Image quality degradation by light scattering in display devices
- PMID: 10342247
- PMCID: PMC3452495
- DOI: 10.1007/BF03168843
Image quality degradation by light scattering in display devices
Abstract
Veiling glare and ambient light reflection can significantly degrade the quality of an image on a display device. Veiling glare is primarily associated with the diffuse spread of image signal caused by multiple light scattering in the emissive structure of the device. The glare ratio associated with a test image with a 1-cm-diameter black spot is reported as 555 for film, 89 for a monochrome monitor, and 25 for a color monitor. Diffuse light reflection results from ambient light entering the display surface and returning at random emission angles. The diffuse reflection coefficient (luminance/illuminance, 1/sr) is reported as 0.026 for film, 0.058 for a monochrome monitor, and 0.025 for a color monitor with an antireflective surface coating. Both processes increase the luminance in black regions and cause contrast reduction. Specular reflections interfere with detail in the displayed scene. The specular reflection coefficient (luminance/luminance) is reported as 0.011 for film, 0.041 for a monochrome monitor, and 0.021 for a color monitor with an antireflective coating.
Similar articles
-
Assessment of flat panel LCD primary class display performance based on AAPM TG 18 acceptance protocol.Med Phys. 2004 Jul;31(7):2155-64. doi: 10.1118/1.1764946. Med Phys. 2004. PMID: 15305470
-
Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems: executive summary of AAPM TG18 report.Med Phys. 2005 Apr;32(4):1205-25. doi: 10.1118/1.1861159. Med Phys. 2005. PMID: 15895604
-
Oblique incidence reflection imaging of live cells: improving contrast and image quality with an objective mask.J Microsc. 2007 Aug;227(Pt 2):185-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2818.2007.01801.x. J Microsc. 2007. PMID: 17845712
-
AAPM/RSNA tutorial on equipment selection: PACS equipment overview: display systems.Radiographics. 2004 May-Jun;24(3):879-89. doi: 10.1148/rg.243035133. Radiographics. 2004. PMID: 15143237 Review.
-
A brief review of human perception factors in digital displays for picture archiving and communications systems.J Digit Imaging. 1997 Nov;10(4):158-68. doi: 10.1007/BF03168838. J Digit Imaging. 1997. PMID: 9399169 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
ACR-AAPM-SIIM practice guideline for determinants of image quality in digital mammography.J Digit Imaging. 2013 Feb;26(1):10-25. doi: 10.1007/s10278-012-9521-3. J Digit Imaging. 2013. PMID: 22992865 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Development of a randomised contrast detail digital phantom for observer detectability study.Biomed Imaging Interv J. 2006 Jul;2(3):e38. doi: 10.2349/biij.2.3.e38. Epub 2006 Jul 1. Biomed Imaging Interv J. 2006. PMID: 21614246 Free PMC article.
-
Computer and visual display terminals (VDT) vision syndrome (CVDTS).Med J Armed Forces India. 2016 Jul;72(3):270-6. doi: 10.1016/j.mjafi.2016.03.016. Epub 2016 May 25. Med J Armed Forces India. 2016. PMID: 27546968 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Effect of room illuminance on monitor black level luminance and monitor calibration.J Digit Imaging. 2003 Dec;16(4):350-5. doi: 10.1007/s10278-003-1720-5. Epub 2004 Jan 30. J Digit Imaging. 2003. PMID: 14747935 Free PMC article.
-
The effect of ambient illumination on handheld display image quality.J Digit Imaging. 2014 Feb;27(1):12-8. doi: 10.1007/s10278-013-9636-1. J Digit Imaging. 2014. PMID: 24113844 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Zeman HD, Hughes EB, Otis JN, et al. Veiling glare of a linear multichannel Si(li) detector. Proc SPIE. 1985;535:214–221.
-
- Caruthers E. Monte Carlo studies of image spread by x-ray image intensifiers. Proc SPIE. 1985;535:140–147.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials