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?
-
2I'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.– PhoshiOct 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?– KatoOct 23, 2009 at 2:17
Add a comment
|
5 Answers
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– TroggyOct 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
- higher brightness levels and accurate color reproduction
- rugged build
- safety standards
A few references
- Sony LMD series: LMD-2140MD , LMD-3250MD
- Dynamic Display: Medical-Grade LCD Displays
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
-
2How 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