 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / October 2003CRT v. LCD
Sorry if this topic has been covered before...if so, steer me in the right direction. I have PS on a laptop and want to use a desktop monitor. Which type is better for editing photographs, LCD or CRT? I have a TFT screen on my laptop and the color saturation changes with the position of the screen. Thanks for your help, Oscar > Sorry if this topic has been covered before...if so, steer me in the right > direction. I have PS on a laptop and want to use a desktop monitor. Which > type is better for editing photographs, LCD or CRT? I have a TFT screen on > my laptop and the color saturation changes with the position of the screen. > Thanks for your help, > Oscar CRT's (large, flat) generally still 'rule' in this respect but some LCD's are pretty highly regarded now by the graphics working pro's I know. Neovo's and the very expensive Apple Macs seem popular - for the very reason that they have a wide angle of view available with no luminosity (saturation) shift Simon CRT. No contest. Just watch those refresh rates... > Sorry if this topic has been covered before...if so, steer me in the right > direction. I have PS on a laptop and want to use a desktop monitor. Which > type is better for editing photographs, LCD or CRT? I have a TFT screen on > my laptop and the color saturation changes with the position of the screen. > Thanks for your help, > Oscar >Sorry if this topic has been covered before...if so, steer me in the right >direction. I have PS on a laptop and want to use a desktop monitor. Which >type is better for editing photographs, LCD or CRT? I have a TFT screen on >my laptop and the color saturation changes with the position of the screen. >Thanks for your help, >Oscar I spent a small fortune on a Sony TFT display about a year ago and have not regretted it. The refresh rate and resolution is better than most CRT displays. It does not have a viewing angle problem throughout my normal movement range which is about 30%. I can't think of any reason to look at a monitor from a greater angle. The huge advantage of TFT displays are the saving in desk space. Steve  SignatureEasyNN-plus. The easy way to build neural networks. Build networks from numeric, text and image files. http://www.easynn.com Every TFT I've looked at was not as sharp as the best CRTs in the same size. But I've not looked at Sonys that cost "a small fortune." I have a severe space problem that a TFT would go a long way to alleviating, but the cost/benefit ratio has to be in line... -- Skip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > >Sorry if this topic has been covered before...if so, steer me in the right > >direction. I have PS on a laptop and want to use a desktop monitor. Which [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Build networks from numeric, text and image files. > http://www.easynn.com > >Sorry if this topic has been covered before...if so, steer me in the right > >direction. I have PS on a laptop and want to use a desktop monitor. Which [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > reason to look at a monitor from a greater angle. The huge advantage > of TFT displays are the saving in desk space. Well, I would trade the "desk space" for a better color gamut without hesitation! The matter of fact is that we do not know how good the LCD screens match the color gamut of the CRT's. We know meanwhile that LCD screen does not have the large durability as we have suspected. Especially the blue pixels fade away at a larger rate than the phosphor in the olle big bulky CRT's. Texas Instruments has recently contracted a 7*24 (around the clock) test of LCD screens, but they are partisan. They would like everybody to use DLP technology instead! We also know from PC World report that LCD screen manufacturers are in a bitter competition to each other, what made them lie about contrast values and other performance parameters. NEC even filed a law suite against Viewsonic! We really need some serious lab tests of LCD in a well established test environment. Thomas > Steve > -- > EasyNN-plus. The easy way to build neural networks. > Build networks from numeric, text and image files. > http://www.easynn.com >> >Sorry if this topic has been covered before...if so, steer me in the right >> >direction. I have PS on a laptop and want to use a desktop monitor. Which [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > a 7*24 (around the clock) test of LCD screens, but they are partisan. > They would like everybody to use DLP technology instead! today at the post office the gal said their IBM <>12" displays have been online for 5yrs w/one of five failing (early, bad focus?). that's nothing about color, but it does sound encouraging. i _think_ they are color. > We also know from PC World report that LCD screen manufacturers > are in a bitter competition to each other, what made them lie about > contrast values and other performance parameters. NEC even filed > a law suite against Viewsonic! > > We really need some serious lab tests of LCD in a well established > test environment. i bit on the technology this week, based on a post in rcm (damn, Usenet is supposed to be free ;-). the 17" Viewsonic is 95% of a 19" crt and 359 buks at Costco, does 1280x1084, great horz view angle, more than you need. vertical is improved but distant 2nd to a crt. --Loren There are flat panels and there are flat panels. The one on my iBook and my friend's 17" iMac suffer from the viewing angle problem. My 22" Apple Cinema Display doesn't. I can be at an extreme angle and the colors are fine. It may not pass a Pantone test, but on all calibration protocalls I've run I can see all the differences from lightest to darkest and all the other stuff I'm supposed to see. Using ColorSync, my prints look just like what I see on the screen. From what I hear Samsung makes the Apple displays. I'm done with flickering, hot, noisy, hair raising CRTs. SignatureCharlie Dilks Newark, DE USA > today at the post office the gal said their IBM <>12" displays have been > online for 5yrs w/one of five failing (early, bad focus?). that's nothing > about color, but it does sound encouraging. i _think_ they are color. That means absolutely nothing. They use a couple colors and they aren't significant to their work. May as well be ACII terminals with the extra 16 bits doing special characters. I have one and really like the use of the desk now. It runs cooler and has better contrast. WOn't x-ray you some day either. I got the Princeton and so far pleased to have it on computer. Martin 1280 x 1084 is just fine for me! SignatureMartin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn @ home at Lion's Lair with our computer oldtree@pacbell.net NRA LOH, NRA Life NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder >today at the post office the gal said their IBM <>12" displays have been >online for 5yrs w/one of five failing (early, bad focus?). that's nothing >about color, but it does sound