Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

LCD vs CRT display

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 1:50:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I was thinking of getting a 19" LCD monitor to replace my CRT but someone in
this newsgroup mentioned something about the accuracy of color reproduction
on one vs the other. Is there a significant difference between the two?
TIA

More about : lcd crt display

Anonymous
January 31, 2005 1:50:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> I was thinking of getting a 19" LCD monitor to replace my CR­T but
someone in
> this newsgroup mentioned something about the accuracy of col­or
reproduction
> on one vs the other. Is there a significant difference betw­een the
two?

You might find this interesting ... scroll down to about a page to "LCD
monitors" ...
http://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/page/info/photoshop...
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 2:59:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Are you a pro or amateur/hobbyist? As a hobbyist I'm getting
excellent results from a calibrated Samsung 170MP LCD printing to a
Canon i9900 using PS CS.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
January 31, 2005 3:50:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi Bill!

I went to the West Coast address. However, I think we're talking different
things here: Professional results and good amateur results. I should hope
that West Coast Imaging gets great results. It's their trade. Mind you,
there are studios that are not so great, irrespective of what monitor they
use. The other thing is that we don't see their printed results...

Some of us amateurs couldn't get results as good as *some* professionals.
However, in many cases, we can get very good results. Personally, I use a
Viewsonic LCD, 19" and I was able to tweek it (with Adobe Gamma of all
things, one which is not made for LCD's) in a way that what I see is just
about what I print on my Epson Stylus R300 (not a fantastic machine but one
that is quite acceptable). My wife is an Iconograph. I've scanned her icons
and printed a 8½ x 11on glossy paper for her. Setting them side to side,
differences are negligeable, except for a slight difference in colour.
http://celestart.com/images/publique/mere-de-tendresse....

Regards,

Marcel


"Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1107188909.469835.75280@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> I was thinking of getting a 19" LCD monitor to replace my CRT but
someone in
> this newsgroup mentioned something about the accuracy of color
reproduction
> on one vs the other. Is there a significant difference between the
two?

You might find this interesting ... scroll down to about a page to "LCD
monitors" ...
http://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/page/info/photoshop...
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 4:12:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ed Mullikin wrote:

> I was thinking of getting a 19" LCD monitor to replace my CRT but someone in
> this newsgroup mentioned something about the accuracy of color reproduction
> on one vs the other. Is there a significant difference between the two?
> TIA

If the only thing I used my computer for was photoediting, and I had
a lot of acreage on my desktop, I'd go for a quality CRT..

But.. I do other things besides edit photos on my computer. I access
the net, browse web pages, send emails, balance the books and write
letters to name a few things.

I picked up a 19" LCD monitor. The main reason I got it was because
it's only 6 inches deep. It fit nicely on my 2 1/2 foot deep desk.
If I put a CRT there, my nose would be touching the screen :-)

It isn't quite as good as a CRT for editing, but it's far superior
for the other things I do. As a matter of fact, the contrast on
this thing is SO good.. (The blacks are SO black), I just couldn't
go back to a CRT monitor. If I took up serious image editing, I'd
have to run two monitors.. A CRT for images and the LCD for everything
else.

I think one thing that has given LCDs a bad image is that many
people have seen laptop screens and feel all LCD monitors look
that way.

I have a new lower-end laptop and there is just no comparison
between it and my 19" LCD. The modern desktop LCD monitors are far
superior to what you see on most laptops for color, contrast and
clarity.
January 31, 2005 7:29:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ed Mullikin" <edmull2@cox.net> wrote in message
news:MssLd.53738$jn.30741@lakeread06...
> I was thinking of getting a 19" LCD monitor to replace my CRT but someone
in
> this newsgroup mentioned something about the accuracy of color
reproduction
> on one vs the other. Is there a significant difference between the two?
> TIA
Once upon a time, CRT monitors were lots better than LCD. However, the gap
is closing...
One thing to watch is that the colors shown by the LCD monitors change when
you move from side to side (especially noticeable in the less expensive
ones).
You must decide which of these two types best suits you. It really doesn't
matter what others think.
Jim
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 7:29:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jim wrote:
> "Ed Mullikin" <edmull2@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:MssLd.53738$jn.30741@lakeread06...
>
>>I was thinking of getting a 19" LCD monitor to replace my CRT but someone
>
> in
>
>>this newsgroup mentioned something about the accuracy of color
>
> reproduction
>
>>on one vs the other. Is there a significant difference between the two?
>>TIA
>
> Once upon a time, CRT monitors were lots better than LCD. However, the gap
> is closing...
> One thing to watch is that the colors shown by the LCD monitors change when
> you move from side to side (especially noticeable in the less expensive
> ones).
> You must decide which of these two types best suits you. It really doesn't
> matter what others think.
> Jim
>
>
I have a really fine CRT monitor on my dekstop, and an LCD on my laptop.
Both do a good job of rendering color. I is true that the laptop's
screen doesn't have a very wide viewing angle, but some would consider
that a good feature, especially if they want to work on an airplane
without their seatmates being able to read confidential information...
There are some LCD displays for desktop use with 160 degree viewing
angles, which is about as good as one could want.
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 7:39:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ed Mullikin wrote:
> I was thinking of getting a 19" LCD monitor to replace my CRT
> but someone in this newsgroup mentioned something about the
> accuracy of color reproduction on one vs the other. Is there a
> significant difference between the two? TIA

You may have seen a posting from me. My low cost Toshiba laptop
LCD monitor does a poor job for photo editing. I'm sure the one
you're considering buying is a lot better.

Others have already mentioned some things to look out for:
problems with viewing angle and color fidelity. Others that I
think I'd add to those are dynamic range (insufficient difference
between light and dark tones of the same color) and maybe
pixellation effects. The slight blurring of dots on a CRT looks
somehow better to me and more print like and visual than the
sharply defined pixels of an LCD monitor - but that may just be
me.

