Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

crt vs lcd problem

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 1:25:16 AM

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

hello all...
i've got a question about an item that is driving me nuts...

yesterday I took a series of photos using a Nikon D70.
The pictures were all taken in the middle of a sunny florida afternoon with
a cloudless sky.
I took the first 25 pics in RAW mode and the second 25 in JPEG mode.

I initially viewed all of the shots on my Sony VAIO laptop and they all
appeared bright and vivid...
pleased with the initial results I transferred the files to my desktop, a
Dell with a 19 inch CRT screen.
all of the pics were significantly darker. however, the JPEGS were really
really dark....

any ideas what is going on here? The desktops screen is turn up full
bright. I simply cannot understand the difference

thanks so much for any insite any of you might have on this subject...

best wishes

FD

More about : crt lcd problem

Anonymous
February 22, 2005 1:25:17 AM

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

In article <qxxSd.11541$hd6.10293@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
"Freightdog" <nomail@please.com> wrote:

> hello all...
> i've got a question about an item that is driving me nuts...
>
> yesterday I took a series of photos using a Nikon D70.
> The pictures were all taken in the middle of a sunny florida afternoon with
> a cloudless sky.
> I took the first 25 pics in RAW mode and the second 25 in JPEG mode.
>
> I initially viewed all of the shots on my Sony VAIO laptop and they all
> appeared bright and vivid...
> pleased with the initial results I transferred the files to my desktop, a
> Dell with a 19 inch CRT screen.
> all of the pics were significantly darker. however, the JPEGS were really
> really dark....
>
> any ideas what is going on here? The desktops screen is turn up full
> bright. I simply cannot understand the difference
>
> thanks so much for any insite any of you might have on this subject...
>
> best wishes
>
> FD

Different gamma. Calibrate both screens and check a histogram of the
images.
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 1:56:05 AM

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

Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
> In article <qxxSd.11541$hd6.10293@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
> "Freightdog" <nomail@please.com> wrote:
>
>
>>hello all...
>>i've got a question about an item that is driving me nuts...
>>
>>yesterday I took a series of photos using a Nikon D70.
>>The pictures were all taken in the middle of a sunny florida afternoon with
>>a cloudless sky.
>>I took the first 25 pics in RAW mode and the second 25 in JPEG mode.
>>
>>I initially viewed all of the shots on my Sony VAIO laptop and they all
>>appeared bright and vivid...
>>pleased with the initial results I transferred the files to my desktop, a
>>Dell with a 19 inch CRT screen.
>>all of the pics were significantly darker. however, the JPEGS were really
>>really dark....
>>
>>any ideas what is going on here? The desktops screen is turn up full
>>bright. I simply cannot understand the difference
>>
>>thanks so much for any insite any of you might have on this subject...
>>
>>best wishes
>>
>>FD
>
>
> Different gamma. Calibrate both screens and check a histogram of the
> images.

My desktop CRT is now useless for photography; it's just too worn down,
so at its brightest settings, the colors appear washed and too dark.
--
John McWilliams
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 3:14:24 AM

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

"Freightdog" <nomail@please.com> wrote in message
news:qxxSd.11541$hd6.10293@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> hello all...
> i've got a question about an item that is driving me nuts...
>
> yesterday I took a series of photos using a Nikon D70.
> The pictures were all taken in the middle of a sunny florida afternoon with a cloudless
> sky.
> I took the first 25 pics in RAW mode and the second 25 in JPEG mode.
>
> I initially viewed all of the shots on my Sony VAIO laptop and they all appeared bright
> and vivid...
> pleased with the initial results I transferred the files to my desktop, a Dell with a 19
> inch CRT screen.
> all of the pics were significantly darker. however, the JPEGS were really really
> dark....
>
> any ideas what is going on here? The desktops screen is turn up full bright. I simply
> cannot understand the difference
>
> thanks so much for any insite any of you might have on this subject...
>
> best wishes

Not all video drivers allow for a manual gamma adjustment.
Under display settings/advanced, look through the tabs for a gamma slider, or numeric
setting. Without this, you're pretty well stuck with dark renditions. It may be that
your monitor just can't produce any more, but I think it's more likely a gamma adjustment
that is software/driver based.