encouraging. i _think_ they are color. If those are the small monitors at the customer service counters, they are green monochrome monitors. Those things should work almost forever if people don't leave the brightness turned up so bright that it burns the screen. I "fixed" all the displays at a small town post office one time. All the knobs were turned all the way up and the screen was so badly over driven that the horizontal or vertical synch could not keep up with it. I showed them how to turn down the brightness and adjust the contrast. They thought I was a computer whiz. >>today at the post office the gal said their IBM <>12" displays have been >>online for 5yrs w/one of five failing (early, bad focus?). that's nothing [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > forever if people don't leave the brightness turned up so bright that > it burns the screen. Jack, they were not green (my favorite mono display), they likely were color, but it was not intense, thus my doubt. they could have been white phosphor w/me projecting color, but i _thought_ some of the icons were color. > I "fixed" all the displays at a small town post office one time. All > the knobs were turned all the way up and the screen was so badly over > driven that the horizontal or vertical synch could not keep up with > it. I showed them how to turn down the brightness and adjust the > contrast. They thought I was a computer whiz. i maintained 60 or so Perkin-Elmer Bantem displays, almost a full time job, but only 10% of the contract. the balance of my time was fixing brand-x tape drives, about 20% of the $. as in life, you spend too much time fixing "other peoples" problems. Regards, --Loren >>>Sorry if this topic has been covered before...if so, steer me in the right >>>direction. I have PS on a laptop and want to use a desktop monitor. Which [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > match the color gamut of the CRT's. We know meanwhile that LCD screen > does not have the large durability as we have suspected. Tap the front of your CRT with a hammer and tap a LCD with one, too. Then see which one still works. Uni Especially > the blue pixels fade away at a larger rate than the phosphor in > the olle big bulky CRT's. Texas Instruments has recently contracted [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >>Build networks from numeric, text and image files. >>http://www.easynn.com > >>>Sorry if this topic has been covered before...if so, steer me in the right > >>>direction. I have PS on a laptop and want to use a desktop monitor. Which [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Tap the front of your CRT with a hammer and tap a LCD with one, too. > Then see which one still works. Hammer? Not likely. Use a pencil instead, but be careful, you might damage some pixels on the LCD screen permanently. It happened right here on the 18" Dell Ultrasharp in the office close to mine! The delinquent was "showing" something on his screen with the automatic pencil, but in the fury of the hot discussion he punched the screen juuuust a bit too hard... The pixels are "off" now, he has a nasty dark spot on the screen... They are very fragile indeed, these LCD's! Thomas > Uni > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >>Build networks from numeric, text and image files. > >>http://www.easynn.com >>>>>Sorry if this topic has been covered before...if so, steer me in the right >>>>>direction. I have PS on a laptop and want to use a desktop monitor. Which [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > They are very fragile indeed, these LCD's! They do have LCD monitors with glass fronts. Uni > Thomas > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >>>>Build networks from numeric, text and image files. >>>>http://www.easynn.com > >>>Well, I would trade the "desk space" for a better color gamut without hesitation! > >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > They do have LCD monitors with glass fronts. They? > Uni >>>>>Well, I would trade the "desk space" for a better color gamut without hesitation! >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > They? Didn't catch the brand, but it is available. Uni >>Uni >>>>>Well, I would trade the "desk space" for a better color gamut without hesitation! >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > They? http://www.baber.com/monitors/harsper_hl1700g.htm http://www.dupont.com/displays/solutions/html/products/pdfs/DisplayAdvisorHybrid DisplayDec_02.pdf Just a couple. Uni >>Uni >>Sorry if this topic has been covered before...if so, steer me in the right >>direction. I have PS on a laptop and want to use a desktop monitor. Which [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > reason to look at a monitor from a greater angle. The huge advantage > of TFT displays are the saving in desk space. LCD's.... No harmful radiation. Less degradation of image quality. No warm up time. Longer life. Less energy consumption. Etc., etc., etc.. LCD is the way to go. Uni > Steve >>>Sorry if this topic has been covered before...if so, steer me in the right >>>direction. I have PS on a laptop and want to use a desktop monitor. Which [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Less energy consumption. > Etc., etc., etc.. > > LCD is the way to go. > > Uni it would be nice, but do you have any ref.data for these life/degredation claims? wrt power, surprisingly my VL1715 Viewsonic (lcd) lists it as 2w-standby/44w-on. i don't feel heat anywhere, anytime, but it is getting only lite use, so far. but a 19" crt is not much over 50w when on. imho, the 44w is bogus, too hi. --Loren >> Steve >>>>Sorry if this topic has been covered before...if so, steer me in the right >>>>direction. I have PS on a laptop and want to use a desktop monitor. Which [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > it would be nice, LCD's are the wave of the future. Soon, there will be no more CRT's. The ONLY reason people purchase CRT's, these days, is because they can purchase them for less. but do you have any ref.data for these > life/degredation claims? Look at your wristwatch. That's enough proof. > wrt power, surprisingly my VL1715 Viewsonic (lcd) lists it as > 2w-standby/44w-on. i don't feel heat anywhere, anytime, but it > is getting only lite use, so far. but a 19" crt is not much over > 50w when on. imho, the 44w is bogus, too hi. --Loren We must consider power factor, too. :-) Uni >>>Steve >> but do you have any ref.data for these >> life/degredation claims? > > Look at your wristwatch. That's enough proof. I wasn't aware there were CRT wristwatches. I have CRTs that are nearly decade old, no probs. Some CRTs fail. Most have been replaced because they didn't keep up with the times. (Anybody out there still using a 13" CRT? Anybody want one? :) Can't beat an LCD for sharpness and easy viewing though... Um, if I could pipe in here on your last comment... Going to LCD in our pre-press shop has probably been the biggest headache in the last 5 years - it's nearly