The viewing angle problem is particularly annoying on my screen.
Slight movements of my head change the colors of the image. That
makes color correction on the LCD monitor very problematic. I'm
constantly moving my head or the screen to get a perfectly
perpendicular viewpoint. Maybe the newer, higher priced LCDs
don't have this problem.

Alan
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 9:03:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ed Mullikin writes:

> I was thinking of getting a 19" LCD monitor to
> replace my CRT but someone in this newsgroup
> mentioned something about the accuracy of color
> reproduction on one vs the other. Is there a
> significant difference between the two?

For critical work, yes. The gold standard is still the CRT--such as
Sony's Artisan monitor (although apparently it is no longer in
production ... that sure didn't last long!).

You can get LCD monitors that are very close to good CRTs, but they cost
about from three to five times as much money (as in $3000 or so for a
19" monitor).

LCD monitors have a great many advantages--maybe enough to justify
acquiring them--but CRTs still have the edge for image quality. Whether
or not that edge is important in your case depends on your requirements.
You'd see the difference side-by-side; you might not notice it when
looking at a good LCD on its own.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 9:03:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thank you all very much! I think that I'll wait awhile.

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:l2psv0d9nan7u7u5sn4s44tpncg796fr1o@4ax.com...
> Ed Mullikin writes:
>
>> I was thinking of getting a 19" LCD monitor to
>> replace my CRT but someone in this newsgroup
>> mentioned something about the accuracy of color
>> reproduction on one vs the other. Is there a
>> significant difference between the two?
>
> For critical work, yes. The gold standard is still the CRT--such as
> Sony's Artisan monitor (although apparently it is no longer in
> production ... that sure didn't last long!).
>
> You can get LCD monitors that are very close to good CRTs, but they cost
> about from three to five times as much money (as in $3000 or so for a
> 19" monitor).
>
> LCD monitors have a great many advantages--maybe enough to justify
> acquiring them--but CRTs still have the edge for image quality. Whether
> or not that edge is important in your case depends on your requirements.
> You'd see the difference side-by-side; you might not notice it when
> looking at a good LCD on its own.
>
> --
> Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 9:36:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

CRTs are easier to calibrate, offer a wider gamut, greater gray scale
reproduction, and when you change the resolution, they don't go soft. LCDs
are smaller and use less power, but I can't stand them. And if you want a
moving image on the screen, like a game or video, CRTs are miles ahead.

Anyway, that's what I see, YMMV.

"Ed Mullikin" <edmull2@cox.net> wrote in message
news:MssLd.53738$jn.30741@lakeread06...
>I was thinking of getting a 19" LCD monitor to replace my CRT but someone
>in this newsgroup mentioned something about the accuracy of color
>reproduction on one vs the other. Is there a significant difference
>between the two? TIA
>
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 10:08:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

? I've recently switched from a fine old
? CRT to a nice new 21" Samsung CRT (213T.)

Hi Rafe, I was gonna get the same model Samsung (Fry's had it on sale
for $750) but shied off when I read the West Coast Imaging comments
which I linked to earlier.

? Profile maps reveal that the CRT gamut
? is wider in some regions, and narrower
? in others, compared to the LCD

My understanding is that the gamut isn't a problem but accurate (to a
very high level, not just a hobbyist level) color mapping is. In
particular you can't adjust the R, G and B settings separately on the
LCD like you can with a good CRT so it's not possible to set a custom
white point. Is that true with the Samsung or can you set the channels
separately?

I'm still on the fence about getting the 213T, the only time I used an
LCD (except for my laptop, which is terrible even when profiled) was at
Atkinson's class at Calypso where we used Apple monitors that Bill had
profiled and even then (though this was two years ago) he said you
should proof print to be sure on the LightJet ...

Bill
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 12:32:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 10:50:00 -0500, "Ed Mullikin" <edmull2@cox.net>
wrote:

>I was thinking of getting a 19" LCD monitor to replace my CRT but someone in
>this newsgroup mentioned something about the accuracy of color reproduction
>on one vs the other. Is there a significant difference between the two?
>TIA


Well, it all depends on who you ask.

I've recently switched from a fine old
CRT to a nice new 21" Samsung CRT (213T.)
No regrets.

The Samsung profiles nicely with a
Gretag Eye-1 monitor calibrator, and
the profile "tests out" nicely.

Profile maps reveal that the CRT gamut
is wider in some regions, and narrower
in others, compared to the LCD. And both
are considerably smaller than AdobeRGB.

The LCD is razor sharp from edge to
edge, much brighter than the CRT,
and overall, a pleasure to work with.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 2:22:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 31 Jan 2005 19:08:41 -0800, "Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com>
wrote:

>? I've recently switched from a fine old
>? CRT to a nice new 21" Samsung CRT (213T.)
>
>Hi Rafe, I was gonna get the same model Samsung (Fry's had it on sale
>for $750) but shied off when I read the West Coast Imaging comments
>which I linked to earlier.
>
>? Profile maps reveal that the CRT gamut
>? is wider in some regions, and narrower
>? in others, compared to the LCD
>
>My understanding is that the gamut isn't a problem but accurate (to a
>very high level, not just a hobbyist level) color mapping is. In
>particular you can't adjust the R, G and B settings separately on the
>LCD like you can with a good CRT so it's not possible to set a custom
>white point. Is that true with the Samsung or can you set the channels
>separately?

Absolutely, the latter. In any case, I've
uploaded the user manual and a few other
interesting docs here:

www.terrapinphoto.com/bhilton/

It's nearly 4MB so be patient.
See page 30 for the OSD color control.


>I'm still on the fence about getting the 213T, the only time I used an
>LCD (except for my laptop, which is terrible even when profiled) was at
>Atkinson's class at Calypso where we used Apple monitors that Bill had
>profiled and even then (though this was two years ago) he said you
>should proof print to be sure on the LightJet ...


