Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Need High Resolution monitor for Viewing Xrays

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Resolution
  • Monitors
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
November 1, 2007 11:31:47 AM

Im looking for a high resolution monitor that can be used for viewing xrays and mri's in an office. The monitor needs to be able to run windows with limited desktop programs such as word also. No games or movies will be used on the monitor.

Can anyone make any suggestions of good high resolution monitors 21-27"? Looking for an LCD type.

Thanks

More about : high resolution monitor viewing xrays

November 1, 2007 12:33:49 PM

for x-rays, high resolution (screen area) isn't nearly as important as high color resolution (how many colors the monitor can display).

lcd's have a relatively low color depth compared to crt monitors, meaning that lcd's simply can't display as many colors as crt monitors do.

simply put, the fewer colors a monitor can display means the fewer number of "gray's" the monitor can display, meaning your x-rays will lose clarity and may lose some detail.

when someone is making spreadsheets or playing games, the difference isn't exceptionally noticeable usually, unless you're doing graphics. but when someone is deciding medical procedures? i want the doc to see as many gray's as he possibly can!

my reccomendation for a monitor for x-rays would definately be a large CRT monitor, probably 21" viewsonic makes some good ones.

Valis
November 1, 2007 1:04:17 PM

excellent point Valis.

There is a reason the high end graphics houses still use CRT's.

Nothing can compare to the pure analog signal the CRT's use to generate the display, as opposed to the digital signal LCD's use. this is one time where analog monitors are still king.. when it comes to color reproduction.
Related resources
November 1, 2007 1:48:22 PM

You didn't say if you need this for a hospital, radiology group, or private practice. If this is for a private practice, then I'm not sure my suggestion is in your budget: You need to get a medical-grade display. We use the Planar E3 grayscale displays for viewing medical images:

http://www.planar.com/environments/healthcare/medical_imaging/

A pair of these, depending on who you buy them from, will be around $16,000. A standard consumer-level LCD will not give you the same clarity/contrast as film. Medical-grade is a must. These come with calibration tests and monitoring software to ensure image conformance.

The only other type I would suggest, if you are on a small budget, is a Dell Ultrasharp 27inch:

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=bsd&cs=04&sku=222-7315

You mentioned that the computer will need to run Word as well. For that I would get a companion monitor. Just any old 19inch LCD. It doesn't need to be medical grade. Use that as the primary monitor to run your apps. Use the medical-grade monitor for reading images. The planar monitors come with their own PCI-E graphics card.
a c 365 U Graphics card
a c 196 C Monitor
November 1, 2007 6:07:58 PM

Planar is known for making high grade LCDs monitors for the medical industry as quertycopter has stated.

If those specialized monitors are too expensive then you should opt for higher end consumer LCD monitors. Stay far away from monitors using TN panels since they provide inaccurate colors which can skew a MRI image.

You should go for a monitor using MVA/PVA or IPS panel technology. Since color accuracy is important I would lean towards the higher end IPS panels. My recommendations are as follows:

NEC LCD2690WXUi - 26" monitor using H-IPS panel that is mainly geared towards graphic professionals who need color accuracy. I recommend getting the version with SpectraView which will probably cost around $1,400. I bought the version without spectra view for about $1,200. It has some built in electronics to improve color accruacy and consistancy.

NEC LCD2490WUXi - 24" S-IPS (H-IPS??) version of the 2690WUXi. Supposedly this monitor has fewer image / backlight issues than it's bigger brother. I'm guessing it costs around $1,300 with SpectraView and $1,100 without it. This also has some built in electronics to improve color accruacy and consistancy.

SpectraView is an electronic colorimeter that calibrates the monitor's colors to make them more accurate.

Planar PX2611w - Uses the same H-IPS panel technology as the NEC LCD2690WUXi monitor, but lacks the additional electronics for improved color accuracy and consistancy. This monitor can be bought for about $950.

