jazzstr8ahead wrote:Hi All,
I need to find dual paired 23" or 27" medical grade monitors and graphics cards to enable us to get to either (1920x1200) or (2560x1440) respectively.
Scrotos wrote:So basically the characteristic you want for a "medical" monitor is to brighten the dark areas. The OP's old monitor doesn't seem to conform to that standard/washing out feature nor do the two that were recommended. And hell, they got a ton of things they adhere to:
Scrotos wrote:In case anyone's wondering about where I'm getting the "make the darks brighter" bit from:
The human eye is relatively less sensitive in the dark areas of an image than it is in the bright areas of an image. This variation in sensitivity makes it much easier to see small relative changes in Luminance in the bright areas of the image than in the dark areas of the image. A Display Function that adjusts the brightness such that equal changes in P-Values will result in the same level of perceptibility at all driving levels is “perceptually linearized”. The Grayscale Standard Display Function incorporates the notion of perceptual linearization without making it an explicit objective of PS 3.14.
jazzstr8ahead wrote:The application is Oncological Radiology and DICOM is the standard used for reading the image data but doesn't come into play when displaying images to the monitor. Thank you for the links to EIZO - I will see if anything of that caliber is within our budget and check with our vendor whether it would work with our existing LINUX systems.
ptsant wrote:If you are a photographer it is usually simpler, because you only need to calibrate YOUR camera with YOUR panel and YOUR printer, while medical standards compliance means that everyone is calibrated to show more or less the same.
shaq_mobile wrote:in the medical field, saving 2 grand every 5 years doesn't mean a whole lot.
Ethyriel wrote:This is off on a tangent, but I thought I'd point out that this isn't really how it works.
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest