A comparison between a white LED confocal imaging system and a conventional flash fundus camera using chromaticity analysis

Abstract Background Conventional flash fundus cameras capture color images that are oversaturated in the red channel and washed out in the green and blue channels, resulting in a retinal picture that often looks flat and reddish. A white LED confocal device was recently introduced to provide a high-...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Valentina Sarao, Daniele Veritti, Enrico Borrelli, Srini Vas R. Sadda, Enea Poletti, Paolo Lanzetta
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2019-11-01
Series:BMC Ophthalmology
Subjects:
Online Access:http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12886-019-1241-8
id doaj-964f96b4f2fb41f89cf6b70534135ac4
record_format Article
spelling doaj-964f96b4f2fb41f89cf6b70534135ac42020-11-25T04:11:55ZengBMCBMC Ophthalmology1471-24152019-11-0119111010.1186/s12886-019-1241-8A comparison between a white LED confocal imaging system and a conventional flash fundus camera using chromaticity analysisValentina Sarao0Daniele Veritti1Enrico Borrelli2Srini Vas R. Sadda3Enea Poletti4Paolo Lanzetta5Department of Medicine – Ophthalmology, University of UdineDepartment of Medicine – Ophthalmology, University of UdineDepartment of Medicine and Science of Ageing, Ophthalmology Clinic, University G. d’Annunzio Chieti-PescaraDoheny Eye Institute, Doheny Image Reading CenterCenterVue SpADepartment of Medicine – Ophthalmology, University of UdineAbstract Background Conventional flash fundus cameras capture color images that are oversaturated in the red channel and washed out in the green and blue channels, resulting in a retinal picture that often looks flat and reddish. A white LED confocal device was recently introduced to provide a high-quality retinal image with enhanced color fidelity. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the color rendering properties of the white LED confocal system and compare them to those of a conventional flash fundus camera through chromaticity analysis. Methods A white LED confocal device (Eidon, Centervue, Padova, Italy) and a traditional flash fundus camera (TRC-NW8, Topcon Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) were used to capture fundus images. Color images were evaluated with respect to chromaticity. Analysis was performed according to the image color signature. The color signature of an image was defined as the distribution of its pixels in the rgb chromaticity space. The descriptors used for the analysis are the average and variability of the barycenter positions, the average of the variability and the number of unique colors (NUC) of all signatures. Results Two hundred thirty-three color photographs were acquired with each retinal camera. The images acquired by the confocal white LED device demonstrated an average barycenter position (rgb = [0.448, 0.328, 0.224]) closer to the center of the chromaticity space, while the conventional fundus camera provides images with a clear shift toward red at the expense of the blue and green channels (rgb = [0.574, 0.278, 0.148] (p < 0.001). The variability of the barycenter positions was higher in the white LED confocal system than in the conventional fundus camera. The average variability of the distributions was higher (0.003 ± 0.007, p < 0.001) in the Eidon images compared to the Topcon camera, indicating a greater richness of color. The NUC percentage was higher for the white LED confocal device than for the conventional flash fundus camera (0.071% versus 0.025%, p < 0.001). Conclusions Eidon provides more-balanced color images, with a wider richness of color content, compared to a conventional flash fundus camera. The overall higher chromaticity of Eidon may provide benefits in terms of discriminative power and diagnostic accuracy.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12886-019-1241-8ChromaticityConfocal white LED systemConventional flash fundus cameraEidonTopcon
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Valentina Sarao
Daniele Veritti
Enrico Borrelli
Srini Vas R. Sadda
Enea Poletti
Paolo Lanzetta
spellingShingle Valentina Sarao
Daniele Veritti
Enrico Borrelli
Srini Vas R. Sadda
Enea Poletti
Paolo Lanzetta
A comparison between a white LED confocal imaging system and a conventional flash fundus camera using chromaticity analysis
BMC Ophthalmology
Chromaticity
Confocal white LED system
Conventional flash fundus camera
Eidon
Topcon
author_facet Valentina Sarao
Daniele Veritti
Enrico Borrelli
Srini Vas R. Sadda
Enea Poletti
Paolo Lanzetta
author_sort Valentina Sarao
title A comparison between a white LED confocal imaging system and a conventional flash fundus camera using chromaticity analysis
