Purchase this article with an account.
H.K. Li, A. Esquivel, U. Techavipoo, W.C. Wang, E. Loucks, M. Weisbrod, M. Kapur; Teleophthalmology Computer Display Calibration . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2005;46(13):4580.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
Purpose: The accurate display of colors on computer monitors is an important consideration in many industries such as photography & graphic design. Because differences in environmental conditions, equipment & user settings changes the way digital images are displayed, computer monitors are often calibrated (and calibrated often) in color–critical applications. Telemedicine similarly relies on the accurate display of digital images displayed on computer monitors, though the diagnostic impact of display calibration on teleophthalmology evaluation of eye disease has not been studied. Accurate & frequent color calibration of computer displays may be a factor in producing diagnostic quality digital retinal images. Various techniques and technologies for computer display calibration are available. This study compares two commonly used computer display calibration protocols for possible use in telemedicine. Methods: Two computer display calibration methods were assessed: a visual calibration regimen using software only (SO) and hardware–assisted calibration using a colorimeter and software (HA). Two calibration baselines, one for each method, were established using an expert’s lowest average difference among multiple calibrations. Four clinicians calibrated two identical cathode ray tube (CRT) displays for ten consecutive days. CRT color profiles were compared using computational observer software that predicted the ability of human observers to distinguish between images displayed using different color profiles in just–noticeable–differences (JND) units. Results: The baseline average difference using the SO method was 1.65 JNDs and 1.97 JNDs using HA. The difference between the two baselines was 5.77 JNDs. When two display systems calibrated by different clinicians were compared, the JND average was low for both methods (in the range of 1 to 3 JNDs). The HA method JND variance was lower than the SO method when clinicians’ calibration consistency over ten days was evaluated. Conclusions: This study indicates software–only and hardware assisted calibration methods can be reliable, but calibrations using both methods are not identical. Our hardware–assisted calibration was more consistent than software–only calibration, but different clinicians achieved relatively consistent display states using either method. Results suggest telemedicine computer displays should be calibrated using the same calibration regimen.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only