Purchase this article with an account.
M.D. Ober, C.M. C. Klais, K.B. Freund, L.A. Yannuzzi; COMPARISON BETWEEN AUTOMATED SOFTWARE AND MANUAL CONSTRUCTION OF PHOTO MONTAGE: A QUALITY AND TIME–EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS. . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2004;45(13):3021.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
Purpose:Manual photo montage construction is a time consuming, tedious process using software to blend several images into one panoramic image. Features such as brightness, contrast, edge artifact, and distortion contribute to the difficulty in producing a quality result. With recent advances in computer programming, automated software to create these montages is becoming possible. We compared our manual montage composites with those generated by an automated software program.Methods: 25 consecutive patients had multiple retinal photos taken using the Topcon TRC–50EX retinal camera and compiled into a single montage image by both manual and automated methods. Manual composition utilized Adobe ® Photoshop ® 7.0 to align and manipulate each individual raw image (.tiff format) into a single wide angle composite. For the automated method, unedited individual images were loaded into a software program designed by Ophthalmic Imaging Systems©. This program aligned the images according to major landmarks common to adjacent photos. Demographic data and diagnosis was noted for each patient. The time of construction and quality of final images was also recorded for each system. Image quality was assessed according to objective criteria with final grading (poor, good, or excellent) by majority of 3 authors. Results: The average time for photo montage construction was significantly greater using the manual method than the automated (150.3 ± 25 minutes vs. 5.5 ± 3 minutes, respectively; P<0.00001). Time varied in both groups proportional to the number of raw images. All images from the manual group were deemed good or excellent and the vast majority from the automated group also obtained this designation (20 of 25). Images designated as poor resulted from images added to the incorrect location of the montage in 4 of 5. Montages constructed by the automated software from 15 or greater images were significantly more likely to receive a poor quality rating.Conclusion: Montage photos are a valuable tool in assessing retinal pathology. The time consuming nature of manual montage construction makes it economically impracticable in a busy practice. The new automated system by OIS, Inc.© produces high quality montage images in significantly less time than manual construction providing an efficient alternative.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only