There are a few other high end monitors which sells for more than the above monitor I've mentioned, but for less than the medical grade monitors costing $10,000+. An example is the 22.1" Eizo ColorEdge CG221 monitor selling for $5,000+.
November 1, 2007 6:41:13 PM

Very suggestions here guys and you have brought up a lot of points I didnt consider. I guess the followup question (which I should have put in the original post would be a companion graphics card(s)). I used to buying the gaming cards -- Nvdia 8800 gtx -- however Im guessing a card such as this wouldnt really be what Im looking for. Along with any specific suggestions on monitor names/models, could you point me to graphic cards I should be looking at.

The monitor is for an office based practice (not a radiology department or radiologist)
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
November 1, 2007 7:38:42 PM

michiganteddybear said:
excellent point Valis.

Nothing can compare to the pure analog signal the CRT's use to generate the display, as opposed to the digital signal LCD's use. this is one time where analog monitors are still king.. when it comes to color reproduction.


So you actually think it's a good idea to convert the digital picture the computer is generating to analog and you're not going to lose anything?

I'm sorry but don't listen to this guy. Noise in the analog signal could cause problems, and if you go CRT don't use a dsub-15(vga) cable, go BNC or Component. Also stay the f* away from Viewsonic when life is on the line.

Try going to http://radiforce.com/en/products/ this is Eizo's line of medical monitors. They sell nice lcds monitors with 10 bits per color channel.

You're better off with IPS/H-IPS/S-IPS than MVA/PVA. True IPS has a lower contrast ratio but they won't crush blacks or whites.

I have a Planar PX2611w. It's very nice but not as good as the NEC.

The highest pixel density consumer monitors are the 30 inch panels.
November 2, 2007 6:53:48 PM

Just a quick note on the graphics card:

Popular high-end workstation cards are the nVidia Quadro FX series.
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
November 3, 2007 12:06:04 AM

kevdog said:
Very suggestions here guys and you have brought up a lot of points I didnt consider. I guess the followup question (which I should have put in the original post would be a companion graphics card(s)). I used to buying the gaming cards -- Nvdia 8800 gtx -- however Im guessing a card such as this wouldnt really be what Im looking for. Along with any specific suggestions on monitor names/models, could you point me to graphic cards I should be looking at.

The monitor is for an office based practice (not a radiology department or radiologist)


It's a difficult situation because you have two offset feature where neither is the best anymore. The QUXGA LCDs used to be the easy choice because nothing rivaled their display area, and they had the same colour characteritics as any other LCD (but a slower refresh), they're solid regardless of Viewsonic or IBM (the first to offer the model) since they are based on the same panel. The information displayable is twice that of the 30", but you will lose out on some of the colour quality as the LCD has not changed/improved much since their launch. The newer models have better colour support, which may or may not be an issue (no familiar with the colour depth of MRI information [I know they pump out massive amount, but don't know if it's compressed into nice 'channel-chunks' prior to export]). Eizos are nice I've worked on them, as well as the IBM, either of which I would agree with their recommendation, but it really does depend on manking the choice of type first, then brand/supplier.

Of course you can compensate for raw pixel number by making your desktop extend larger than the displayble area if your application supports that. We do that for Geomatic work, where we have Ultra-large resolutions with multi-layer and it pans within a smaller display area (usually dual 21"-24"). You are basically "zoomed in" and thus see a portion of what you would see in the larger resolutions. It's harder to get a global view, but it's usually good enough, and they are better for general use if you are switching to more mundane tasks, especially for text viewing.

I would say figure out what you want, like as much information on a single 22" monitor or half the information on a 30" monitor which you may be able to compensate for by panning which may be better for other applications.

And I wouldn't bother with CRTs for what you're doing. I love my CRTs, especially the P260 I'm using right now (considered to be one of the top ones ever [now replaced by the Mitsubishi CRTs]), but for this I'd say you want a nice big LCD. CRTs were for getting truer colours, but even that is changing. Heck if you want the best range, then you go with a monitor like the Brightside HDR monitor which has 16 bit per channel support (but costs a mint and is not 'desktop friendly').