title_short A comparison between a white LED confocal imaging system and a conventional flash fundus camera using chromaticity analysis
title_full A comparison between a white LED confocal imaging system and a conventional flash fundus camera using chromaticity analysis
title_fullStr A comparison between a white LED confocal imaging system and a conventional flash fundus camera using chromaticity analysis
title_full_unstemmed A comparison between a white LED confocal imaging system and a conventional flash fundus camera using chromaticity analysis
title_sort comparison between a white led confocal imaging system and a conventional flash fundus camera using chromaticity analysis
publisher BMC
series BMC Ophthalmology
issn 1471-2415
publishDate 2019-11-01
description Abstract Background Conventional flash fundus cameras capture color images that are oversaturated in the red channel and washed out in the green and blue channels, resulting in a retinal picture that often looks flat and reddish. A white LED confocal device was recently introduced to provide a high-quality retinal image with enhanced color fidelity. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the color rendering properties of the white LED confocal system and compare them to those of a conventional flash fundus camera through chromaticity analysis. Methods A white LED confocal device (Eidon, Centervue, Padova, Italy) and a traditional flash fundus camera (TRC-NW8, Topcon Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) were used to capture fundus images. Color images were evaluated with respect to chromaticity. Analysis was performed according to the image color signature. The color signature of an image was defined as the distribution of its pixels in the rgb chromaticity space. The descriptors used for the analysis are the average and variability of the barycenter positions, the average of the variability and the number of unique colors (NUC) of all signatures. Results Two hundred thirty-three color photographs were acquired with each retinal camera. The images acquired by the confocal white LED device demonstrated an average barycenter position (rgb = [0.448, 0.328, 0.224]) closer to the center of the chromaticity space, while the conventional fundus camera provides images with a clear shift toward red at the expense of the blue and green channels (rgb = [0.574, 0.278, 0.148] (p < 0.001). The variability of the barycenter positions was higher in the white LED confocal system than in the conventional fundus camera. The average variability of the distributions was higher (0.003 ± 0.007, p < 0.001) in the Eidon images compared to the Topcon camera, indicating a greater richness of color. The NUC percentage was higher for the white LED confocal device than for the conventional flash fundus camera (0.071% versus 0.025%, p < 0.001). Conclusions Eidon provides more-balanced color images, with a wider richness of color content, compared to a conventional flash fundus camera. The overall higher chromaticity of Eidon may provide benefits in terms of discriminative power and diagnostic accuracy.
topic Chromaticity
Confocal white LED system
Conventional flash fundus camera
Eidon
Topcon
url http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12886-019-1241-8
work_keys_str_mv AT valentinasarao acomparisonbetweenawhiteledconfocalimagingsystemandaconventionalflashfunduscamerausingchromaticityanalysis
AT danieleveritti acomparisonbetweenawhiteledconfocalimagingsystemandaconventionalflashfunduscamerausingchromaticityanalysis
AT enricoborrelli acomparisonbetweenawhiteledconfocalimagingsystemandaconventionalflashfunduscamerausingchromaticityanalysis
AT srinivasrsadda acomparisonbetweenawhiteledconfocalimagingsystemandaconventionalflashfunduscamerausingchromaticityanalysis
AT eneapoletti acomparisonbetweenawhiteledconfocalimagingsystemandaconventionalflashfunduscamerausingchromaticityanalysis
AT paololanzetta acomparisonbetweenawhiteledconfocalimagingsystemandaconventionalflashfunduscamerausingchromaticityanalysis
AT valentinasarao comparisonbetweenawhiteledconfocalimagingsystemandaconventionalflashfunduscamerausingchromaticityanalysis
AT danieleveritti comparisonbetweenawhiteledconfocalimagingsystemandaconventionalflashfunduscamerausingchromaticityanalysis
AT enricoborrelli comparisonbetweenawhiteledconfocalimagingsystemandaconventionalflashfunduscamerausingchromaticityanalysis
AT srinivasrsadda comparisonbetweenawhiteledconfocalimagingsystemandaconventionalflashfunduscamerausingchromaticityanalysis
AT eneapoletti comparisonbetweenawhiteledconfocalimagingsystemandaconventionalflashfunduscamerausingchromaticityanalysis
AT paololanzetta comparisonbetweenawhiteledconfocalimagingsystemandaconventionalflashfunduscamerausingchromaticityanalysis
_version_ 1724416506435993600