impossible to colormatch to our color-proofer... I think too many people are seduced by the thin size and lack of glare - but when color accuracy 'is' your job... today's LCD's just don't cut it... n8 > LCD's are the wave of the future. Soon, there will be no more CRT's. > The ONLY reason people purchase CRT's, these days, is because they can [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > >>>Steve > Um, if I could pipe in here on your last comment... > Going to LCD in our pre-press shop has probably been the biggest headache in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I think too many people are seduced by the thin size and lack of glare - but > when color accuracy 'is' your job... today's LCD's just don't cut it... You may have a point. However, for what the majority of people do, a LCD monitor suits them well. I have no doubt, in the near future, a LCD monitor will exceed a CRT's monitors' capabilities. Uni > n8 > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> >>>>>Steve That is what the original poster wanted to know, which was better for editing photos, color, etc. > That is what the original poster wanted to know, which was better for > editing photos, color, etc. The answer: a good LCD. Signature-Stephen H. Westin Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors. > > That is what the original poster wanted to know, which was better for > > editing photos, color, etc. > > The answer: a good LCD. Nope: http://videosystems.com/ar/video_fallacy_contrast/ "If the grayscale capability of a CRT-based display could be compared to the number of floors in a house, that house would have a full-sized basement and a walk-around attic. LCD, DLP, and LCoS projectors will reduce that basement to a crawl space or eliminate it altogether, and the attic becomes a tight crawl space, too. We have fewer floors to work with and less space overall." Rick > > > That is what the original poster wanted to know, which was better for > > > editing photos, color, etc. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Nope: > http://videosystems.com/ar/video_fallacy_contrast/ Who is Pete Putman, anyway? Where are his measurements? He seems to be talking about projectors, with one plasma panel display. And then he generalizes this to direct-view LCD's. > "If the grayscale capability of a CRT-based display could be compared > to the number of floors in a house, that house would have a full-sized > basement and a walk-around attic. LCD, DLP, and LCoS projectors > will reduce that basement to a crawl space or eliminate it altogether, > and the attic becomes a tight crawl space, too. We have fewer floors > to work with and less space overall." OK, how about "a good desktop LCD" rather than "a good LCD"? Signature-Stephen H. Westin Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors. >>That is what the original poster wanted to know, which was better for >>editing photos, color, etc. > > The answer: a good LCD. Absolutely not (yet). And please stop crossposting these threads! > >>That is what the original poster wanted to know, which was better for > >>editing photos, color, etc. > > The answer: a good LCD. > > Absolutely not (yet). I'm afraid I'll believe a color scientist rather than you. > And please stop crossposting these threads! Hmm. I'm reading it in rec.photo.equipment.35mm. Where are you? Signature-Stephen H. Westin Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors. > I'm afraid I'll believe a color scientist rather than you. Pedantic knowledge over real-world experience. I'm not saying the guy is not qualified on the subject of color, but in terms of color accuracy LCDs are not there yet - not even the Apple Cinema Displays. >>And please stop crossposting these threads! > > Hmm. I'm reading it in rec.photo.equipment.35mm. Where are you? You're *reading" in rec.photo.equipment.35mm, but you're *posting* to comp.graphics.apps.photoshop as well. Read your headers, and learn how to use your usenet reader correctly. hi... LCD is good But CRT is Great! -- Ron. > hi... > LCD is good > But CRT is Great! Heh, maybe it depends if it's hooked to a Mac or a Win machine... dvus >>>>Sorry if this topic has been covered before...if so, steer me in the right >>>>direction. I have PS on a laptop and want to use a desktop monitor. Which [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >it would be nice, but do you have any ref.data for these >life/degredation claims? Degradation of image quality on CRTs results mostly from aging phosphors and "fallout" from the cathode on the phosphor backside over time. Degradation of image quality on TFTs results mostly from brightness reduction of the backlight which is usually two or more cold cathode luminescent lamps (for current devices, LED backlight is a emerging technology). Those lamps are designed for a lifetime of 20,000 hours under optimum conditions until they will be only half as bright as a new one. You can shorten this time vastly by abuse (switching the lamp off after less than 10 minutes is a nice variety). Another chance of degradation for TFTs are bad pixels - either permanently off/black or permanently on/reg/green/blue - but that occurs mostly during the first 90 days. Michael >wrt power, surprisingly my VL1715 Viewsonic (lcd) lists it as >2w-standby/44w-on. i don't feel heat anywhere, anytime, but it >is getting only lite use, so far. but a 19" crt is not much over >50w when on. imho, the 44w is bogus, too hi. --Loren > >>> Steve > >>Sorry if this topic has been covered before...if so, steer me in the right > >>direction. I have PS on a laptop and want to use a desktop monitor. Which [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > No harmful radiation. > Less degradation of image quality. ?? > No warm up time. > Longer life. ?? Well, these two factors are actually not known to us. As I see, so far the majority of posters speak about personal impression and not about really measured color fidelity, color gamut and any other really confirmed values. What I am trying to say, is that we lack real good and trustworthy comparative test results about these screens. We do not have any base to make a good judgment about specific makes and models. We all know about the space, energy, radiation etc., there is really no need to waste time and talk about obvious issues. I do not oppose the new technology at all, as a matter of fact we have home a Viewsonic VE as a second screen, and I type this on another Viewsonic VG171 in my office. But the matter of fact is that the imaging on these screens looks way worse than on my trusty Sony Trinitron. My impression is that these LCD screens does not support linearly shades of gray and that the color gamut is restricted to a smaller area. The jpegs artifacts, especially in blue areas, are being extremely exposed, while they are virtually not visible on the Sony tube. Furthermore, the VE175 glows bluish in the darkness, thus "black" pixels are not really black. This screen leaks light enormously. I compared recently side on side a Viewsonic with NEC and a Sony 19" LCD screens in one of the computer stores and even I realized that the more recent Viewsonic is visibly gray in "black areas" as opposed to deep nice black background of Sony and NEC. Generally, the VG series appears to be much better than the VE series. Last but not least: My VE175 got a red pixel and I am in the process of a reclamation. Some people here work hard on color fidelity, invest thousands in good glass and cameras. For such people messages of getting "a Princeton at Costco" or being confirmed "at a post office" (as someone wrote !!!) that the LCD screen "works and works" sounds simply profane. Thomas > Less energy consumption. > Etc., etc., etc.. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > Steve > > > Uni wrote: >> >> > On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 17:52:03 GMT, "Oscar" <captorben@worldnet.att.net> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > impression and not about really measured color fidelity, color > gamut and any other really confirmed values. ...> > I do not oppose the new technology at all, as a matter of fact > we have home a Viewsonic VE as a second screen, and I type this on [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > jpegs artifacts, especially in blue areas, are being extremely > exposed, while they are virtually not visible on the Sony tube. just an opinion, from a recent buyer of the lcd screen and a veteran crt user. the pixel size/spec of the lcd is not really comparable, iirc, it is square, lined up and even the later models have larger pixels than the best crts. my very first experience is at a lower res than the max that Viewsonic recommmends, 1084x768, and it looks just fine. but some fonts that look good on a 19" crt just look crappy on the lcd. ViewSonic is so keen on this feature that you get a reminder to set it to the higher res. everytime it comes on, even from standby. just an observation, not a conclusion. --Loren ps: this is a 1715-1 lcd, vs top line crt from Dell. > Furthermore, the VE175 glows bluish in the darkness, thus "black" > pixels are not really black. This screen leaks light enormously. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >> >> > Steve >> > > Uni wrote: >> >>> > On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 17:52:03 GMT, "Oscar" <captorben@worldnet.att.net> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >some fonts that look good on a 19" crt just look crappy on the >lcd. If you set any LCD to any resolution different from its native and ask it so sample up or down then everything will look crappy. Other than a CRT a LCD can not adapt pixel sizes according to screen resolution. So what you see is a blurred and sometimes distorted image. Michael >ViewSonic is so keen on this feature that you get a reminder >to set it to the higher res. everytime it comes on, even from [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >>> >>> > Steve > >Sorry if this topic has been covered before...if so, steer me in the right > >direction. I have PS on a laptop and want to use a desktop monitor. Which > >type is better for editing photographs, LCD or CRT? I have a TFT screen on > >my laptop and the color saturation changes with the position of the screen. > >Thanks for your help, > >Oscar Refresh rate is not an issue in photoshop only games. Due to the technical differences lcd refresh rates don't translate literally to crt ones as far as eyestrain. neither is angle of view for one person, colour accuracy luminescence and gamut seem to be the limits of LCD. CRTs are the choice of pros. LCDs are like the digital vs film debate. LCDs lack the contrast, resolution, color saturation of CRTs. > CRTs are the choice of pros. CRT's are analog devices. LCD's are digital. Too many phase related error problems with DA convertors, when using analog. Uni LCDs are like the digital vs film debate. > LCDs lack the contrast, resolution, color saturation of CRTs. >> CRTs are the choice of pros. > >CRT's are analog devices. LCD's are digital. Too many phase related >error problems with DA convertors, when using analog. Did you know that most TFTs are connected via the analog VGA connector? >Uni > > LCDs are like the digital vs film debate. >> LCDs lack the contrast, resolution, color saturation of CRTs. > >CRT's are analog devices. LCD's are digital. Too many phase related > >error problems with DA convertors, when using analog. > Did you know that most TFTs are connected via the analog VGA > connector? Ugh!!! Maybe in the PC world. With Macs they're direct digital. SignatureCharlie Dilks Newark, DE USA The more expensive TFT monitors have DVI input too. And are much better. But, having used both CRT and LCD monitors, I still prefer CRT for image proccessing. james > > >CRT's are analog devices. LCD's are digital. Too many phase related > > >error problems with DA convertors, when using analog. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Charlie Dilks > Newark, DE USA > The more expensive TFT monitors have DVI input too. And are much better. > But, having used both CRT and LCD monitors, I still prefer CRT for image > proccessing. > james My problem is that I'm extremely sensitive to CRT screen flicker. At work most of the PCs "on the floor" drove me nuts after 5 minutes use. My boss must have had a better one that wasn't as bad, but it still got to me after a while. For some reason the ones on my Macs at home were didn't bother me until around three years ago. I don't know if I got more sensitive to it or if my 19" NEC multisync got worse, but it started to bother me. I got a 22" Apple flat screen and have been a happy camper ever since. SignatureCharlie Dilks Newark, DE USA I am pretty sensitive to screen flicker too. I keep my monitor set to 75Hz refresh and that seems to work pretty good. (this is an older Dell Ultra Scan that is slowly fading) My previous (now dead) monitor supported even higher refresh rates and I kept it set to 85Hz (both monitors at 1024 X 768 Res.) and I never did have a problem with flicker. A lot of companies seem to set their user's monitors to a default of 60Hz refresh and that will usually produce a noticable flicker for a lot of people. Some don't notice it for a while or just wonder why they get headaches so much. Up the refresh and things improve a whole lot. (that is as long as the monitor supports a refresh rate of 75Hz or more.) james > > The more expensive TFT monitors have DVI input too. And are much better. > > But, having used both CRT and LCD monitors, I still prefer CRT for image [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Charlie Dilks > Newark, DE USA > A lot of companies seem > to set their user's monitors to a default of 60Hz refresh and that will > usually produce a noticable flicker for a lot of people. Some don't notice > it for a while or just wonder why they get headaches so much. Up the > refresh and things improve a whole lot. (that is as long as the monitor > supports a refresh rate of 