[Intl_DxMedPhys] [EXTERNAL] Re: Barco 32 MP mammo monitor

[Jerry Thomas]

There is a limit as to how small a pixel can be before the eye/brain fuses
them into a single pixel.  When I did some early work with the IBM
Sarnoff Labs in NY, I seem to remember that the limit was on the order of
100 um.  I had them make a special display for me that has 125 um pixels --
GREAT images.  I know Albert Xthona well and am sure that he is aware of
this physiological fact -- so if they have a 103 um pixel the eye/brain is
not fuzing the pixels -- but much smaller and that will happen.  The images
should be EXQUISITE!! with the smaller DEL

Jerry


Jerry Thomas, MS, FAAPM, DABR, CHP, DABSNM
Diagnostic Medical Physicist / Radiation Safety Officer
Ascension Via Christi Hospitals Wichita
Wichita, KS  67214

Phone:  316-268-5958  (office)
            240-447-1014  (cell)


On Fri, Apr 4, 2025 at 11:44 AM Douglas Pfeiffer via
Intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list <intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list at lists.osu.edu> wrote:

> I’d have to think it through more (thinking is hard on a Friday), but one
> benefit of the smaller pixel size is that it would possible to see a larger
> field of view at full resolution. 5 MP makes that possible with current
> systems, but it’s possible,
> I’d have to think it through more (thinking is hard on a Friday), but one
> benefit of the smaller pixel size is that it would possible to see a larger
> field of view at full resolution. 5 MP makes that possible with current
> systems, but it’s possible, I guess, that future systems could possibly
> have smaller pixels to require the monitor to be equivalent.
>
> Best regards,
> Doug
>
>
>
> Douglas Pfeiffer, MS, DABR FACR, FAAPM
> Medical Physicist, Radiation Safety Officer
> Boulder Community Health
> xraydoug at me.com
> 303.415.7515
>
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
>
> The opinions expressed in this message are the product of the gray and
> white matter loitering in my cranium. I speak for myself and no one else,
> unless I say otherwise.
>
> On Apr 4, 2025, at 10:22 AM, Jeff Frimeth via Intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list <
> intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list at lists.osu.edu> wrote:
>
> Not me and I don't believe these are Health Canada (our FDA) approved.
>
> The pixel size is 103 um, where as say 5 MP or even 12 MP all have about
> 150 um instead. I don't believe this decrease in pixel size (pitch) is
> really that advantageous. Quoting the ACR-AAPM-SIIM "The finer pitch will
> not improve the spatial resolution of the underlying image data, which is
> determined by the imaging system, and the benefits over a pixel pitch of
> 0.200 mm are negligible at a viewing distance of 60 cm because of the
> limitations of the human visual system discussed earlier. However, the
> larger array size allows for viewing a larger region of the mammography
> image at the native, or full, resolution (ie, 100% zoom, no interpolation)."
>
> The only real potential reasons I could see why a rad would want a 32 MP
> display is to buy something fancy or potentially view many sequences/images
> at a time (like in neuro or ENT imaging).
>
> My two cents.
>
> *Jeff Frimeth, M.Sc., MCCPM, CIIP, MRSO (MRSCTM), *MRSE (MRSC*TM*), CDIP
> President & Chief Medical Physicist
> JF Medical Physics Inc.
> P: (416) 779-9674
> E: jf at jfmedphys.com
> W: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.jfmedphys.com__;!!KGKeukY!2DeYNET5qPSGEPJHb0vIMwb3oFuu2JVRbe5_GCyU7MSejOz3019a1zSnin5goedh7cpqZbe0IIGCnmMC-6YcLPsMnztEQp1DvAGkmpVjW_ZlYL0$ 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.jfmedphys.com__;!!KGKeukY!0lGZd79-OEqc0jFgjP-43HocKhYHKg3gHMP1-NSguTm80nbv2tvZWHALU_DBbIS3QH4UsmpqCfjEJpA3dfrhuf8shkOHaVuAWmE$>
> <Outlook-t4wgaosb.png>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list <intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list-bounces+jf=
> jfmedphys.com at lists.osu.edu> on behalf of Travis White via
> Intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list <intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list at lists.osu.edu>
> *Sent:* April 4, 2025 9:25 AM
> *To:* intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list at lists.osu.edu <
> intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list at lists.osu.edu>
> *Subject:* [Intl_DxMedPhys] Barco 32 MP mammo monitor
>
> We recently had a Barco MDMC-12133 12 MP mammo monitor die.  Barco
> provided a quote for a new MDMC-32133 *32 MP* monitor as a replacement.
> Coronis OneLook (MDMC-32133) - Breast imaging displays - Barco
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.barco.com/en/product/coronis-onelook-mdmc-32133__;!!KGKeukY!1F8q0GbgwPfa48bPuCNIO6XrLB49rJCBro01N9fR8Mtm7abnsH4FqtpM7FQsLSiY1o4FMj3vuLaVg3yoUGEGXRSHabsZeo266i6Ij-RxfIHQYf4LQw$>
>
>
> I haven’t been able to find any references to monitors with this pixel
> size – experience, advantages, etc.
>
>
> Does anyone have experience with the 32 MP monitors in mammography?
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> *Travis White, MS, DABR*
> Diagnostic Medical Physicist
> Radiation Safety Officer – Upstate
>
> Prisma Health
> 701 Grove Road
> Greenville, SC 29605
> 864-455-3720 (office)
>
> <image001.jpg>
>
> Inspire health. Serve with compassion. Be the difference.
>
>
> ------------------------------
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
> This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to
> which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged,
> confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader
> of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
> any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is
> strictly prohibited by law. If you have received this communication in
> error, please notify me immediately.
>
>
>


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message and any accompanying data or files is confidential and may contain privileged information intended only for the named recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that the dissemination, distribution, and or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you receive this message in error, or are not the named recipient(s), please notify the sender at the email address above, delete this email from your computer, and destroy any copies in any form immediately. Receipt by anyone other than the named recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney-client, work product, or other applicable privilege.

This message was secured by Zix(R).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/private/intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list/attachments/20250407/70d742a2/attachment.html>