Cargando…
A comparison between a white LED confocal imaging system and a conventional flash fundus camera using chromaticity analysis
BACKGROUND: Conventional flash fundus cameras capture color images that are oversaturated in the red channel and washed out in the green and blue channels, resulting in a retinal picture that often looks flat and reddish. A white LED confocal device was recently introduced to provide a high-quality...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6862837/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31744471 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12886-019-1241-8 |
_version_ | 1783471644973465600 |
---|---|
author | Sarao, Valentina Veritti, Daniele Borrelli, Enrico Sadda, Srini Vas R. Poletti, Enea Lanzetta, Paolo |
author_facet | Sarao, Valentina Veritti, Daniele Borrelli, Enrico Sadda, Srini Vas R. Poletti, Enea Lanzetta, Paolo |
author_sort | Sarao, Valentina |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Conventional flash fundus cameras capture color images that are oversaturated in the red channel and washed out in the green and blue channels, resulting in a retinal picture that often looks flat and reddish. A white LED confocal device was recently introduced to provide a high-quality retinal image with enhanced color fidelity. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the color rendering properties of the white LED confocal system and compare them to those of a conventional flash fundus camera through chromaticity analysis. METHODS: A white LED confocal device (Eidon, Centervue, Padova, Italy) and a traditional flash fundus camera (TRC-NW8, Topcon Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) were used to capture fundus images. Color images were evaluated with respect to chromaticity. Analysis was performed according to the image color signature. The color signature of an image was defined as the distribution of its pixels in the rgb chromaticity space. The descriptors used for the analysis are the average and variability of the barycenter positions, the average of the variability and the number of unique colors (NUC) of all signatures. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-three color photographs were acquired with each retinal camera. The images acquired by the confocal white LED device demonstrated an average barycenter position (rgb = [0.448, 0.328, 0.224]) closer to the center of the chromaticity space, while the conventional fundus camera provides images with a clear shift toward red at the expense of the blue and green channels (rgb = [0.574, 0.278, 0.148] (p < 0.001). The variability of the barycenter positions was higher in the white LED confocal system than in the conventional fundus camera. The average variability of the distributions was higher (0.003 ± 0.007, p < 0.001) in the Eidon images compared to the Topcon camera, indicating a greater richness of color. The NUC percentage was higher for the white LED confocal device than for the conventional flash fundus camera (0.071% versus 0.025%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Eidon provides more-balanced color images, with a wider richness of color content, compared to a conventional flash fundus camera. The overall higher chromaticity of Eidon may provide benefits in terms of discriminative power and diagnostic accuracy. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6862837 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-68628372019-12-11 A comparison between a white LED confocal imaging system and a conventional flash fundus camera using chromaticity analysis Sarao, Valentina Veritti, Daniele Borrelli, Enrico Sadda, Srini Vas R. Poletti, Enea Lanzetta, Paolo BMC Ophthalmol Research Article BACKGROUND: Conventional flash fundus cameras capture color images that are oversaturated in the red channel and washed out in the green and blue channels, resulting in a retinal picture that often looks flat and reddish. A white LED confocal device was recently introduced to provide a high-quality retinal image with enhanced color fidelity. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the color rendering properties of the white LED confocal system and compare them to those of a conventional flash fundus camera through chromaticity analysis. METHODS: A white LED confocal device (Eidon, Centervue, Padova, Italy) and a traditional flash fundus camera (TRC-NW8, Topcon Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) were used to capture fundus images. Color images were evaluated with respect to chromaticity. Analysis was performed according to the image color signature. The color signature of an image was defined as the distribution of its pixels in the rgb chromaticity space. The descriptors used for the analysis are the average and variability of the barycenter positions, the average of the variability and the number of unique colors (NUC) of all signatures. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-three color photographs were acquired with each retinal camera. The images acquired by the confocal white LED device demonstrated an average barycenter position (rgb = [0.448, 0.328, 0.224]) closer to the center of the chromaticity space, while the conventional fundus camera provides images with a clear shift toward red at the expense of the blue and green channels (rgb = [0.574, 0.278, 0.148] (p < 0.001). The variability of the barycenter positions was higher in the white LED confocal system than in the conventional fundus camera. The average variability of the distributions was higher (0.003 ± 0.007, p < 0.001) in the Eidon images compared to the Topcon camera, indicating a greater richness of color. The NUC percentage was higher for the white LED confocal device than for the conventional flash fundus camera (0.071% versus 0.025%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Eidon provides more-balanced color images, with a wider richness of color content, compared to a conventional flash fundus camera. The overall higher chromaticity of Eidon may provide benefits in terms of discriminative power and diagnostic accuracy. BioMed Central 2019-11-19 /pmc/articles/PMC6862837/ /pubmed/31744471 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12886-019-1241-8 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Sarao, Valentina Veritti, Daniele Borrelli, Enrico Sadda, Srini Vas R. Poletti, Enea Lanzetta, Paolo A comparison between a white LED confocal imaging system and a conventional flash fundus camera using chromaticity analysis |
title | A comparison between a white LED confocal imaging system and a conventional flash fundus camera using chromaticity analysis |
title_full | A comparison between a white LED confocal imaging system and a conventional flash fundus camera using chromaticity analysis |
title_fullStr | A comparison between a white LED confocal imaging system and a conventional flash fundus camera using chromaticity analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | A comparison between a white LED confocal imaging system and a conventional flash fundus camera using chromaticity analysis |
title_short | A comparison between a white LED confocal imaging system and a conventional flash fundus camera using chromaticity analysis |
title_sort | comparison between a white led confocal imaging system and a conventional flash fundus camera using chromaticity analysis |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6862837/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31744471 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12886-019-1241-8 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT saraovalentina acomparisonbetweenawhiteledconfocalimagingsystemandaconventionalflashfunduscamerausingchromaticityanalysis AT verittidaniele acomparisonbetweenawhiteledconfocalimagingsystemandaconventionalflashfunduscamerausingchromaticityanalysis AT borrellienrico acomparisonbetweenawhiteledconfocalimagingsystemandaconventionalflashfunduscamerausingchromaticityanalysis AT saddasrinivasr acomparisonbetweenawhiteledconfocalimagingsystemandaconventionalflashfunduscamerausingchromaticityanalysis AT polettienea acomparisonbetweenawhiteledconfocalimagingsystemandaconventionalflashfunduscamerausingchromaticityanalysis AT lanzettapaolo acomparisonbetweenawhiteledconfocalimagingsystemandaconventionalflashfunduscamerausingchromaticityanalysis AT saraovalentina comparisonbetweenawhiteledconfocalimagingsystemandaconventionalflashfunduscamerausingchromaticityanalysis AT verittidaniele comparisonbetweenawhiteledconfocalimagingsystemandaconventionalflashfunduscamerausingchromaticityanalysis AT borrellienrico comparisonbetweenawhiteledconfocalimagingsystemandaconventionalflashfunduscamerausingchromaticityanalysis AT saddasrinivasr comparisonbetweenawhiteledconfocalimagingsystemandaconventionalflashfunduscamerausingchromaticityanalysis AT polettienea comparisonbetweenawhiteledconfocalimagingsystemandaconventionalflashfunduscamerausingchromaticityanalysis AT lanzettapaolo comparisonbetweenawhiteledconfocalimagingsystemandaconventionalflashfunduscamerausingchromaticityanalysis |