Does anyone know the difference between a medical monitor and any other high-end LCD monitor that boasts accurate picture/colour reproduction? Is there something about it which makes it only suitable to be used in the medical field? Could you not use it for photo/video editing?

  • 2
    I'd imagine a medical-class monitor would be very accurate at reproducing images, but the refresh rate would be unimportant - there are very few real-time 60fps medical imaging techniques, after all.
    – Phoshi
    Oct 22, 2009 at 18:32
  • Good point...so this would be the main reason why it's not a good idea to use it for editing HD video...along with what Manni said about screen surface?
    – Kato
    Oct 23, 2009 at 2:17

5 Answers 5


They have to pass a more rigid electromagnetic Interference testing then commercial equipment. You don't want computer, or other electrical equipment, causing interference in other equipment, like heart monitors.

  • Yep, the same with a lot of equipment, software, etc. used in the medical environment
    – Troggy
    Oct 22, 2009 at 19:14

Many medical monitors work beyond 8-bit per channel, in 10 or 12 bit mode. Thus they support finer gradients then normal 8bit/channel LCD's. They need a special videocard to drive this too.


Medical equipment must be able to survive disinfecting. I guess this has a pretty severe impact on the screen surface.


Points that would matter

  1. higher brightness levels and accurate color reproduction
    • rugged build
    • safety standards

A few references

  1. Sony LMD series: LMD-2140MD , LMD-3250MD

There are also the monitors designed for viewing x-rays and such. The famous IBM T221 falls into this category: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T221

  • 2
    How does being "designed for viewing x-rays" cause the monitor to differ from one that was designed for general use? Aug 14, 2015 at 11:36

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.