Personally, I've made the switch to an excellent LCD, and have been getting perfect
results. Many have difficulty with LCD due to shadow/highlight detail, but on my
1600x1200 it's been better than anything else I've used.
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 4:24:29 AM

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

Freightdog wrote:
> hello all...
> i've got a question about an item that is driving me nuts...
>
> yesterday I took a series of photos using a Nikon D70.
> The pictures were all taken in the middle of a sunny florida afternoon with
> a cloudless sky.
> I took the first 25 pics in RAW mode and the second 25 in JPEG mode.
>
> I initially viewed all of the shots on my Sony VAIO laptop and they all
> appeared bright and vivid...
> pleased with the initial results I transferred the files to my desktop, a
> Dell with a 19 inch CRT screen.
> all of the pics were significantly darker. however, the JPEGS were really
> really dark....
>
> any ideas what is going on here? The desktops screen is turn up full
> bright. I simply cannot understand the difference
>
> thanks so much for any insite any of you might have on this subject...
>
> best wishes
>
> FD
>
>
Your display program needs a gamma adjust feature. Check out Irfanview
for a free application with this feature.
It may also be that your CRT is near the end of its use life.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 10:23:32 AM

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

thanks to all....
It's given me somewhere to start... (or perhaps an excuse to buy a new LCD
monitor ...grin)
fd
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 12:22:04 PM

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

MarkĀ² wrote:
> "Freightdog" <nomail@please.com> wrote in message
> news:qxxSd.11541$hd6.10293@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>
>>hello all...
>>i've got a question about an item that is driving me nuts...
>>
>>yesterday I took a series of photos using a Nikon D70.
>>The pictures were all taken in the middle of a sunny florida afternoon with a cloudless
>>sky.
>>I took the first 25 pics in RAW mode and the second 25 in JPEG mode.
>>
>>I initially viewed all of the shots on my Sony VAIO laptop and they all appeared bright
>>and vivid...
>>pleased with the initial results I transferred the files to my desktop, a Dell with a 19
>>inch CRT screen.
>>all of the pics were significantly darker. however, the JPEGS were really really
>>dark....
>>
>>any ideas what is going on here? The desktops screen is turn up full bright. I simply
>>cannot understand the difference
>>
>>thanks so much for any insite any of you might have on this subject...
>>
>>best wishes
>
>
> Not all video drivers allow for a manual gamma adjustment.
> Under display settings/advanced, look through the tabs for a gamma slider, or numeric
> setting. Without this, you're pretty well stuck with dark renditions. It may be that
> your monitor just can't produce any more, but I think it's more likely a gamma adjustment
> that is software/driver based.
>
> Personally, I've made the switch to an excellent LCD, and have been getting perfect
> results. Many have difficulty with LCD due to shadow/highlight detail, but on my
> 1600x1200 it's been better than anything else I've used.
>
>
The main strength of the LCD is its fantastic contrast ratio. The main
weakness of the LCD is its fantastic contrast ratio. Why both? It
makes the image appear VERY vivid, but it also doesn't seem to do very
well with shadowed areas. There doesn't seem to be enough variation
between the black, and low light level pixels. Perhaps this is getting
better as the problem with slow pixel updating has, and the viewing
angle is improving. Perhaps in another year or two, these will be as
good as a CRT, and the prices will be competitive. Then I will consider
one.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 2:11:52 PM

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

Ron Hunter wrote:


> The main strength of the LCD is its fantastic contrast ratio. The main
> weakness of the LCD is its fantastic contrast ratio. Why both? It
> makes the image appear VERY vivid, but it also doesn't seem to do very
> well with shadowed areas. There doesn't seem to be enough variation
> between the black, and low light level pixels. Perhaps this is getting
> better as the problem with slow pixel updating has, and the viewing
> angle is improving. Perhaps in another year or two, these will be as
> good as a CRT, and the prices will be competitive. Then I will consider
> one.