The topic of LCD vs. CRT comes up often
on the EpsonWideFormat list, and it was
clear that lots of folks were making the
move. One in particular mentioned the
Samsung 213T. Those Apple Cinema displays
are outta my range.

I think the clincher (for me) was when I
read that Dan Margulis was recommending LCDs.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 8:09:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I have a Sony SDM-HS93 19" monitor (about $700) that does an admirable job
of accurately transmitting color and resolution. It virtually matches the
output of my Canon s9000 printer, right out of the box. The only caveat is
viewing angle, it can change color and contrast markedly.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"Ed Mullikin" <edmull2@cox.net> wrote in message
news:c9uLd.53749$jn.5430@lakeread06...
> Thank you all very much! I think that I'll wait awhile.
>
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 9:38:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bill Hilton writes:

> In
> particular you can't adjust the R, G and B settings separately on the
> LCD like you can with a good CRT so it's not possible to set a custom
> white point.

Some LCDs allow this; it's more a question of features on specific
models than anything linked to LCDs or CRTs themselves.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
February 1, 2005 10:27:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi!

A quick note. Some of those comments relate to a laptop. There is a large
difference between a laptop LCD and a full size one (19", and up).

Marcel

"Markeau" <please_reply@news.group> wrote in message
news:nc2dnRN85KswU2PcRVn-sg@giganews.com...
> This LCD vs CRT is from a "pro" forum:
>
http://www.robgalbraith.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat...
>
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 12:22:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Marcel wrote:

> Hi!
>
> A quick note. Some of those comments relate to a laptop. There is a large
> difference between a laptop LCD and a full size one (19", and up).

Absolutely...

I also think most people are judging LCD quality by what they've
seen on laptop computers.

There's hardly *any* comparison between most laptop screens and
the modern 15" - 20" LCD displays on the market now.

I also think most dedicated CRT users would reconsider if they
had the use of a good LCD screen for a week or so.

When I purchased my 19" Samsung, I took a CD along with me to the
store and loaded and viewed few images on it to make sure the
quality was acceptable before shelling out the cash.
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 4:23:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi,

I've been using a 14" iBook (Mac) for my display and been very
satisfied. Printing at Costco (4x6 to 12x18) on Noritsu printer (320
dpi) has been very faithful to my screen display after Photoshopping.

Best,

Conrad


--
Conrad
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 5:00:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>> Also, ClearType on Windows provides a dramatic improvement in
>> readability for text, if you are using an LCD screen (it works by
>> antialiasing text in a way specific to the way subpixels are
>> arranged on LCD monitors).

I worked very effectively on my CRT monitor as well. Worth a try - you
can always turn it off if it doesn't improve readability for you.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 8:09:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

John A. Stovall writes:

> Did your read the article?

Yes.

Traditionally, operating systems have not needed to care about physical
dimensions of pixels, since any monitor could display just about any
resolution. It was up to the user. Cheaper LCDs cannot acceptably
display many non-native resolutions, and so now some claim that it's the
fault of the OS.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 8:09:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mxsmanic wrote:
> John A. Stovall writes:
>
>
>>Did your read the article?
>
>
> Yes.
>
> Traditionally, operating systems have not needed to care about physical
> dimensions of pixels, since any monitor could display just about any
> resolution. It was up to the user. Cheaper LCDs cannot acceptably
> display many non-native resolutions, and so now some claim that it's the
> fault of the OS.
>
No LCD can display a non-native resolution gracefully, with a minor
exception of resolutions which are integer factors of the native in each
direction (ie 320x360 or 640x480 on a 1280x960 display)

When one logical pixel has to be mapped to 1.5 pixels on the screen,
there are two possible approaches.

-Blur it across two pixels, losing some of the sharpness which is a draw
for an LCD
-Make it 1 pixel sometimes, 2 others. I know this is the approach my
old Thinkpad does-- it looks terrible.

There's also the approach of not scaling anything, but that means a
large empty area. Again, my Thinkpad does that as an option, which I
went for so it looked less hideous.

The CRT has a real edge. If you like 693 x 204, it can do 693 x 204.
February 1, 2005 8:09:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jack Zeal wrote:
[snip]
>
> The CRT has a real edge. If you like 693 x 204, it can do 693 x 204.

Other than arcade game emulation, can you name a reason for driving CRTs
at odd resolutions?

Bob
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 8:10:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J Taylor writes:

> I worked very effectively on my CRT monitor as well. Worth a try - you
> can always turn it off if it doesn't improve readability for you.

It makes some assumptions about the placement of the different
primaries, but if those assumptions are correct, it should work on a
CRT. If the CRT is a Trinitron-style tube with RGB stripes and the
pixels align with the stripes, results should be excellent.

It tends to work mostly with LCDs precisely because LCDs are so
inflexible (and thus predictable) with respect to pixel placement.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 9:16:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

bob wrote:
> Jack Zeal wrote:
> [snip]
>
>>
>> The CRT has a real edge. If you like 693 x 204, it can do 693 x 204.
>
>
> Other than arcade game emulation, can you name a reason for driving CRTs
> at odd resolutions?
>
> Bob

Two good ones.

1- some people prefer different resolutions. I and a friend both have
19" monitors, about 18 viewable. I like 1152x864. She likes 1024x768.
I'd like 1600-1200, but it's just not sharp enough (el-cheapo 19)

2- Video and TV. Most TV cards (a great $50 addon) do a 640x480 or so
mode when they fill the screen. Video files and discs will also require
either a comparable resolution, or blowing it up.

3- Even modern games may not do well at the whole res of a 19" or 21"
LCD. Sometimes this is from design of the game, and sometimes from
performance.


I gave the odd resolution to imply "whatever you want"
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 12:27:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 18:16:40 -0700, Jack Zeal <hakfoo@gmail.com>
wrote:

>bob wrote:
>> Jack Zeal wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>>>
>>> The CRT has a real edge. If you like 693 x 204, it can do 693 x 204.
>>
>>
>> Other than arcade game emulation, can you name a reason for driving CRTs
>> at odd resolutions?
>>
>> Bob
>
>Two good ones.
>
>1- some people prefer different resolutions. I and a friend both have
>19" monitors, about 18 viewable. I like 1152x864. She likes 1024x768.
> I'd like 1600-1200, but it's just not sharp enough (el-cheapo 19)

That's easy to fix. Use and LCD monitor <grin>



rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 3:18:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Why I see all pictures in my CRT very dark with ugly colors and on my LCD
very bright with nice colors? I bet on LCD, give them the same life time
and compare which will be the best.


"Ed Mullikin" <edmull2@cox.net> wrote in message
news:MssLd.53738$jn.30741@lakeread06...
> I was thinking of getting a 19" LCD monitor to replace my CRT but someone
in
> this newsgroup mentioned something about the accuracy of color
reproduction
> on one vs the other. Is there a significant difference between the two?
> TIA
>
>
February 2, 2005 2:05:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jack Zeal wrote:
> bob wrote:
>
>> Jack Zeal wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>>>
>>> The CRT has a real edge. If you like 693 x 204, it can do 693 x 204.
>>
>>
>>
>> Other than arcade game emulation, can you name a reason for driving
>> CRTs at odd resolutions?
>>
>> Bob
>
>
> Two good ones.
>
> 1- some people prefer different resolutions. I and a friend both have
> 19" monitors, about 18 viewable. I like 1152x864. She likes 1024x768.
> I'd like 1600-1200, but it's just not sharp enough (el-cheapo 19)
>
> 2- Video and TV. Most TV cards (a great $50 addon) do a 640x480 or so
> mode when they fill the screen. Video files and discs will also require
> either a comparable resolution, or blowing it up.
>
> 3- Even modern games may not do well at the whole res of a 19" or 21"
> LCD. Sometimes this is from design of the game, and sometimes from
> performance.
>
>
> I gave the odd resolution to imply "whatever you want"

Thanks for explaining. I was visualizing someone actually running
693x204, and trying to figgure that out. I don't have an LCD display.
I've got two computers on my desk at work (Each with it's own CRT) --
one is set at 1152x864, while the other (bigger, better one) is set at
1600x1200.

Finding the "sweet spot" resolution of a CRT wouldn't really apply to an
LCD display though, because, as you pointed out, the maximum clarity is
built in.

I take your point on video games though. That's especially true if
you're running demanding games on old hardware.

I hadn't thought of TV cards having special needs. My home computer has
an ATI All-in-Wonder card, which has hardware stretch to run the TV at
whatever resolution the screen is set to. I haven't actually used it to
watch TV on the PC all that often, but I have used it to send video to
the TV, from time to time.

Bob
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 7:40:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

bob wrote:
>Jack Zeal wrote:
>[snip]

>>The CRT has a real edge. If you like 693 x 204, it can do 693 x 204.

>Other than arcade game emulation, can you name a reason for driving
CRTs
>at odd resolutions?

One reason is to match the native resolution of your camera.
My old Canon Powershot S30 has a native resolution of 2048x1536.
Needless to say, these images look incredible on a 2048x1536
display. You can do that with an affordable CRT. If you want
to do that with an LCD, you're looking at some serious money!

If you edit or create images, there's just no substitute for
a high resolution display. For example, when cleaning up an
image with a selective gaussian filter, you can see the effects
on the textures at various parts of the image over a wide area
without excessive zooming/panning.

With interlacing, a CRT which can handle a normal 2048x1536
display can theoretically handle a 4096x3072 display. I'd
love to run my plain 21" CRT at 4096x3072; at that resolution
anti-aliasing wouldn't even be necessary--it's already 256 dpi!
Unfortunately, inexpensive video cards are limited to 2048x1536.
Isaac Kuo
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 9:54:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jack Zeal writes:

> No LCD can display a non-native resolution gracefully, with a minor
> exception of resolutions which are integer factors of the native in each
> direction (ie 320x360 or 640x480 on a 1280x960 display)

My Eizo does a beautiful job of it.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 9:54:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

My experience is: Now that I have worked (all kinds of work, no games)
on an LCD for several months, it is like punishment to go back to the
Very Good 19" and 17" Sony Trinitrons.

The LCD monitor was inexpensive ($450 at Costco Sceptre 19"). Costco has
several others with better features now, many cheaper. If I had to
choose just one monitor it would be a bigger, better LCD, even though
this one is big and astonishingly vivid or suitably subtle, as the work
requires.

But I don't have to choose just one, so I do the major Photo Shop work
on the fast computer/LCD and print from a Trinitron on a computer that
essentially sees no other work. Lucky for me, the Trinitron is very
accurate, showing what you'll get from the old Epson 750. Paint Shop
Pro and the latter combination offer a relatively quick tweak-and-print
solution, if necessary.

Having the two monitors in the same light allows me to see what the same
image looks like on both screens at once. They aren't that far apart,
physically and presentation-wise, so I have developed a sense of what
the LCD should look like for a given Trinitron view-and-print
experience.

Since I began using the 20D Canon, there hasn't been as much tweaking to
do in Photo Shop, truth be told.

Of course there will always be problems. Here's one I haven't seen
before:
I did a military funeral a few weeks back, used the Minolta Xt as an
anti-obtrusiveness measure. The pictures are good, dramatically
contrasting flag-draped coffin and mourners' black. On-screen the color
balance is fine, faces with good tones and colors; however, Mr Epson
renders faces in shadows as shades of green, while those better-lighted
are perfect-to-life (overcast day, both green and normal faces in the
same picture). The green faces are the only feature of the image that
print different from the screen display.

