Color Medical LCDs VS Pro Graphics LCDs?

[xMax]

I know that Medical LCDs are more specialized for monochrone, but what about Color Medical LCDs? Are they more accurate than an EIZO or NEC Pro Graphics LCD?

Maybe they are the same?

The thing about my situation is that im neither in the medical industry or the photography industry, so that both industries are equally alien to me.

The only thing im looking for is the color LCD display which has the most uniform grayscale relative to human visual perception of course.

And what i know is that the best a Pro Graphics LCD could do is this new tonal response curve called L*, which is more linear than gamma 2.2. And Medical displays conform to the so called DICOM Cuve, which is also a tonal response curve that produces the most perceptually linear grayscale.

I dont know which one is better? L* or DICOM?

Does anybody here know what im talking about?

 

[kmmatney]

Well, I don;'t know a whole lot about this, but I believe that medical displays stress image uniformity, while professional graphics displays mainly only stress color accuracy. Both will be 10-bit color at the high end.

Here's some amazing greyscale...
http://radiforce.com/en/products/mono-g33.html

I would think you'd be fine which a professional 10-bit display for nice grey scales in a color LCD.

 

[Falloutboy]

medical displays are generally ALOT higher res too. I remember seeing medical CRT displays with something like 3200x2400 res

 

[TraumaRN]

Originally posted by: Falloutboy
medical displays are generally ALOT higher res too. I remember seeing medical CRT displays with something like 3200x2400 res

But that depends on where at in the hospital.

On the unit most if not all the computer are running 1280X1024 and the medical image viewer works quite well on those computers....however down in radiology thats a different story all together since that is where the image is initially analyzed and viewed or maybe hooked up to a 64 slice CT scanner or whatnot.

At least thats how it is at the hospital where I'm employed.

 

[ProviaFan]

I was recently researching high resolution monitors, and lamenting the fact that no one seemed to make high-DPI color LCDs for desktop usage. I did find a Radiforce 21" color LCD with a 2048x1536 native resolution (dual-link DVI required). I couldn't find a single one for sale, but CDW has a package of two R31's with a graphics card for about US$16K, so a single display is probably slightly under $8,000 (sadly, about as much as the IBM T221 sold for when new).

 

[xMax]

Hmm....

Im currently in talks with the folks at Eizo about the comparison between Color Medical Displays and Pro Graphics Displays. Im hoping to get a reply today, but chances are i will have to wait until Monday.

Of course i actually already got a reply, stating that the Color Medical would actually be better than the Pro Graphics, but its was too quick of a reply without concrete consideration. I say this because my question on the phone was all mixed up and unclear. This is why i sent them an elaborate email with a clear question.

Besides that, has anybody ever heard of anyone actually buying these Color Medical Displays for non-medical purposes?

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: xMax
But has anybody ever heard of anyone actually buying these Color Medical Displays for non-medical purposes?

I haven't, but I would greatly appreciate hearing what you find out from Eizo about their medical displays.

 

[xMax]

I will certainly be posting what Eizo says.

But if i were to give a beta explanation, i would say that medical displays are better than pro graphics displays, but only for precision linearity of the tonal response curve with respect to human visual perception in a standard dark room.

I say this because the medical displays are all about this so called DICOM curve, as that is all about producing the most linear grayscale (tonal response curve). Pro graphics displays are about color matching and conformity to the industry standards, which revolve around gamma 1.8 and 2.2, with a color temperature of 6500K or 5000K.

The L* function, which is similar to gamma, is supposed to produce the most linear grayscale, but from what ive seen, since i have already tried it out on my CG210, its not all that. It just has a little bit too much banding and color cast. It seems like a rapidly packaged more experimental approach. But i could be completely wrong since i havent yet successfully calibrated my monitor to L* and Native White Point. Of course, there is a long explanation to this, but i dont think im going to get into it.

But i also know that color medical displays are not as evolved as monochrome medical displays.

So there is all kinds of sea sawing when examining all the issues and qualities. This is why im asking the Eizo service engineers directly.

Anyhow...If anybody has anything constructive to add, feel free to speak your mind. Until then, i will be back monday or tuesday with what Eizo has to say about this matter.

 

[bcoupland]

My Dad's a radiologist, and he's told me that they only use super high res grayscale monitors for actual diagnosis. The techs and other viewing stations throughout the hospital may be color.

 

[xMax]

Thats the thing, it seems that the monochrome medical displays are the ones that need to be extremely accurate, while the color medical ones are not as stringent.

Im also confused about this DICOM setting or calibration. It is the most linear to human perception, but i think that a color medical monitor may only be restricted to grayscale images when set or calibrated to DICOM.

I have to keep researching until i get a response from Eizo.

 

[skulkingghost]

just wondering why you would need someting that reproduces color that accurate? especially at the hit you will be taking $ wise? If your in the non medical non photographer field? Just one crazy gamer?

 

[xMax]

Its just a few short fractal animations that require extreme precision. Once completed, i will hopefully use them to make a presentation to a company so that i can pursue a career in designing visualizations, like the ones that come with windows media players 9 and 10.

Of course my visualizations would not make sense on the majority of computer monitors, so they will only be used for the presentation. If i get hired, then i can work with a team to have them modified into a form that would allow them to look proper when played back on a typical monitor. The real challenge will be in redesigning them into a form that would work with randomly playing music.

Another major hurdle is bringing my display to the presentation. But i will do what it takes.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: xMax
Its just a few short fractal animations that require extreme precision. Once completed, i will hopefully use them to make a presentation to a company so that i can pursue a career in designing visualizations, like the ones that come with windows media players 9 and 10.

Of course my visualizations would not make sense on the majority of computer monitors, so they will only be used for the presentation. If i get hired, then i can work with a team to have them modified into a form that would allow them to look proper when played back on a typical monitor. The real challenge will be in redesigning them into a form that would work with randomly playing music.

Another major hurdle is bringing my display to the presentation. But i will do what it takes.

Good luck.

 

[xMax]

Eizo reccomends the medical displays. But that came from a product manager, and im not sure if he knows what he's talking about.

From extensive research, ive found that both DICOM GSDF and CIE L* are both linear with respect to human vision. But the DICOM curve is apparently perceptually linear, while CIE L* is linear with respect to 'lightness'. Whatever the hell that means!

If i were to give an opinion as to which is better, i would have to say that DICOM is only for grayscale and may have some issues when it comes to color, while CIE L* is for specifically for color, but comes with monitors that are on a lower leve than Medical displays.

I will be conducting further research, but it's a very difficult question that im not sure i will be able to find an answer to.

If anybody knows anything or has any links, then that would be terrific. Although i doubt this very much.

Max.

NOTE: Medical Displays are the best desktop displays in the world. They blow away Pro Graphics Displays by a mile. The reason is quite simply because they are life critical displays. So there is no screwing around. The displays from Planar and Barco seem to be the best in the business when it comes to Monochrome and Color Medical displays. They come with calibrators built into the monitor, either inside the monitor near the backlight, like in the Planar models, or in the front bottom right hand corner, like the Barco models. That is so amazing. There is never any calibration required. These displays are DICOM out of the box and remain that way for life without any human intervention at any time.

The planar is especially sweet given that there isn't anything obstructing the display, as in the case with the Barco models. But I think Barco is a step ahead of Planar. They have something called per pixel uniformity, which continuously adjusts each pixels luminance to correct the spacial noise problem that is inherent of all analog and digitally connected LCDs.

But these displays cost a fortune, over 10 000$.