 |
 | 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 / General Photo Topics / General Topics / May 2008Which type of Monitor
Can you REALLY edit photos on a LCD monitor as well as you can on a CRT monitor? I would think things like sharpening would be difficult. I am using a 15 year old Sony 19" that was $800 back then. It has work well but is starting to lose contrast. I am looking for a replacement and want to explore LCD. I am interested in opinions a recomendations on make and model. > Can you REALLY edit photos on a LCD monitor as well as you can on a CRT > monitor? I would think things like sharpening would be difficult. > I am using a 15 year old Sony 19" that was $800 back then. It has work > well but is starting to lose contrast. I am looking for a replacement and > want to explore LCD. > I am interested in opinions a recomendations on make and model. I had 3 Sony Trinitron tubed 21 inch HP Business monitors. All gradually lost contrast. Similar tube to the one in your Sony. However the 21 inch ones were pretty good when new. I recently ( a year ago) bought a widescreen 24 inch flat screen LCD monitor because I finally found one that was not only as good but hugely better than even the sony tubed monitors when brand new. And I looked at and returned a good few top of range monitors. http://www.ebuyer.com/product/108783 http://www.hometheatermag.com/lcds/506samsung/ Its a SyncMaster 244T 24 inch widescreen. 1920 x 1200. I couldnt live without it! And gave away all my 21 inch trinitron ones... Its just sharper better, blacks are truly black, colours are more bits per channel than most flat panels, and it looks the same from all angles. And being wide screen and rotating 90 degrees a perfect fit for 35mm or digital SLR pics either portrait or landscape. Dell do a similar one. Avoid earlier cheaper dell monitors though for serious photo work. Sharpening and things are better on here than all my previous cathode ray monitors. Colour banding etc is non existent. Once calibrated photos just look better! It took a while for LCD monitors to get this good. In the past I wouldnt have had one as a gift. You wouldnt regret it. You may think a 24 inch monitor is overkill but it really isnt. I couldnt go back to anything else because they all seem tiny now with no detail! If you want to look at your photos in detail at 100 percent on screen you would need one 3 times the size of this. > Can you REALLY edit photos on a LCD monitor as well as you can on a CRT > monitor? I would think things like sharpening would be difficult. > I am using a 15 year old Sony 19" that was $800 back then. It has work well > but is starting to lose contrast. I am looking for a replacement and want to > explore LCD. > I am interested in opinions a recomendations on make and model. I really want to replace CRT with LCD, and I have looked at many different models (couple Sony models cost around $600-700 few years ago), but I just can't stand the LCD displaying. Also, I am often working on slose-up portrait and zoom in 100-300% to work on skin-texture etc. and the DOT on LCD is too big and visible for my taste. I am not even talking about color which I never tried to have any experience. I read some mentioned about the professional LCD which costs around $3000-5000 for the 19-20" model which is too expensive. And I read some mentions they are happy or happier with their LCD than CRT, but I don't know how they use theirs. >> Can you REALLY edit photos on a LCD monitor as well as you can on a CRT >> monitor? I would think things like sharpening would be difficult. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > know > how they use theirs. My $200 Acer AL2016W LCD monitors have a better display than my old CRT. The two LCDs cost less than I paid for the CRT a few years ago. To see the dots, I have to get right close to it and its not a factor. >> Can you REALLY edit photos on a LCD monitor as well as you can on a CRT >> monitor? I would think things like sharpening would be difficult. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > portrait and zoom in 100-300% to work on skin-texture etc. and the DOT on > LCD is too big and visible for my taste. The dots are pixels/transistors/points exactly the same resolution depending on what you choose. EG 1600 x 1200 on a 21 inch monitor (20 inch visible) gives about 18 inches width. so thats 88 dots or digital pixels per inch. On both CRT or Flat panel They are both around 80 to 100 dpi depending on model chosen.. About 1/3rd the resolution needed for decent printing quality. So the only difference when viewed at 100 to 300 percent is due to the less than perfect CRT monitors "focus". The digital connected and displayed monitor has no error. At 100 percent view it faithfully displays what the pixels in the cameras sensor captured. The camera takes for example in my case 4288 picel wide pictures. At 100 percent I would need a display resolution to be the same size to display the while picture at once. On my 1920 wide 24 inch monitor that would be 2.23 monitors wide. And deep. So I see a faithful reproduction of a little less than 1/4 of the photos are. I would need 4 monitors to see the (almost) complete picture. And the exact same thing applies to a CRT monitor. The difference isnt dot size but a smoother "look" due to less accurate analog convertion. But its an effect. Its not real as the file does consist of what you see on the sharper LCD screen. This only applies to digitally connected monitors not to analog CRT style connection. I am not even talking about color > which I never tried to have any experience. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > know > how they use theirs. > >> Can you REALLY edit photos on a LCD monitor as well as you can on a CRT > >> monitor? I would think things like sharpening would be difficult. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > gives about 18 inches width. so thats 88 dots or digital pixels per inch. On > both CRT or Flat panel They are both around 80 to 100 dpi depending on model May be DOT isn't the right word to describe what I am talking about, and I am not talking about the resolution but the HARDWARE (the metal screen). or the DOT is so tiny on my CRT that nearly invisible (you have to look so close to see very very tiny dots) when you can see clearly on LCD. Or just like the difference between old low resolution EGA/VCD (.50-.75mm) monitor with .21mm or .25mm average. > chosen.. About 1/3rd the resolution needed for decent printing quality. So > the only difference when viewed at 100 to 300 percent is due to the less > than perfect CRT monitors "focus". The digital connected and displayed > monitor has no error. At 100 percent view it faithfully displays what the I am talking about zooming in to repair some skin-damaged *not* for normal viewing and normally don't have much to do with printing as I normally retouch for large print (up to around 20x30" or so), but most of them won't be printed larger than 8x10" or 8x12" > pixels in the cameras sensor captured. The camera takes for example in my > case 4288 picel wide pictures. At 100 percent I would need a display [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > screen. This only applies to digitally connected monitors not to analog CRT > style connection. Also, I am not talking about the displaying resolution of neither image nor displaying, but I am talking about the HARDWARE. OK, I just found an article and it mentions DOT PITCH and this is what I was trying to say. http://computer.howstuffworks.com/question401.htm Here, more people misunderstood or didn't give the answer the OP had in mind. Yup! they talked about Dot Pitch (of CRT) but don't seem to see the DOTs on the LCD monitor (metal screen) http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00LuHY more .. also, I read an article says most LCD has dot pitch between .26 - .29 which seems pretty right, but it seems that the LCD shows more visible than CRT (or I can even see smaller dots inside bigger dot) http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum105/211.htm http://www.epinions.com/cmd-review-8CA-A5976C0-39455FB8-prod2 http://www.epinions.com/cmd-review-8CA-A5976C0-39455FB8-prod2 .. and lot more but I think we get the idea. Or to me, right now most average LCD may be ok for text or graphic displaying, but for close-up retouching the large dot pitch (I read LCD doesn't use Dot Pitch but you know what I mean) still bother me quite a bit, and that's the only reasons why I am still using CRT even I really like the space saver of LCD. > I am not even talking about color > > which I never tried to have any experience. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > know > > how they use theirs. >> >> Can you REALLY edit photos on a LCD monitor as well as you can on a >> >> CRT [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > > http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00LuHY Read it carefully. Thats what I already said and I quote from that article: "The dot pitch translates directly to the resolution on the screen. If you were to put a ruler up to the glass and measure an inch, you would see a certain number of dots, depending on the dot pitch. Here is a table that shows the number of dots per square centimeter and per square inch in each of these common dot pitches:" And: "No, it's not the same situation with CRTs. On a CRT display the dot pitch is a physical parameter of the tube, and the display resolution is set by the video output of the computer, up to a certain maximum. One pixel from the computer will not line up exactly with the phosphor patterns and may cover several dots. For an LCD panel running at best quality the dot pitch will match the the resolution of the video output exactly. One pixel from the computer displays on one and only one physical RGB pixel on the screen. "If both screens have the same display resolution (1440 x 900, or whateever they might be) then the one with the smaller dot pitch will be physically smaller than the other". Dot pitch IS the resolution. If you had a 1024 pixel (or dot pitch - same thing) on a 24 inch LCD the "dots" or pixels would be very far apart and you would see them. Its entirely possible to have an LCD screen (like my sony laptop for eg) with a 17 inch screen and a 1280 resolution. OR at more expense which added 450 pounds to the price the same laptop is with 1920 (x1200) wide screen! Thats a finer dot pitch than any Cathode ray monitor than I have ever seen. In other words any two monitors with the same sized veiwable screen and the same say 1024 resolution have the SAME dot pitch as each other by definition! In other words exactly what I already said in a previous post! Except that if you try to display a typical 1600 x 1200 on a old analog Cathode ray tube the pixel output from the computer never actually matches the dots on the screen. You nesassarily get a mismatch that softens the image as its no longer a 1 to 1 pixel to display. The LCD is therefore sharper and more accurate but you "see" this accuracy