75Hz or more.) I set mine to as high as they would go. I forget what it was because I retired 4 years ago and did the settings a few years before that. No one else noticed it. These computers ran analytical instruments. I used my Mac Powerbook at my desk. I couldn't stand the MS OSes when it came to actually "using" a computer. ;) About two years before I retired, I needed my PB at home and they got me a Windows laptop. It's a wonder I didn't get fired for swearing at it. I used to get LIVID!!! ;) SignatureCharlie Dilks Newark, DE USA >I am pretty sensitive to screen flicker too. I keep my monitor set to 75Hz >refresh and that seems to work pretty good. (this is an older Dell Ultra [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >supports a refresh rate of 75Hz or more.) >james The flicker is worse if you also have tube lighting - in continental Europe with 50Hz power a 60 or 75Hz screen refresh results in interference of 5/6 or 2/3 seconds, but in the US with 60Hz power a 60Hz screen can build up a very slow flicker (if only a fraction out of sync) or in a constant 30Hz flicker (when the screen is in its "dark"-phase while the tube light is in the bright phase). Michael >>I am pretty sensitive to screen flicker too. I keep my monitor set to 75Hz >>refresh and that seems to work pretty good. (this is an older Dell Ultra [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > The flicker is worse if you also have tube lighting Not always true. It depends more on the ballast type than the lighting type itself. Uni - in continental > Europe with 50Hz power a 60 or 75Hz screen refresh results in > interference of 5/6 or 2/3 seconds, but in the US with 60Hz power a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Michael > The more expensive TFT monitors have DVI input too. A quick search on the 'net reveals 70% of LCD monitors, from various manufactures, include both analog and digital inputs. Uni And are much better. > But, having used both CRT and LCD monitors, I still prefer CRT for image > proccessing. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >>Charlie Dilks >>Newark, DE USA > > The more expensive TFT monitors have DVI input too. > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >>Charlie Dilks > >>Newark, DE USA My monitor refresh rate is set to "optimal", whatever that means.....Since it is the next setting in line after, "85" I presume it is at least 85, but what do I know? No that means it is on an optimal setting for the resolution, depending on the resolution it could be 60hz or 85hz. Stuart >>>The more expensive TFT monitors have DVI input too. >>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > it is the next setting in line after, "85" I presume it is at least 85, but > what do I know? On thing to be aware of is that many LCD monitors cannot be calibrated so they match industry-standard colour, brightness etc. I keep hearing that calibration is crucial to producing what you expect from your digital images. I don't have enough experience to know yet (I'm using uncalibrated CRTs), but thought it was worth a mention. > Sorry if this topic has been covered before...if so, steer me in the right > direction. I have PS on a laptop and want to use a desktop monitor. Which > type is better for editing photographs, LCD or CRT? I have a TFT screen on > my laptop and the color saturation changes with the position of the screen. > Thanks for your help, > Oscar >Sorry if this topic has been covered before...if so, steer me in the right >direction. I have PS on a laptop and want to use a desktop monitor. Which >type is better for editing photographs, LCD or CRT? I have a TFT screen on >my laptop and the color saturation changes with the position of the screen. >Thanks for your help, >Oscar Some expensive desktop TFTs are as reliable regarding colors as the average CRT. I have not seen a notebook LCD acceptable for professional work. If your workspace allows for a CRT, go, buy one. Michael My service bureau here in Miami says LCDs are not up to the exactness of the CRTs, however I went to the recent Photoshop convention held here and saw the Apple HD screen side by side with an Ink Jet print under one of those controlled light boxes for comparing the screen with hard copy and WOW! My CRT is calibrated with my Epson 1200 and my service bureau so I am a happy camper. I would really like to own the 23" HD monitor by Apple (they sell conversion cables to use with a PC) but it is a little pricey for me so far. I guess I could return it if it was too far off but the demo at the convention made me stop and think about it. Meanwhile... Yours, Tom >> LCD or CRT? I have a TFT screen on > >my laptop and the color saturation changes with the position of the screen. > >Thanks for your help, > >Oscar Yes, the problem you mention is one of the drawbacks to LCD screens. While LCD monitors are getting much better, I think a good CRT still is better. BTW, one of the things that gets me is that sometimes the testing methods on LCD monitors state things like contrast higher than they really deliver in practical use. But then, I am also critical on some of the methods used to test CRT monitors, for that matter. The result is that not all CRT monitors are equal, certainly not an earthshattering claim. The point is, if photo editing is going to be an important use of your computer, it is a good idea to shop carefully for a monitor. Go to a place where you can see it in operation and fool with brightness, contrast, color settings, etc. Does it have options for calibration, etc. > Sorry if this topic has been covered before...if so, steer me in the right > direction. I have PS on a laptop and want to use a desktop monitor. Which > type is better for editing photographs, LCD or CRT? I have a TFT screen on > my laptop and the color saturation changes with the position of the screen. > Thanks for your help, > Oscar SignatureDon Stauffer in Minnesota stauffer@usfamily.net webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer > Sorry if this topic has been covered before...if so, steer me in the right > direction. I have PS on a laptop and want to use a desktop monitor. Which > type is better for editing photographs, LCD or CRT? I have a TFT screen on > my laptop and the color saturation changes with the position of the screen. > Thanks for your help, > Oscar Some of the newer TFT (LCD) displays are much better, and the shift is less apparent, or even unnoticeable. However, it is better if your workstation is set-up with somewhat fixed seating and lighting conditions. With a high end CRT, the colours are much better, though still only a representation of the final printed image. No monitor can display anything approaching 100% Cyan, or 100% Yellow. Using PhotoShop, the eye dropper tool will allow you to pick colour values, and is more accurate than judging a display. If you do many hours of work in PhotoShop, an LCD display will save your eyes. Using a CRT for long periods of time will tire your eyes, and in the longer