery1, Kenneth L Manthey2, Lawrence H Sim1,2. 1. 1 Centre for Online Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. 2. 2 Radiology Informatics Support Unit, Queensland Health, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate changes to the luminance, luminance uniformity and conformance to the digital imaging and communication in medicine greyscale standard display function (GSDF) as a function of time in use for the iPad. METHODS: Luminance measurements of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Group 18 task group (TG18) luminance uniformity and luminance test patterns (TG18-UNL and TG18-LN8) were performed using a calibrated near-range luminance meter. Nine sets of measurements were taken, where the time in use of the iPad ranged from 0 to 2500 h. RESULTS: The maximum luminance (Lmax) of the display decreased (367-338 cdm(-2)) as a function of time. The minimum luminance remained constant. The maximum non-uniformity coefficient was 11%. Luminance uniformity decreased slightly as a function of time in use. The conformance of the iPad deviated from the GSDF curve at commencement of use. Deviation did not increase as a function of time in use. CONCLUSION: This study has demonstrated that the iPad display exhibits luminance degradation typical of liquid crystal displays. The Lmax of the iPad fell below the American College of Radiology-AAPM-Society of Imaging Informatics in Medicine recommendations for primary displays (>350 cdm(-2)) at approximately 1000 h in use. The Lmax recommendation for secondary displays (>250 cdm(-2)) was exceeded during the entire study. The maximum non-uniformity coefficient did not exceed the recommendations for either primary or secondary displays. The deviation from the GSDF exceeded the recommendations of the TG18 for use as either a primary or secondary display. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The brightness, uniformity and contrast response are reasonably stable over the useful lifetime of the device; however, the device fails to meet the contrast response standard for either a primary or secondary display.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate changes to the luminance, luminance uniformity and conformance to the digital imaging and communication in medicine greyscale standard display function (GSDF) as a function of time in use for the iPad. METHODS: Luminance measurements of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Group 18 task group (TG18) luminance uniformity and luminance test patterns (TG18-UNL and TG18-LN8) were performed using a calibrated near-range luminance meter. Nine sets of measurements were taken, where the time in use of the iPad ranged from 0 to 2500 h. RESULTS: The maximum luminance (Lmax) of the display decreased (367-338 cdm(-2)) as a function of time. The minimum luminance remained constant. The maximum non-uniformity coefficient was 11%. Luminance uniformity decreased slightly as a function of time in use. The conformance of the iPad deviated from the GSDF curve at commencement of use. Deviation did not increase as a function of time in use. CONCLUSION: This study has demonstrated that the iPad display exhibits luminance degradation typical of liquid crystal displays. The Lmax of the iPad fell below the American College of Radiology-AAPM-Society of Imaging Informatics in Medicine recommendations for primary displays (>350 cdm(-2)) at approximately 1000 h in use. The Lmax recommendation for secondary displays (>250 cdm(-2)) was exceeded during the entire study. The maximum non-uniformity coefficient did not exceed the recommendations for either primary or secondary displays. The deviation from the GSDF exceeded the recommendations of the TG18 for use as either a primary or secondary display. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The brightness, uniformity and contrast response are reasonably stable over the useful lifetime of the device; however, the device fails to meet the contrast response standard for either a primary or secondary display.
Authors: Patrick Mc Laughlin; Siobhan O Neill; Noel Fanning; Anne Marie Mc Garrigle; Owen J O Connor; Gerry Wyse; Michael M Maher Journal: Emerg Radiol Date: 2011-12-16
Authors: Ehsan Samei; Aldo Badano; Dev Chakraborty; Ken Compton; Craig Cornelius; Kevin Corrigan; Michael J Flynn; Bradley Hemminger; Nick Hangiandreou; Jeffrey Johnson; Donna M Moxley-Stevens; William Pavlicek; Hans Roehrig; Lois Rutz; Jeffrey Shepard; Robert A Uzenoff; Jihong Wang; Charles E Willis Journal: Med Phys Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Sindhu John; Angeline C C Poh; Tchoyoson C C Lim; Elizabeth H Y Chan; Le Roy Chong Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: James T Norweck; J Anthony Seibert; Katherine P Andriole; David A Clunie; Bruce H Curran; Michael J Flynn; Elizabeth Krupinski; Ralph P Lieto; Donald J Peck; Tariq A Mian Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Pamela T Johnson; Stefan L Zimmerman; David Heath; John Eng; Karen M Horton; William W Scott; Elliot K Fishman Journal: Emerg Radiol Date: 2012-03-27