as dots? > more .. also, I read an article says most LCD has dot pitch between .26 - > .29 which seems pretty right, but it seems that the LCD shows more visible [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > know what I mean) still bother me quite a bit, and that's the only reasons > why I am still using CRT even I really like the space saver of LCD. You really should try my monitor. Its sharper and cleaner and shows less "dots" than my old Trinitron tubed 21 inch HP monitors. You have been looking at low resolution large screen monitoirs I think. My laptop for eg has 1920 pixels in less than 13.5 inches wide screen... Thats WAY WAY tighter than any old school cathode ray tube. They are from 70 to 100 max. You couldnt see a dot or pixel with a magnifying glass. Thats around 140 pixels to an inch! Thats exactly double what the performance bikes magazine that I used to work for gets printed at... Now the same 1920 on widescreen 24 inch monitor that I am using right now gives a true 20 inch horizontal width. So if you get close enough you CAN see pixels. Just. Because now the dot pitch is 96. But you really have to try and so close you cant see anything other than the tiny spot you are staring at. And with my D300 images at 100 percent that would be pixel to pixel so you cannot get any bigger. That would be 40+ inches wide. At 100 percent. At 300 percent (which is pointless as each camera pixel would be 9 identical monitor pixels) the image would be as big as a wall! So would you study a poster on a billboard, wall sixed, for pixels? >> I am not even talking about color >> > which I never tried to have any experience. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> > know >> > how they use theirs. >> >> Can you REALLY edit photos on a LCD monitor as well as you can on a >> >> CRT [quoted text clipped - 100 lines] >> > know >> > how they use theirs. You may have a technical point, but the answer may well be in the eye of the user. I have a 21" Viewsonic on which I cannot see any dots. I blow the image up to show pixels for the type of repair work you refer to and have not had that annoyance. During my trial period for the monitor, I compared it side, by side with a LaCie CRT and found no real difference, except for the ambient light protection from the hood. For the difference in price I bought myself a good Spyder calibrator, had a hood fashioned and had enough left over for a new Nikkor 12-24 lens. YMMV  SignaturePeter <snip> > > http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum105/211.htm > > http://www.epinions.com/cmd-review-8CA-A5976C0-39455FB8-prod2 [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Spyder calibrator, had a hood fashioned and had enough left over for a new > Nikkor 12-24 lens. I dunno, I can see screen full of Big Dots (metal screen, dot pitch) and that's the only reason I am still using CRT. Yup! I have looked at several models of Sony including the one with option to rotate between Landscape/Portrait, but I just can't seem to get over the BIG DOTS. And I wonder why many LCD users say they don't see those dots, some even say LCD is even better than CRT ... and of course as you may read from some links above some people do see those dots (Dot Pitch) and mention they are larger than CRT (.26 to .29 vs .21 to .25 average), and in one article it mentions some high-end LCD has something like .15 dot pitch. And most of the time when I go to some computer store I often look at the LCDs they have and I still see those clearly visible dots. And it may be one of the reasons I have never installed Photoshop on any of my laptop. Hmmm I guess I may install CS3 on my newest laptop (Vista with 2GB memory) to give the laptop a try see if I can get over those dot pitch. > Can you REALLY edit photos on a LCD monitor as well as you can on a > CRT monitor? I would think things like sharpening would be difficult. > I am using a 15 year old Sony 19" that was $800 back then. It has work > well but is starting to lose contrast. I am looking for a replacement > and want to explore LCD. > I am interested in opinions a recomendations on make and model. I bought a 17" last year. The majority of my images are black and white. The transition from CRT to LCD was a difficult loss to accept for Black and white, however I've grown accustomed to the display. > Can you REALLY edit photos on a LCD monitor as well as you can on a CRT > monitor? I would think things like sharpening would be difficult. I am > using a 15 year old Sony 19" that was $800 back then. It has work well > but is starting to lose contrast. I am looking for a replacement and > want to explore LCD. > I am interested in opinions a recomendations on make and model. After moving to my 20" widescreen LCD, I'll never go back - even if it were suboptimal for photo editing. I find it works quite well. > > Can you REALLY edit photos on a LCD monitor as well as you can on a CRT > > monitor? I would think things like sharpening would be difficult. I am [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > After moving to my 20" widescreen LCD, I'll never go back - even if it > were suboptimal for photo editing. I find it works quite well. Of course most people won't go back. But I wonder do you see those visible large dot pitch? I am portrait retoucher, and I often looking at the skin-texture like seeing under magnifier glass, and that is similar to what I see on LCD monitor (except around 1/2-1/4 smaller when I zoom in, but sharper). Hmmm it actually don't look like skin-texture, but something like those circles or almost square (?) below oooooooo oooooooo oooooooo oooooooo Except skin-texture is much softer, and more like a mold than hollow circle. > > > Can you REALLY edit photos on a LCD monitor as well as you can on a CRT > > > monitor? I would think things like sharpening would be difficult. I am [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Except skin-texture is much softer, and more like a mold than hollow > circle. I may wanna add more comparison between the Dot Pitch I see between most LCD montiors I have checked at local stores to the dot pitch of my current CRT (not the smallest as I think it's around .23 or so). LCD ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) or at least (cuz the CRT looks almost solid) OOO OOO OOO CRT (the dot is MUCH MUCH smaller and lighter to almost none) ...... ...... ...... >> > > Can you REALLY edit photos on a LCD monitor as well as you can on a >> > > CRT [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > ...... > ...... My laptop is 0.18 dot pitch! Thats a few years old vgn-a497xp Sony VAIO 17 inch widescreen (14 inches horizontal width) with 1920 x 1200 resolution on an X-Black screen. Like this. Trust me its the screen you are paying for. But you better have good eyes to use this resolution on a smaller that 14 inch wide screen... Great for photos but bad for trying to use windows without a magnifying glass. 0.18 - Thats so close you cannot see any pixels without photographing the screen in close up and then zooming in hugely. I never saw any CRT get remotely close to that. However my best monitor and one thats MUCH better for photographic work in only the same resolution on a 24 inch widescreen. Thats the Samsung SyncMaster 244T. Its just better, brighter and clearer with better contrast and brilliant accurate 12bit per chanel colour. It makes fotos come alive and is a perfect photo editing screen. Its dot pitch is 1920 pixels and divided by 20 inches (measured horizontal real width) = 96 pixels per inch. Or if you convert to metric 25.4 (mm per inch) divided by 96 = 0.26 dot pitch. And no mater how hard I look I cannot see them any more than on the old cathode ray tube! Its just sharper and brighter and absolutely 1 pixel from the cameras ccd or cmos censor per monitor pixel. And accurate as its possible to get. Its what the camera saw! Admitedly skin looks softer and smoother on an old tube but thats just because of pixels not lining up bperfectly and focus in the tube issues. The file isnt actually like that, the CRT just adds a sort of analog soft focus filter. As do analogue connected Flat panels but less so. > >> > > Can you REALLY edit photos on a LCD monitor as well as you can on a > >> > > CRT [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > inch wide screen... Great for photos but bad for trying to use windows > without a magnifying glass. It seems pretty similar to my old Aqcess Abe laptops those had just about anything, like built-in web cam, touch-screen, pen, landscape/portrait mode, hand writing recognizer (?) those cost around $4000-4500 a pop then. > 0.18 - Thats so close you cannot see any pixels without photographing the > screen in close up and then zooming in hugely. I never saw any CRT get .21 is probably the smallest CRT I known, most of mine is/were between .23 to .25 > remotely close to that. However my best monitor and one thats MUCH better > for photographic work in only the same resolution on a 24 inch widescreen. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > actually like that, the CRT just adds a sort of analog soft focus filter. As > do analogue connected Flat panels but less so. I haven't looked at the 24" Samsung yet, but I have looked at either Sony or Samsung (I often get mixed up between these two names) and I was so close to go for the 22" (or 20" or 21" I can't remember but it was one of the largest and the best of the line then) which was onsale for around $740-780 few years ago. I stopped by the local store 3 days but just can't get over the visible dot pitch, then I grabbed another CRT to stop me from going back <bg> And Office Depot is 1/2 block from my house, Best Buy, OfficeMax, Sam's Club etc. just about 2-4 miles from where I live, and even the LCD is dirt cheap these days .. may be few more years? .. but I may not live that long <bg> Also, I am not talking about the Image itself which I can understand the higher the resolution the sharper the display, but I am talking about the Metal Screen, Dot Pitch of the metal screen *not* the image. And if I can get over it then I think I should have no problem with LCD displaying. >> >> > > Can you REALLY edit photos on a LCD monitor as well as you can on >> >> > > a [quoted text clipped - 120 lines] > Metal Screen, Dot Pitch of the metal screen *not* the image. And if I can > get over it then I think I should have no problem with LCD displaying. I am not sure what you are refering to. There is no metal screen on LCD displays that I can see?. You see the image directly from the transister/pixel. If I go to any computer store and look at all the dozens of lcd monitors they all look too small by miles as nobody here seems to keep decent sized ones on stock or if they do they are lower resolution cheaper ones and generally all look dull and lifeless and dont have good blacks, bright true colours shadow or highlight detail etc. I dont see how any self respecting photographer can work on and use anything less in size than a 24 widescreen of GOOD quality for photo work. Wide