Abstract
Fifteen large-area, flat-panel displays used for clinical image review were evaluated for image quality and compared with 30 comparably sized cathode ray tube (CRT) monitors. Measurements were of image display patterns by Video Electronic Standards Association (VESA) and a commercial product. Field measurements were made of: maximum and minimum luminance, ambient lighting, characteristic curve (gamma), point shape and size, high-contrast resolution, uniformity, and distortion. Assessments were made of pixel defects, latent image patterns, ghosting artifacts, and viewing angle luminance. Also, a questionnaire was generated for users of the flat-panel and CRT units. Seventeen respondents indicated no preference for either flat panel or CRT. Results show these flat panels to have higher luminance (mean, 177.7 cd/m2); larger number of just noticeable differences (JNDs; n = 555), higher gamma, comparable uniformity, and warm-up time. CRTs had less angle viewing dependence and far fewer artifacts (ghosting and latent images). Our questionnaire showed active matrix liquid crystal displays (AMLCD) to be fully acceptable for clinical image viewing. Furthermore, the statistical results show that further testing for new AMLCDs of this type is unwarranted.