term might affect your vision. A good combination is to have a high end calibrated CRT and an LCD. Use the LCD for working space, and do your final colour check prior to proofing on the CRT. Ciao! Gordon Moat Alliance Graphique Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com > Sorry if this topic has been covered before...if so, steer me in the > right direction. I have PS on a laptop and want to use a desktop > monitor. Which type is better for editing photographs, LCD or CRT? I > have a TFT screen on my laptop and the color saturation changes with > the position of the screen. Thanks for your help, > Oscar Ever since their introduction, the fight has been on to make LCDs display as good as CRTs. By some accounts now they're quite close, if you pay three times the cost of an equivalent CRT. By other accounts, longevity is in question and the old standard of spyder-calibration for color rendition is often, somehow, overlooked. LCDs are fantastic for people who like to think they're being 'cutting-edge' with the latest technology and all that. The same people often have black or silvery CPU cases too, which sure is cutting-edge... From my standpoint? How much is your desk space worth to your productivity? I personally found a simple rearranging of furniture worked pretty damn well. But then again, I've never had any desire to look really cool. - Al. SignatureTo reply, insert dash in address to match domain below Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net People have gotten fired because an image was a little too green or red In article <7lChb.175475$3o3.12987629@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Oscar <captorben@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > Sorry if this topic has been covered before...if so, steer me in the right > direction. I have PS on a laptop and want to use a desktop monitor. Which > type is better for editing photographs, LCD or CRT? I have a TFT screen on > my laptop and the color saturation changes with the position of the screen. > Thanks for your help, I have a good perspective on this; I used to be a professional photographer, and now I do computer consulting. Many of my customers are in the graphics industry. For photographs or any other precise color work, CRT is the only way to go, and will be for the forseeable future. The accurate color and smooth brightness curve cannot be matched on an LCD. Yes, a CRT is heavy, bulky, and sucks energy. Occasionally they've been known to leak an X-ray or two. They're influenced by external magnetic fields, and are easy to knock out of alignment. They often are not well calibrated at the factory and have to be tweaked. And the sharpness often varies from sample to sample; you have to look for a "good" one. THE LCD on the other hand is slim, cool, and sexy. If you don't actually break it, it can't be out of focus or alignment. In other words, all the stuff consumers and manufacturers are looking for. But for accurate color, a CRT display is still a necessity. The graphics departments of some very large companies tell me this. (BTW: Always check the individual LCD you buy carefully for dead pixels, the same as you'd check a CRT for focus. The bad pixels are common, and the manufacturer usually will NOT fix it under warranty. Seriously) Final Note: The jury is still out, but I suspect the phosphors in a CRT will have a much longer life than the backlight in an LCD. Probably not an issue if you'll only be using it for two or three years; but I have CRT displays from the 80's that still work perfectly. > For photographs or any other precise color work, CRT is the only way to > go, and will be for the forseeable future. The accurate color and > smooth brightness curve cannot be matched on an LCD. I disagree. > Yes, a CRT is heavy, bulky, and sucks energy. Occasionally they've been > known to leak an X-ray or two. They're influenced by external magnetic > fields, and are easy to knock out of alignment. They often are not well > calibrated at the factory and have to be tweaked. And the sharpness > often varies from sample to sample; you have to look for a "good" one. True. > THE LCD on the other hand is slim, cool, and sexy. If you don't > actually break it, it can't be out of focus or alignment. In other > words, all the stuff consumers and manufacturers are looking for. Also true. > But for accurate color, a CRT display is still a necessity. The > graphics departments of some very large companies tell me this. Not true. By the way, hearing stuff from "some very large companies" almost guarantees that what you hear will be dated and obsolete. > Final Note: The jury is still out, but I suspect the phosphors in a CRT > will have a much longer life than the backlight in an LCD. Probably not > an issue if you'll only be using it for two or three years; but I have > CRT displays from the 80's that still work perfectly. All the engineers I have spoken to about the longevity of LCD devices vehemently disagree with you. CRT degradation, on the other hand, begins the first time you turn it on and continues for the life span of the product, advancing fairly rapidly. I very much doubt your CRT's "from the 80's" are working "perfectly". How were they calibrated in "the 80's", by what yardstick did you establish "perfection", and have you continuously recalibrated ever since? If not, what has probably happened is that you have become used to the degraded output over time. Set those "perfect" CRT's "from the 80's" next to an Eizo or Apple Cinema LCD and you will probably find out they are not fit to be doorstops, let alone useful for any color work that requires more than just seeing an image on a screen. Tom >>For photographs or any other precise color work, CRT is the only way to >>go, and will be for the forseeable future. The accurate color and [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > the first time you turn it on and continues for the life span of the > product, advancing fairly rapidly. Thanks for mentioning this, Tom. Uni > I very much doubt your CRT's "from the 80's" are working "perfectly". How > were they calibrated in "the 80's", by what yardstick did you establish [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Tom Well, you're wrong. Many people get sucked into LCD screens because of their "apparent" sharpness. The color producing ability of an lcd is limited and cannot produce the full range. I love to use them to surf the net but they are not useable in the professional arena. >Well, you're wrong. Many people get sucked into LCD screens because of >their "apparent" sharpness. The color producing ability of an lcd is >limited and cannot produce the full range. > >I love to use them to surf the net but they are not useable in the >professional arena. LCDs in the acceptable price range below $1500 are still struggling to show a 24 bit color range but Uni advocates them here while heavily promoting 48bit image editing in other messages. There are interesting LCD monitors and the upcoming LED