On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 05:13:58PM +0530, Sonali Warunjikar wrote: > I think distance calibration is over. Now over to other image parameters.
Some observations about depth (bits per pixel): - The proprietary software is producing images with only 8 bit depth, throwing away half of the data (data is 12 bit + 4 filler bits) gathered from the sensor. - Most monitors available commercially do not support a depth > 8 anyway. Special purpose monitors with higher depth aren't easy to find (might be costly if found). Practitioners aren't seen using them anyway. - "Even for high brightness and high contrast medical displays with luminance range between 0.5 and 2000 cd/m2, the human observer can perceive no more than around 900 shades of gray" [1] This means at the most 10 bits can be relevant for human consumption. It's a different matter if the images are to be analyzed by software. - "The radiologists did not attest the higher grayscale resolution a better image quality, they regarded the 8-bit technology to show a better sharpness and contrast, although this had no impact on the detectability of details." [2] It could be that the extra grey shades result in showing more fragmented view which the practitioners aren't accustomed to after years of practice with 8 bit depth. (My speculation.) And it's not going to be easy to make them adapt a higher depth. So in summary, I am just going to follow the suit and throw away the first byte (it's little endian) and resort to 8 bit images in pyrvg software. It will also open up the choices of image handling software as many of even widely used ones do not support depths > 8. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043920/ [2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/49654779_8-Bit_or_11-bit_monochrome_displays-which_image_is_preferred_by_the_radiologist