I wouldn't bother with a Quadro though it's not the card for this type of work, whic doesn't require huge 3D, it's needs good and fast 2D.
If you're looking for quality 2D, especially if you want the added colour depth support, then you want to go with Matrox or AMD/ATi IMO, especially for the price.
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
November 3, 2007 12:19:58 AM

valis said:
for x-rays, high resolution (screen area) isn't nearly as important as high color resolution (how many colors the monitor can display).

lcd's have a relatively low color depth compared to crt monitors, meaning that lcd's simply can't display as many colors as crt monitors do.

simply put, the fewer colors a monitor can display means the fewer number of "gray's" the monitor can display, meaning your x-rays will lose clarity and may lose some detail.


That's not the case anymore, and ultra-high end LCD can match or outdisplay most CRTs, what you miss a bit is colour separation, but it's not the colour depth that's the problem where some newer technologies have a wider colour gamut and truer colours than CRTs.

The problem still remains the colour separations, however even CRTs benifit here is lost by its tendancy to bleed and be affected by the quality and consistency of its grill, also there's the issue of noise, and shift on the analogue signal/image. Now this is controllable with quality connections and quality cards, but it's another factor. Personally the biggest drawback is the resolution trade-off, where the higher you get the more unstable the picture is to outside incluences in both the cable and the display.

I still say a CRT beats a typical LCD, but we aren't talking about your typical LCDs here.

And should you go to the extremes like I mentioned, the Brightside display just kills the colour gamut of any CRT thank to it's 16bits per channel and IMLEDs, but it wouldn't be really suited for this type of work.
February 5, 2009 12:15:06 PM

You need minimum of 2k monochrome greyscale monitors. These are dedicated monitors for radiology. They range in price from $3000 - $10,000

ddinhofer@msn.com
May 8, 2009 2:11:22 PM

I'd also look at the NEC LCD3090WQXi. It allows DICOM calibration, has a broader (and more accurate) color gamut, and is cheaper than the typical medical displays. It's listed in NEC's medical display category, but is cheaper than they're higher end stuff. They're going for about $2000 now.

-Frank
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
December 1, 2009 2:04:21 PM

I know this is an old post but therre are a few things that were not mentioned. first PACS images are generally grayscale and the image quality is very very important. I install and service many different solutions into large University hospitals and they generally prefer to go with Totoku or Barco monitors for viewing Pacs and Flour images. you can get these through a dealer of the two. We generally purchase ours from a company out of Ohio called IntegriTech. They have a much better price point than GE or Siemens for our Flour monitors and seam to actually have a better understanding of the signal types coming from FLOUROSCOPY units from SIEMENS, GE, TOSHIBA, OMEGA and PACS. Hope this helps

December 1, 2009 2:57:06 PM

you could also buy a panasonic 42'' plasma tv and use it as a monitor. Hang it on your wall and display slideshow when it's not used.
December 5, 2009 4:35:40 PM

just wondering what you ultimately decided to purchase and if you are happy with it?
April 25, 2014 1:21:12 PM

The company I work is one of the largest refurbishers and wholesalers of diagnostic monitors. We carry a wide range of monitors, including Barco, Eizo, Totoku, Plannar and NDS, but we specialize in Barco. There is a great preference for Barco monitors in the market, as they are the only ones that include internal calibration. All our monitor solutions come as a total, complete plug and play package. The package includes the monitor, the Barco graphics card ( Windows 7, 64 bit compatible), and all the necessary cables and adapters. Refurbished units come with a 3 year unlimited usage warranty and a 3 year loaner warranty – for new units this is five years – as well as a 30 day money back guarantee.

These are monitors that could easily go for $20-25,000 for a pair that we can offer for as low as $3,999 (refurbished)/ $5999 (new) for a pair of 3MP monitors (2x) and $7999 (refurbished) / $8999 (new) for a pair of 5MP monitors.

We can also get 6MP, will buy your old monitors and can service any 3MP or 5MP monitors.


Please feel free contact me for more information or references.

philip.hobson@baylanddigital.com

!