backlight technology will improve color management for LCDs by providing reliable, adjustable backlight color, and if you have seen Samsungs 3800x2400 pixel 21" monitor (226ppi) you get an idea what this technology can achieve some day. But for today's small companies who work on a budget, a CRT for half the price of a good LCD will be the better choice (given a lifetime of 3-5 years). Michael > >Well, you're wrong. Many people get sucked into LCD screens because of > >their "apparent" sharpness. The color producing ability of an lcd is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > show a 24 bit color range but Uni advocates them here while heavily > promoting 48bit image editing in other messages. Nope. See the Apple 20" Cinema Display. List price is $1299. > There are interesting LCD monitors and the upcoming LED backlight > technology will improve color management for LCDs by providing [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > work on a budget, a CRT for half the price of a good LCD will be the > better choice (given a lifetime of 3-5 years). Well, that's a different question, isn't it? I think we agree: 1. The best LCD's are better than the best CRT's, except perhaps for off-angle viewing. 2. Cheap LCD's aren't as good as the best CRT's. I don't know about cheap LCD's vs. cheaper CRT's, but I suspect that a middling-good CRT would beat a cheap LCD that costs more. As for me, I'm typing this on a Sony GDM-F500R flat Trinitron. I'm hoping to wangle the Apple 20-inch Cinema Display from two doors down onto my desk. I bought it to save space, but was shocked at how good it looks. A new Sony of similar size, the GDM-F520 21-inch tube, sells for $1633.55 at <http://www.monitorgalaxy.com/catalog/1757.cfm>; the Apple display is $1,299 list. Signature-Stephen H. Westin Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors. Like I said above, this is getting into another film vs video thing. Many people are caught up in the technology hype thinking newer is better or because it's digital it's better and so on. Just like cameras, you pay 4x as much for a digital camera to try and approach film's abilities but the only argument for digital is resolution (not color/contrast) or with monitors it's sharpness (not color/contrast). The truth is comparing equivalent CRT to an equivalent LCD and the CRT wins hands down. > Like I said above, this is getting into another film vs video thing. Many > people are caught up in the technology hype thinking newer is better or [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The truth is comparing equivalent CRT to an equivalent LCD and the CRT wins > hands down. Hmm. A new 21" Sony flat Trinitron sells for about $1600. An Apple 20" Studio Display sells for about $1300. I'm pretty sure the LCD is better. Why? I asked the director of the Munsell Color Lab at the Rochester Institute of Technology. Here are a couple of excerpts from his reply. > I use LCDs exclusively for all of our critical image and color > perception research. That should say it all. The people sticking to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > would want to use one of those blurry, low-contrast, non-uniform > displays! :) > LCDs still do have a > fair bit of angular dependency, but if you sit in front of them (as we [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > think of a situation where I'd pick a CRT over and LCD (except maybe > for an inexpensive television). This is a guy who quite literally wrote the book on color appearance. <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0201634643/103-4202052-9398268?v=glance> His business isn't computers, but his people use computer displays every day and are probably the most demanding users around. They also measure and calibrate in ways you and I can't. If he says LCD's are better, I believe him. Signature-Stephen H. Westin Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors. > > Like I said above, this is getting into another film vs video thing. Many > > people are caught up in the technology hype thinking newer is better or [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > I use LCDs exclusively for all of our critical image and color > > perception research. That should say it all. Talk about circular logic. What a joke. <snip> > > Hmm. A new 21" Sony flat Trinitron sells for about $1600. An Apple 20" > > Studio Display sells for about $1300. I'm pretty sure the LCD is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Talk about circular logic. What a joke. You didn't read the rest of the paragraph, where he said: "The most accurate color characterization we have ever had of a display in the lab was on one of the Apple Cinema Displays last year." That is to say, his people have measured them. See <http://www.cis.rit.edu/mcsl/research/reports.html#GibsonFairchild>. That's over three years old; he's referring to more recent measurements made in his lab. As I pointed out, he's a color scientist. Chairman of CIE committee TC1-34. Signature-Stephen H. Westin Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors. > > > > I use LCDs exclusively for all of our critical image and color > > > > perception research. That should say it all. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > As I pointed out, he's a color scientist. Chairman of CIE committee > TC1-34. Stephen, It is a waste of time discussing this issue with people like that. What you are up against is unfettered ignorance combined with an unbridled enthusiasm to blissfully remain in that state. Some of these people are regurgitating 'net knowledge' with no respect for current research or results. They blindly espouse what they "heard" in the past then offer it up as dogma (developed solely by themselves, naturally). It seems to make them wonderful in their own minds. There is an old saying that it is folly to wash an a.ses head, you waste both your time and your soap. It applies here. Tom My "net knowledge" includes systems engineer with SGI and Pixar. I do not know this guy with the book so I would have to check on it. However, I have never seen an lcd desktop monitor used by a graphic artist in any location I've been to and have never heard any of them say they intend to get one. > My "net knowledge" includes systems engineer with SGI and Pixar. > > I do not know this guy with the book so I would have to check on it. Yeah, I think you had better. <snip> Signature-Stephen H. Westin Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors. > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > As I pointed out, he's a color scientist. Chairman of CIE committee > TC1-34. I challenge you or anyone following this thread to name a single large professional graphics firm that has standardized on LCD monitor technology for their editing work. And when that search fails, if you know anyone at one or more of these firms, ask they why they still use CRTs. LCD technology (at least in an economically viable context) simply isn't there yet. Yes, one can get close to a CRT's gamut with an LCD, but it currently costs 4-6x as much. Rick <snip> > > That is to say, his people have measured them. See > > <http://www.cis.rit.edu/mcsl/research/reports.html#GibsonFairchild>. