AMcBridePACSSIG25Jun03.ppt-UKImagingInformaticsGroup.pptVIP

PACS Workstations: appropriateness, performance value for money Alan McBride *PACSnet St. Georges Hospital, London Workstation Types Reporting (Radiology) Typically 2048 x 2560 portrait Review (Wards) Typically 1280 x 1024 landscape CRT Display Defining a Pixel by Industry Standards Pixel is viewed as a Gaussian distribution This is a convenience that ignores halation when describing the spot size in literature Pixel size is measured at the 50% point of luminance energy (FWHM) for Medical 5% point is generally not included Measurement on a single white pixel Gaussian Spot Profile Spot of P104 Phosphor Ageing CRT Ikeda M. et al (2003), Inves. Radiol, 38, pp57-63 Kuprinski E.A. Roehrig H. (2002), Acad. Radiol., 9, pp638-645 Flat Panel Display Structure AMLCD Viewing Angle Dependence Ageing LCD White level goes down, black level goes up. - contrast level drops.- less gray levels. Power save systems (e.g. DPMS) help a lot ! Screensavers do not help for LCD’s ! In the old days – static text displays, would ‘burn’ their image into the display phosphors Display Technology Limitations Luminance Uniformity Ambient Light Ambient light adds to the image luminance Sources are: Specular = single point source, a lamp Diffuse = scattered, unstructured light Thin LCD offers more flexibility. No direct or indirect sunlight. No direct light source. Contrast may drop drastically. Differences Between CRT AMLCD Human Computer Interface After 2 Yrs softcopy reporting Regular 2 monitors for reporting Presentation Software roller ball view CT in stack mode PACS Software Optimized for 2 monitors Bennet W.F. et al, (2002), J. Digit Imaging; 15 Suppl 1, pp171-174 Ohio State University Medical Centre Monitor Resolution 1K vs 2K monitors Steckel R.J. et al (1995), AJR, 164, pp837-841 Graf B. et al (2000), AJR, 174, pp1067–1074 Otto D. et al (1998), Radiology, 207, pp237-242 Peer S. et al (2003), Eur Radiol, 13, pp413-417 Monitor Quality Control Monitor Calibrati