Any road, with reference to the subject line, I love my CRTs and my LCD,
but if I had to put one up for adoption, all things considered, I'd jump
off a cliff. No, I'd keep the LCD.


--
Frank ess
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 9:55:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

bob writes:

> Other than arcade game emulation, can you name a reason for driving CRTs
> at odd resolutions?

Unfortunately, many games seize control of the monitor and force it to a
predetermined, not necessarily optimal or common resolution.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 9:56:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Duram" <danur@@ig.com.br> writes:

> Why I see all pictures in my CRT very dark with ugly colors and on my LCD
> very bright with nice colors?

How old is the CRT?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 11:47:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

6 years old or more

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:12520152q0ltf30cjl7721kla4itl45m73@4ax.com...
> "Duram" <danur@@ig.com.br> writes:
>
> > Why I see all pictures in my CRT very dark with ugly colors and on my
LCD
> > very bright with nice colors?
>
> How old is the CRT?
>
> --
> Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 1:28:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 2 Feb 2005 16:40:54 -0800, mechdan@yahoo.com wrote:

>
>bob wrote:
>>Jack Zeal wrote:
>>[snip]
>
>>>The CRT has a real edge. If you like 693 x 204, it can do 693 x 204.
>
>>Other than arcade game emulation, can you name a reason for driving
>CRTs
>>at odd resolutions?
>
>One reason is to match the native resolution of your camera.
>My old Canon Powershot S30 has a native resolution of 2048x1536.
>Needless to say, these images look incredible on a 2048x1536
>display. You can do that with an affordable CRT. If you want
>to do that with an LCD, you're looking at some serious money!

You must be joking. Any image viewer or editor
will size any image to fit the screen, if you want.
Photoshop, ACDSee, XnView, whatever.

Changing the screen res to agree with the image
is insane. There aren't too many video cards
that wil support 2048 x 1536. And even if there
were, what would you do with and image from
a 10D, or 20D or...


>If you edit or create images, there's just no substitute for
>a high resolution display. For example, when cleaning up an
>image with a selective gaussian filter, you can see the effects
>on the textures at various parts of the image over a wide area
>without excessive zooming/panning.

Most LCDs aren't that hi-res, it's true. The Samsung
213T is native at 1200 x 1600, and costs about $800.

At some point you will have to look at your images at
less than 100% if you want to see the whole frame.
Eg., if you scan film of any format at any decent
resolution. 4000 dpi scans of 35 mm are around
4000 x 6000 pixels.



rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
February 3, 2005 1:28:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

rafe bustin wrote:
>
> There aren't too many video cards
> that wil support 2048 x 1536.


My 21" Sony G500 monitor w/ NVIDIA Quadro FX Go 1000 does that but I
can't read icons & such at that size. It's a pretty decent setup but
nothing extraordinary. My previous computer was pretty slow at that res
but also was able to do so.
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 10:14:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

rafe bustin wrote:
>On 2 Feb 2005 16:40:54 -0800, mechdan@yahoo.com wrote:

>>One reason is to match the native resolution of your camera.
>>My old Canon Powershot S30 has a native resolution of 2048x1536.
>>Needless to say, these images look incredible on a 2048x1536
>>display. You can do that with an affordable CRT. If you want
>>to do that with an LCD, you're looking at some serious money!

>You must be joking. Any image viewer or editor
>will size any image to fit the screen, if you want.
>Photoshop, ACDSee, XnView, whatever.

Scaling down an image will NEVER look as good as not
having to scale down the image in the first place.

>Changing the screen res to agree with the image
>is insane. There aren't too many video cards
>that wil support 2048 x 1536.

Untrue. Even the lowest end Ati and nVidia cards
support 2048x1536. Windows won't let you select that
resolution if it thinks that your MONITOR won't support
the resolution. Most CRTs big enough to really benefit
from 2048x1536 resolution do support it.

>And even if there
>were, what would you do with and image from
>a 10D, or 20D or...

It's unfortunate that most video cards don't support
resolutions higher than 2048x1536. Still, scaling
down to 2048x1536 means losing less detail than
scaling down to even lower. Also, when editing an
image you still see more of the image at a time at
2048x1536 than at a lower resolution.

Of course, even with a 3.3 megapixel camera, a
1536x2048 portrait isn't going to fit on a
2048x1536 display without scaling down. A 75%
reduction is still better than a 59% reduction.

Isaac Kuo
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 10:24:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul wrote:
>rafe bustin wrote:

>>There aren't too many video cards
>>that wil support 2048 x 1536.

>My 21" Sony G500 monitor w/ NVIDIA Quadro FX Go 1000 does that but I
>can't read icons & such at that size.

That's what configuring larger fonts and icons is for.
The higher resolution allows for smoother looking fonts
and more detailed icons. If you're not hurting for
screen real estate at the lower resolution, you can
afford to bump up the font and icon sizes at higher
resolutions and still have the same screen space
utilization.

>It's a pretty decent setup but nothing extraordinary.
>My previous computer was pretty slow at that res
>but also was able to do so.

Hmm...I guess it depends. My main workstation is a
550mhz Pentium III with a bottom end Radeon 7000.
For a long time, I avoided anything higher than 1280x960
because I assumed the system would be sluggish if I
went higher. One day, I decided to experiment with
2048x1536 and was pleasantly shocked that it did NOT
slow down my system by very much. Since that day,
I haven't gone back.

Isaac Kuo
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 10:29:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Duram" <danur@@ig.com.br> writes:

> 6 years old or more

If it's used every day, it's probably getting old. That's in excess of
17,000 hours with daily use.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
February 3, 2005 2:32:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

mechdan@yahoo.com wrote:

> paul wrote:
>
>>rafe bustin wrote:
>
>
>>>There aren't too many video cards
>>>that wil support 2048 x 1536.
>
>
>>My 21" Sony G500 monitor w/ NVIDIA Quadro FX Go 1000 does that but I
>>can't read icons & such at that size.
>
>
> That's what configuring larger fonts and icons is for.
> The higher resolution allows for smoother looking fonts

Hmm, I already have it set to large fonts but it seems maybe there is
custom control to make them even bigger. There are a few odd things that
slip through the cracks though. Maybe I'll give it a try now that
performance isn't an issue. That would be 132dpi!

Well, actually it won't do full 32 bit color at that scale but I can go
up to 1920x1440


> and more detailed icons. If you're not hurting for
> screen real estate at the lower resolution, you can
> afford to bump up the font and icon sizes at higher
> resolutions and still have the same screen space
> utilization.
>
>
>>It's a pretty decent setup but nothing extraordinary.
>>My previous computer was pretty slow at that res
>>but also was able to do so.
>
>
> Hmm...I guess it depends. My main workstation is a
> 550mhz Pentium III with a bottom end Radeon 7000.
> For a long time, I avoided anything higher than 1280x960
> because I assumed the system would be sluggish if I
> went higher. One day, I decided to experiment with
> 2048x1536 and was pleasantly shocked that it did NOT
> slow down my system by very much. Since that day,
> I haven't gone back.
>
> Isaac Kuo
>
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 11:57:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

rafe bustin wrote:
> On 3 Feb 2005 07:14:07 -0800, mechdan@yahoo.com wrote:

> >rafe bustin wrote:
> >>On 2 Feb 2005 16:40:54 -0800, mechdan@yahoo.com wrote:

> >>>One reason is to match the native resolution of your camera.
> >>>My old Canon Powershot S30 has a native resolution of 2048x1536.
> >>>Needless to say, these images look incredible on a 2048x1536
> >>>display. You can do that with an affordable CRT. If you want
> >>>to do that with an LCD, you're looking at some serious money!

> >>You must be joking. Any image viewer or editor
> >>will size any image to fit the screen, if you want.
> >>Photoshop, ACDSee, XnView, whatever.

> >Scaling down an image will NEVER look as good as not
> >having to scale down the image in the first place.

> >>Changing the screen res to agree with the image
> >>is insane. There aren't too many video cards
> >>that wil support 2048 x 1536.

> >Untrue. Even the lowest end Ati and nVidia cards
> >support 2048x1536. Windows won't let you select that
> >resolution if it thinks that your MONITOR won't support
> >the resolution. Most CRTs big enough to really benefit
> >from 2048x1536 resolution do support it.

> You're thinking small.

> When I scan MF film (645) the images are
> 9000 x 6500 pixels. When I scan LF the
> images are 11,500 pixels x 9000 pixels.
> Yes, that's right, over 100 megapixels.

So what? This has absolutely no relevance whatsoever
to the usefulness of a 2048x1536 display for someone
with a 3.3mp digicam.

It's no joke--not every person on this newsgroup
exclusively uses high resolution scans of film.
Some of us actually get a lot of images from
digital cameras without film being involved at
all (pardon me if this comes as a shock to you).

For some of us, print isn't even the end goal.
Since I've gotten into digital photography I've
taken a LOT of pictures and have long realized
that the vast majority of them will never be
printed. Instead, they'll more often be displayed
on a digital display as part of a slideshow.
I don't give friends and family expensive bulky
time consuming photo albums--I give them CDs. The
occasional picture will get printed and framed, but
the vast majority will not. How the pictures will
look on a big screen display is actually more
important to me than you they will look printed out.
I've already stopped taking portrait aspect ratio
photos as a result, instead framing all of my photos
in the landscape 4:3 ratio which fits standard
displays the best.

> There's just no way any monitor is going
> to display these "natively." And it
> really doesn't matter. Seeing the full
> frame in my editor isn't the end goal --
> the print is.

So what? Just because something isn't especially
useful for you for your uses doesn't negate the
usefulness for others for their uses.

> While I'm editing -- depending on what
> I'm up to -- I might use any resolution
> up to 100%, sometimes even beyond.

So? Do you think that resolution doesn't matter
when editing, just because you can use different
zoom levels?

> My two most commonly used key-combinations
> in Photoshop are Ctrl-0 and Ctrl-Alt-0.
> The first fits the image to the monitor,
> the 2nd displays the image at 100%.
> Ctrl- and Ctrl+ are pretty nice, too.

> I set my monitor to 1200 x 1600 and
> forget it. Not much reason to ever
> change it.

Well, seeing as 1200x1600 involves scaling
regardless, do you think a 640x480 display is
just as good? As you noted earlier, any image
viewing or editing software is going to let you
display the image to fit the screen anyway.

Isaac Kuo
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 1:20:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul writes:

> Hmm, I already have it set to large fonts but it seems maybe there is
> custom control to make them even bigger.

On recent versions of Windows you can set window fonts to just about any
size. You still have to set font sizes in individual applications,
though.

> Well, actually it won't do full 32 bit color at that scale but I can go
> up to 1920x1440

Very few LCDs do 32-bit color.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 1:53:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 3 Feb 2005 07:14:07 -0800, mechdan@yahoo.com wrote:

>
>rafe bustin wrote:
>>On 2 Feb 2005 16:40:54 -0800, mechdan@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>>One reason is to match the native resolution of your camera.
>>>My old Canon Powershot S30 has a native resolution of 2048x1536.
>>>Needless to say, these images look incredible on a 2048x1536
>>>display. You can do that with an affordable CRT. If you want
>>>to do that with an LCD, you're looking at some serious money!
>
>>You must be joking. Any image viewer or editor
>>will size any image to fit the screen, if you want.
>>Photoshop, ACDSee, XnView, whatever.
>
>Scaling down an image will NEVER look as good as not
>having to scale down the image in the first place.
>
>>Changing the screen res to agree with the image
>>is insane. There aren't too many video cards
>>that wil support 2048 x 1536.
>
>Untrue. Even the lowest end Ati and nVidia cards
>support 2048x1536. Windows won't let you select that
>resolution if it thinks that your MONITOR won't support
>the resolution. Most CRTs big enough to really benefit
>from 2048x1536 resolution do support it.


You're thinking small.

When I scan MF film (645) the images are
9000 x 6500 pixels. When I scan LF the
images are 11,500 pixels x 9000 pixels.
Yes, that's right, over 100 megapixels.

There's just no way any monitor is going
to display these "natively." And it
really doesn't matter. Seeing the full
frame in my editor isn't the end goal --
the print is.

While I'm editing -- depending on what
I'm up to -- I might use any resolution
up to 100%, sometimes even beyond.

My two most commonly used key-combinations
in Photoshop are Ctrl-0 and Ctrl-Alt-0.
The first fits the image to the monitor,
the 2nd displays the image at 100%.
Ctrl- and Ctrl+ are pretty nice, too.

I set my monitor to 1200 x 1600 and
forget it. Not much reason to ever
change it.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 4:26:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 3 Feb 2005 20:57:40 -0800, mechdan@yahoo.com wrote:

>
>rafe bustin wrote:
>> On 3 Feb 2005 07:14:07 -0800, mechdan@yahoo.com wrote:

>> When I scan MF film (645) the images are
>> 9000 x 6500 pixels. When I scan LF the
>> images are 11,500 pixels x 9000 pixels.
>> Yes, that's right, over 100 megapixels.
>
>So what? This has absolutely no relevance whatsoever
>to the usefulness of a 2048x1536 display for someone
>with a 3.3mp digicam.


All well and good. Matching monitor to
image size may work for a 3.3 mp digicam.
It's unrealistic with any image file that's
much larger than that. And that's about
all I've got to say on the matter.



rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 10:49:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

bob wrote:
>mechdan@yahoo.com wrote:

> > So what? This has absolutely no relevance whatsoever
> > to the usefulness of a 2048x1536 display for someone
> > with a 3.3mp digicam.

> I've got a $600 21" Sony FD Trinitron E540,and it tops out at
1960x1440.
> I think the number of people who have whatever kind of hardware you
are
> using that can actually display 2048x1536 must be pretty rare.

Untrue. As I noted before, any CRT which can display
1024x768 normally can also display 2048x1536 in interlaced
mode. While this is not a display mode which Windows knows
how to do by default, the program Powerstrip can be used to
display it.

It would be a very small minority of people who have a CRT
monitor which can't display 2048x1536.

> The GDM 520k (at $1700) can be driven at the resolution you mention,
but

Come on--just look at Newegg for many affordable CRT monitors
which handle non-interlaced 2048x1536 resolutions.

> I doubt it actually resolves that many pixels, so what's the point.

The image reproduction is smoother, because sampling alignment
effects are more or less eliminated. Most TV sets can't
resolve more than 320x240 pixels, yet they still benefit from
a 720x480 input (DVD resolution). It's like printing at a higher
dot pitch than the dot size. You get a more accurate, sharper
image.

> You'd probably get just as accurate a representation by scaling the
> image in software. Have you done any actual testing?

Yes. I used to run my main workstation at 1280x960, on an
affordable old $500 class 21" monitor. I thought photos looked
pretty good on it (bicubic scaling with GQView). Then I
tried out 2048x1536. I was literally blown away by the extra
visible detail. There was no comparison whatsoever. Even my
wife, who is ALWAYS telling me "It looks the same to me" was
instantly impressed by the overwhelming difference.

If my wife was impressed by the difference, that means that
there really was a big difference. In contrast, I also
excitedly pointed out to her how much better the sharper
fonts and icons were (going from 12pt to 24pt and going from
64 pixel icons to 128 pixel icons). She said, "They look the
same to me".

Isaac Kuo
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 11:13:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mxsmanic wrote:
[]
> Very few LCDs do 32-bit color.

... and virtually no CRTs driven by typical graphics cards either. Almost
graphics cards all are 24-bit colour - 8 bits each of red, green and blue.
When you talk about 32-bit colour on a PC it's only 24 bits of colour,
with 8 bits of "alpha" overlay. It provides no greater colour accuracy
than 24-bits, but is faster to access because each pixel is on a 32-bit
boundary.

Displays with an analog input (as opposed to displays with a digital
input) do not have a fixed number of bits they can display.

(Yes, there are some very high-end graphics cards and monitors which can
handle more than 8-bits per pixel).

Cheers,
David
February 4, 2005 1:16:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

mechdan@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> So what? This has absolutely no relevance whatsoever
> to the usefulness of a 2048x1536 display for someone
> with a 3.3mp digicam.
>
> It's no joke--not every person on this newsgroup

I've got a $600 21" Sony FD Trinitron E540,and it tops out at 1960x1440.
I think the number of people who have whatever kind of hardware you are
using that can actually display 2048x1536 must be pretty rare.

If you consider the subset of people with exotic monitors who are happy
with 3 Mp cameras, you might be the only one.

The GDM 520k (at $1700) can be driven at the resolution you mention, but
I doubt it actually resolves that many pixels, so what's the point.
You'd probably get just as accurate a representation by scaling the
image in software. Have you done any actual testing?

Bob
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 2:41:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Dave Martindale wrote:
>mechdan@yahoo.com writes:

>>Untrue. As I noted before, any CRT which can display
>>1024x768 normally can also display 2048x1536 in interlaced
>>mode. While this is not a display mode which Windows knows
>>how to do by default, the program Powerstrip can be used to
>>display it.

>Well, no. Running interlaced only converts 1024x768
>into 1024x1536. It gives you twice as many scan lines,
>but no more pixels per line.

If it's done in a completely retarded way, yes. However,
the typical way interlacing works from a user's perspective
is that you choose the desired resolution and then you
select "interlace". For example, in Powerstrip this is
done by clicking on a checkbox.

>(You also get interlace flicker).

Yes, but for photos this flicker is rarely significant
even at a 60hz refresh rate (i.e. TV display). For general
computing, flickery horizontal lines can be a problem, yes.
Personally, I'm not bothered by it at 85hz refresh rate.
Others may find it objectionable.

Fortunately, Powerstrip has advanced features to intelligently
switch display modes per application. Thus, you can set it
to switch to a high resolution interlaced mode when running
ACDSee but have it switch back to a lower resolution
non-interlaced mode for other applications.

>To double the pixels per line, you need to double the pixel clock
>frequency.

Which is something even power users VERY rarely set manually.

>Both the graphics card and the video amplifiers in the
>graphics card have to be able to handle this, and generally
>the monitor is not.

Ho-hum, even bottom end Ati and nVidia cards have pixel
clock capabilities to run 2048x1536 even without interlacing.
That requires twice as much pixel clock speed as an interlaced
2048x1536 display.

Of course, most CRT monitors don't have any such thing
as a "pixel clock". They just have analog circuitry
to drive the three electron guns with the incoming rgb
signals. There is an upper bandwidth limitation, of course,
but a 2048x1536 interlaced display actually has 18% less
bandwidth than a 1600x1200 noninterlaced display.

>On top of that, to actually be able to see the pixels, the monitor
>needs a smaller dot pitch and better beam focus. Again, you're not
>going to get this in your average CRT.

As I've noted, you don't need to be able to fully see
the individual pixels in order to acheive the benefits
of increased picture sharpness and detail. Roughly
speaking, the spacing between scanlines can go down to
half of the dot pitch before you reach the point of
diminishing returns.

As an analogy, consider mowing a rectangular lawn. The
dot pitch corresponds to the diameter of the mowing blade.
If the resolution matches the dot pitch, this means the
spacing between each mowing pass exactly lines up against
the previous mowing pass. On a CRT screen, this means
that there are no visible gaps between the scanlines.
This does NOT represent the maximum quality image that can
be displayed. Roughly speaking, you can cram in more and
more information into the image up until the passes are
only half a blade diameter apart. This means that a mowing
pass halway overlaps the previous mowing pass. Now, you
can still keep on squeezing in the passes closer together,
but you'll only increase sharpness and won't squeeze in
any more actual detail.

Now, it's true that a small cheap 15" CRT is probably
already dipping somewhat below its dot pitch at 1024x768,
but a 15" CRT is dinosaur equipment by today's standards.

>So you might as well downsample that 2048x1536 image
>to 1024x768 using a good resizing program, and
>display it at the smaller size.

It honestly doesn't look as good. You know what you
could do? You could try it out yourself. I have!

>>It would be a very small minority of people who have a CRT
>>monitor which can't display 2048x1536.

>But with any more visible detail than the same monitor
>operating at 1024x768?

Yes. Even a dinosaur 15" CRT with a borderline dot
pitch spec will have some benefit. Whether or not the
benefit is worthwhile is up for the user to decide.

I personally wouldn't bother with greater than 1600x1200
on a 15" CRT. An old 15" CRT might not be able to handle
an 85hz refresh rate at 1024x768, but could handle 85hz
at 800x600. Thus, the choice would be between interlacing
2048x1536i at 60hz vs 1600x1200i at 85hz. The reduced
flickering at 85hz is easily better than the puny extra
sharpness benefit of 2048x1536 (assuming the monitor's dot
pitch matches 800x600, there is no actual increased detail
beyond 1600x1200).

OTOH, a typical 17" CRT can handle 2048x1536i at 85hz,
and certainly benefits from the extra resolution.

>>Yes. I used to run my main workstation at 1280x960, on an
>>affordable old $500 class 21" monitor.

>Very few people have 21" monitors. They *do* have a lot
>more phosphor triples and generally higher-bandwidth
>video amplifiers. But the monitors that most people have
>are 17" or even 15". I thought you were
>talking about "any CRT which can display 1024x768".

You were talking about your own 21" monitor and that was
what I was responding to with that. I used the example
of my own main workstation because it succeeded in the
hardest real life test I know of--the wife test. I may
notice the difference in a 17" monitor, but that doesn't
mean as much because I'm obsessed with image quality.
If my wife notices a difference, that really means something!
She can't even see dot-crawl on TVs with cheap notch filters,
no matter how much I try to point it out!

I had indeed made the claim that any CRT which can display
1024x768 can also display 2048x1536 interlaced display.
This was in responce to your claim that most people
didn't have a monitor capable of displaying 2048x1536.
While it's true that older, smaller, monitors will have
less benefit from the use of a 2048x1536 display mode,
there is a noticeable benefit for typical 17+" monitors.

Isaac Kuo
February 4, 2005 6:39:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul wrote:

> mechdan@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> paul wrote:
>>
>>> rafe bustin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> There aren't too many video cards
>>>> that wil support 2048 x 1536.
>>
>>
>>> My 21" Sony G500 monitor w/ NVIDIA Quadro FX Go 1000 does that but I
>>> can't read icons & such at that size.
>>
>>
>> That's what configuring larger fonts and icons is for.
>> The higher resolution allows for smoother looking fonts
>
>
> Hmm, I already have it set to large fonts but it seems maybe there is
> custom control to make them even bigger. There are a few odd things that
> slip through the cracks though. Maybe I'll give it a try now that
> performance isn't an issue. That would be 132dpi!
>
> Well, actually it won't do full 32 bit color at that scale but I can go
> up to 1920x1440


BTW I've been running it at this setting for a couple days & there are
still some things that cannot be resized like certain web pages & icons.

Also my setup only allows 16 bit or 32 bit. It's actually a laptop & I
have that set to 1920x1200 but it's usually plugged in to the monitor.
!