because thats the shape of our images. Big because our cameras have huge resolution and at monitors typical 100 dpi can display a clean clear image the size of a typical fridge. I take images to freinds houses including some pros and computer stores to check out monitors - my pictures look dull with no shadow detail, and lacklustre colours even on calibrated "cheap" monitors. And the blacks are purple off axis etc. colours change with angle. You cant get decent monitors at discount stores it seems! And you get what you pay for in this case. I have a friend with a nasty cheap monitor that uses a D200. he overprocesses to get some life and detail in the shadows and overdoes the saturation and white cloud detail because it then looks right to him. It look totally false and ott on my monitor or even on my laptop! He cant figure out why the prints he orders look totally different to what he sees on his calibrated monitor... Dells newest 24 wide screen is cheaper than the Samsung and uses the same actual matrix. Its just as good. The earlier Dell 24 inch is less bits per channel and the reason I bought the Samsung, which was better at the time. That was a couple of years ago, but things havent really changed since other than its now about half the price! And there may be more good photographic monitors out there now but beware! The reason you think you can see the metal grid is because they are clinically sharp. at 100 percent viewing the screen displays the image that your cameras sensor saw from each individual photo site on to each pixel on screen. As long as you use a digital graphics card and cable conection. Thats correct. Thats real. The reason they dont look like that on the old fuzzy CRT tubes (or incorrectly connected LCDs) is because that cant ever happen and several "sites" (holes in grill) "light up" as the beam tries to fire an analog version of each pixel at an incorrectly spaced and laid out aperture grill. This grill is neither spaced correctly or can be spaced correctly and the beam is never focused accurately and the picture is distorted by magnetism etc. So instead of a single pixel lighting as should happen a bunch of nearby phosphers glow! This may be "complimentary" for portrait or skin (and allows the monitor a choice of resolutions) but its false. Its similar to interpolation but in an analog way. LCD at 100 percent IS the original. Once you achieve your perfect skin on a CRT monitor in reality its still not what you are seeing on screen, or in print. The file is actually what you see on an LCD. You effectively have a soft focus filter in front. Incidentally zooming to 300 percent is exactly the same as increasing dot pitch by 3x. 9 pixels used for every 1 in the original image. <snip> > > I haven't looked at the 24" Samsung yet, but I have looked at either Sony > > or Samsung (I often get mixed up between these two names) and I was so [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > Incidentally zooming to 300 percent is exactly the same as increasing dot > pitch by 3x. 9 pixels used for every 1 in the original image. Thanks for your responses and information. But it seems like because English isn't my native language to be able to pick the right word to desribe what I am trying to say. So, you may be right that because I am looking at the wrong LCD monitors, or the setting at local stores. But it seems like we still have some misunderstanding because I can't be able to explain what I can see at my end, but you can't see at your end. Yes, I have read few people mentioned about several Dell LCD monitors before, and read some about the real professional LCDs those cost several Ks a pop. But it'sa sad that I haven't had the chance to see them with my own eyes to learn more about those better LCD monitors. Yes, I don't have problem spending few hundreds for a good LCD monitor (it's only around 1/3 to 1/4 of what I paid for most of my CRT monitors), and if I don't use for photo retouching then I wouldn't care much about the dot pitch. > Can you REALLY edit photos on a LCD monitor as well as you can on a CRT > monitor? I would think things like sharpening would be difficult. > I am using a 15 year old Sony 19" that was $800 back then. It has work > well but is starting to lose contrast. I am looking for a replacement and > want to explore LCD. > I am interested in opinions a recomendations on make and model. Pantones cannot be correctly displayed with LCD Our graphic designers only have CRT for this very reason SignatureVass >> Can you REALLY edit photos on a LCD monitor as well as you can on a CRT >> monitor? I would think things like sharpening would be difficult. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Pantones cannot be correctly displayed with LCD >Our graphic designers only have CRT for this very reason Do you have anything to back that up? (Not arguing just curious) Signature\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ >>> Can you REALLY edit photos on a LCD monitor as well as you can on a CRT >>> monitor? I would think things like sharpening would be difficult. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Do you have anything to back that up? (Not arguing just curious) just the design freeks here, nothing in writing I guess if you get a colour on a CRT screen matching a peice of coloured card then connect an LCD, see if its the same, they say it will be miles out ! SignatureVass |
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
|
©2008 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.