Cargando…

The assessment and characterization of the built‐in internal photometer of primary diagnostic monitors

The purpose of this work was to perform the initial evaluation of primary diagnostic monitor (PDM) characteristics following the implementation of New York City quality assurance (NYC QA) regulations on January 1, 2016, and compare the results of the QA measurements performed by an external photomet...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ruuge, Andres E., Mahmood, Usman A., Erdi, Yusuf E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5689941/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28300388
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12047
_version_ 1783279491973382144
author Ruuge, Andres E.
Mahmood, Usman A.
Erdi, Yusuf E.
author_facet Ruuge, Andres E.
Mahmood, Usman A.
Erdi, Yusuf E.
author_sort Ruuge, Andres E.
collection PubMed
description The purpose of this work was to perform the initial evaluation of primary diagnostic monitor (PDM) characteristics following the implementation of New York City quality assurance (NYC QA) regulations on January 1, 2016, and compare the results of the QA measurements performed by an external photometer and the PDM manufacturer's built‐in photometer. TG‐18 and Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers test patterns were used to evaluate monitor performance. Overall, 79 PDMs were included in the analysis. The verification of grayscale standard display function (GSDF) calibration, using a built‐in photometer, showed that only 2 out of 79 PDMs failed calibration. However, the same measurements performed by the external luminance meter showed that 15 out of 79 monitors had failed GSDF calibration. Measurements of the PDMs maximum luminance (L(max)), using an external photometer showed that 10 out of 53 PDMs calibrated for L(max) = 400 cd/m(2) and 17 out of 26 PDMs calibrated for L(max) = 500 cd/m(2) do not meet the manufacturer's recommended 10% tolerance limit for the target L(max) calibration. Two PDMs did not pass the L(max) ≥ 350 cd/m(2) NYC QA regulations with L(max) = 331 cd/m(2) and L(max) = 340 cd/m(2). All tested PDMs exceeded the minimum luminance ratio (LR) of 250:1 as required by NYC QA regulations. Measurements taken of L(max) and LR performed by a built‐in photometer showed that none of the PDMs had failed the NYC QA regulations. All PDMs passed the luminance uniformity test with a maximum nonuniformity of 17% (according to NYC regulations it must be less than 30%). The luminance uniformity test could only be performed using an external photometer. The evaluation of 79 PDMs of various ages and models demonstrated up to 18% disagreement between luminance measurements performed by the manufacturer's built‐in photometer when compared with those performed by an externally calibrated luminance meter. These disagreements were larger for older PDMs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5689941
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56899412018-04-02 The assessment and characterization of the built‐in internal photometer of primary diagnostic monitors Ruuge, Andres E. Mahmood, Usman A. Erdi, Yusuf E. J Appl Clin Med Phys Medical Imaging The purpose of this work was to perform the initial evaluation of primary diagnostic monitor (PDM) characteristics following the implementation of New York City quality assurance (NYC QA) regulations on January 1, 2016, and compare the results of the QA measurements performed by an external photometer and the PDM manufacturer's built‐in photometer. TG‐18 and Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers test patterns were used to evaluate monitor performance. Overall, 79 PDMs were included in the analysis. The verification of grayscale standard display function (GSDF) calibration, using a built‐in photometer, showed that only 2 out of 79 PDMs failed calibration. However, the same measurements performed by the external luminance meter showed that 15 out of 79 monitors had failed GSDF calibration. Measurements of the PDMs maximum luminance (L(max)), using an external photometer showed that 10 out of 53 PDMs calibrated for L(max) = 400 cd/m(2) and 17 out of 26 PDMs calibrated for L(max) = 500 cd/m(2) do not meet the manufacturer's recommended 10% tolerance limit for the target L(max) calibration. Two PDMs did not pass the L(max) ≥ 350 cd/m(2) NYC QA regulations with L(max) = 331 cd/m(2) and L(max) = 340 cd/m(2). All tested PDMs exceeded the minimum luminance ratio (LR) of 250:1 as required by NYC QA regulations. Measurements taken of L(max) and LR performed by a built‐in photometer showed that none of the PDMs had failed the NYC QA regulations. All PDMs passed the luminance uniformity test with a maximum nonuniformity of 17% (according to NYC regulations it must be less than 30%). The luminance uniformity test could only be performed using an external photometer. The evaluation of 79 PDMs of various ages and models demonstrated up to 18% disagreement between luminance measurements performed by the manufacturer's built‐in photometer when compared with those performed by an externally calibrated luminance meter. These disagreements were larger for older PDMs. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017-02-02 /pmc/articles/PMC5689941/ /pubmed/28300388 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12047 Text en © 2017 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Medical Imaging
Ruuge, Andres E.
Mahmood, Usman A.
Erdi, Yusuf E.
The assessment and characterization of the built‐in internal photometer of primary diagnostic monitors
title The assessment and characterization of the built‐in internal photometer of primary diagnostic monitors
title_full The assessment and characterization of the built‐in internal photometer of primary diagnostic monitors
title_fullStr The assessment and characterization of the built‐in internal photometer of primary diagnostic monitors
title_full_unstemmed The assessment and characterization of the built‐in internal photometer of primary diagnostic monitors
title_short The assessment and characterization of the built‐in internal photometer of primary diagnostic monitors
title_sort assessment and characterization of the built‐in internal photometer of primary diagnostic monitors
topic Medical Imaging
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5689941/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28300388
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12047
work_keys_str_mv AT ruugeandrese theassessmentandcharacterizationofthebuiltininternalphotometerofprimarydiagnosticmonitors
AT mahmoodusmana theassessmentandcharacterizationofthebuiltininternalphotometerofprimarydiagnosticmonitors
AT erdiyusufe theassessmentandcharacterizationofthebuiltininternalphotometerofprimarydiagnosticmonitors
AT ruugeandrese assessmentandcharacterizationofthebuiltininternalphotometerofprimarydiagnosticmonitors
AT mahmoodusmana assessmentandcharacterizationofthebuiltininternalphotometerofprimarydiagnosticmonitors
AT erdiyusufe assessmentandcharacterizationofthebuiltininternalphotometerofprimarydiagnosticmonitors