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > single large professional graphics firm that has standardized > on LCD monitor technology for their editing work. Who cares? I'm concerned with what the technology does, not who uses it. So I asked a color scientist. > And when that search fails, if you know anyone at one or > more of these firms, ask they why they still use CRTs. > > LCD technology (at least in an economically viable context) > simply isn't there yet. Yes, one can get close to a CRT's > gamut with an LCD, but it currently costs 4-6x as much. Please give examples. I went for the most extravagant LCD panel I could find, the Apple 23-inch Cinema Display. It runs under $2K, in the same ballpark with good CRT monitors. A simple 21-inch flat Sony runs aobut $1600. Oh, and please give some colorimetric measurements to back up your performance claims. Signature-Stephen H. Westin Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors. > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Who cares? I'm concerned with what the technology does, not who uses > it. So I asked a color scientist. Did you actually read this report? The CRT had a measured contrast ratio of 427:1, while the two LCDs were 276:1 and 205:1. Also: "The normalized plots of each channel appear to have greater variability [in the two LCD monitors] than was seen in the Sony monitor, especially in the blue. Furthermore, the characteristics of the fluorescent backlight are visible in all three channels." > > And when that search fails, if you know anyone at one or > > more of these firms, ask they why they still use CRTs. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the same ballpark with good CRT monitors. A simple 21-inch flat Sony > runs aobut $1600. E.g. a Mitsubishi 2070 is ~$600 and has a much wider color gamut than any consumer-grade LCD. > Oh, and please give some colorimetric measurements to back up your > performance claims. I think you should go back and read the report you keep citing. The news is more bad than good for LCDs. Rick > Who cares? I'm concerned with what the technology does, not who uses > it. So I asked a color scientist. That's good enough for me. SignatureFarlo, the Urban Fey Dragon > > Who cares? I'm concerned with what the technology does, not who uses > > it. So I asked a color scientist. > > That's good enough for me. Well you should ask who's sponsoring his research. I have yet to hear of either lcd or crt calibrated correctly out of the box so how much room for calibration is there on an lcd? (someone who owns and uses more than one of each). > > > Who cares? I'm concerned with what the technology does, not who uses > > > it. So I asked a color scientist. > > > > That's good enough for me. > > Well you should ask who's sponsoring his research. Well, actually you should ask about the quality of his research. You really don't get far in this game by fudging results to please the sponsors. But as long as you asked, the 1998 report on the Apple Studio Display <http://www.cis.rit.edu/people/faculty/fairchild/PDFs/LCD.pdf>, "This research was supported by the Munsell Color Science Laboratory, the NSF-NYS/IUCRC and NYSSTF CAT Center for Electronic Imaging Systems, and LMT." I don't see any LCD manufacturers on that list. The complete list of lab sponsors is: 3M Apple Applied Science Fiction BASF BYK-Gardner Canon Colorcurve CyberChrome DataColor International Detroit Color Council R.R. Donnelley Dupont Eastman Kodak E-Color Epson Fuji Photo-Film Fuji Xerox Fujitsu Gemological Institute of America GretagMacbeth Hewlett-Packard HunterLab IBM Inter-Society Color Council Iris Graphics Konica Labsphere LMT Management Graphics Miles Milton Roy Minolta USA Munsell Color NEC Okidata Panasonic Pentax Photo Research Pixel Physics Polaroid RIT Research Corporation Samsung SunChemical Toppan Sony Tektronix Texas Instruments Xerox X-Rite Apple is the only one I see there who might have a vested interest. > I have yet to hear of either lcd or crt calibrated correctly out of the box > so how much room for calibration is there on an lcd? > (someone who owns and uses more than one of each). In principle, just as much as with a CRT. Signature-Stephen H. Westin Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors. ><snip> > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Who cares? I'm concerned with what the technology does, not who uses >it. So I asked a color scientist. What technology does is irrelevant if it doesn't fit in the economic context. Sure, there have been scientist who could do a controlled fusion of Hydrogen to Helium. But a fusion power plant is not likely to create profit for the next 50 years. So if it is possible to create the "perfect" LCD, this will become relevant if those who currently use CRTs can replace them making a profit in their economy (Quality of results, ergonomic aspects, cost of office space, cost of hardware, ...). BTW: Changes in the backlight concept are on the verge... Michael >>>Well, you're wrong. Many people get sucked into LCD screens because of >>>their "apparent" sharpness. The color producing ability of an lcd is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Nope. See the Apple 20" Cinema Display. List price is $1299. As usual, Apple excels with their graphics while the PC world tries to catch up. Uni >>There are interesting LCD monitors and the upcoming LED backlight >>technology will improve color management for LCDs by providing [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > for $1633.55 at <http://www.monitorgalaxy.com/catalog/1757.cfm>; the > Apple display is $1,299 list. Try this page: http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/displays.shtml Daniel Rose > Sorry if this topic has been covered before...if so, steer me in the right > direction. I have PS on a laptop and want to use a desktop monitor. Which > type is better for editing photographs, LCD or CRT? I have a TFT screen on > my laptop and the color saturation changes with the position of the screen. > Thanks for your help, > Oscar I sit in front of a screen all day doing page layout and photoshop for a living. I've used CRT for about 12 years but this past few months my company has replaced all the CRTs with NEC flat panel LCDS, and IMHO they are much better, sharper easier on the eye, and the colours hold better once calibrated. The only problem is you can't stack piles of paper on top! Cheers Garry AC >> Sorry if this topic has been covered before...if so, steer me in the right >> direction. I have PS on a laptop and want to use a desktop monitor. Which [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Cheers Wait until they reduce cubicle space by 1.5' for reduced depth of monitors :-)) Michael >Garry AC |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.