In another year or two it's going to be
very hard to buy (new) CRT monitors. You
may not have much choice in the matter.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 3:38:33 PM

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

what's really got me baffled is that I don't know which screen to trust.
we have 4 desktop machines in our home..
three have CRT's... the pics I took yesterday are all dark on those screens.
One machine, relatively new, has a Dell LCD screen... pics are dark, but not
as bad as on the CRT's...
pics on my laptops LCD.... perfect.... ugh....

fd


"rafeb" <rafe@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:421b59c4$0$39244$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com...
>
>
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>
>> The main strength of the LCD is its fantastic contrast ratio. The main
>> weakness of the LCD is its fantastic contrast ratio. Why both? It makes
>> the image appear VERY vivid, but it also doesn't seem to do very well
>> with shadowed areas. There doesn't seem to be enough variation between
>> the black, and low light level pixels. Perhaps this is getting better as
>> the problem with slow pixel updating has, and the viewing angle is
>> improving. Perhaps in another year or two, these will be as good as a
>> CRT, and the prices will be competitive. Then I will consider one.
>
>
> In another year or two it's going to be
> very hard to buy (new) CRT monitors. You
> may not have much choice in the matter.
>
>
> rafe b.
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com
>
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 5:30:45 PM

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

rafeb wrote:
>
>
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>
>> The main strength of the LCD is its fantastic contrast ratio. The
>> main weakness of the LCD is its fantastic contrast ratio. Why both?
>> It makes the image appear VERY vivid, but it also doesn't seem to do
>> very well with shadowed areas. There doesn't seem to be enough
>> variation between the black, and low light level pixels. Perhaps this
>> is getting better as the problem with slow pixel updating has, and the
>> viewing angle is improving. Perhaps in another year or two, these
>> will be as good as a CRT, and the prices will be competitive. Then I
>> will consider one.
>
>
>
> In another year or two it's going to be
> very hard to buy (new) CRT monitors. You
> may not have much choice in the matter.
>
>
> rafe b.
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com
>
I rather suspect that I will be able to buy a CRT monitor as long as I
live. Consider that the only vacuum tube in most TVs is still the
'picture tube'. It isn't likely to disappear quite THAT fast.
But, yes, sales of LCD (or OLED) monitors may well surpass CRTs in the
next two years.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 8:52:24 PM

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

"Freightdog" <fd@freightdog.com> wrote in message
news:g1KSd.14480$hd6.7219@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> what's really got me baffled is that I don't know which screen to trust.
> we have 4 desktop machines in our home..
> three have CRT's... the pics I took yesterday are all dark on those screens.
> One machine, relatively new, has a Dell LCD screen... pics are dark, but not as bad as
> on the CRT's...
> pics on my laptops LCD.... perfect.... ugh....

One reason laptop **appear*8 to do well is that it is the ONLY computer whose manufacturer
knows FOR SURE what screen will be used with it's set-up. Because of this, they can set
gamma and other driver settings to precisely what is needed by that particular, built-in
screen.

Literally ANY other computer--even those that are sold with a monitor--may not be used
with that monitor, and therefore have a zillion possibilities in terms of settings.
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 1:06:45 AM

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

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 22:56:05 -0800, "jpmcw" <"jpmcw"@comcast.net> wrote:

> My desktop CRT is now useless for photography; it's just too worn down,
> so at its brightest settings, the colors appear washed and too dark.

Many monitors have a sub brightness control that can only be accessed by
removing the case.

WARNING, THIS IS VERY DANGEROUS!!!!

There should be a potentiometer, often marked Sub Brightness near the rear of
the tube. A special plastic screwdriver should be used to adjust this. Use of
a metal one may result in 50,000V passing into your fingers. ;-)
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 1:06:46 AM

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

The primary anode of any crt has a a voltage no higher than 29,5kV.Even at
this potential, any crt produces enough xrays, so it has to be shielded,
with added lead in the side glass and I think barium in the front
glass.Touching the primary anode during operation, could result in great
shock, of course, but since current is as small as 1 mA cannot be fatal.The
secondary anodes have "lower" voltages, in the range of some kV, which is
also very dangerous.CRTs have an evolution history for more than 50 years,
so for me are more reliable and robust than any LCD.

--
Tzortzakakis Dimitri?s
major in electrical engineering, freelance electrician
FH von Iraklion-Kreta, freiberuflicher Elektriker
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
? "Ken Oaf" <tipsy@beerlover.com.au> ?????? ??? ??????
news:9c4m11547eecq4e4uhja2l9d2c1s695d6l@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 22:56:05 -0800, "jpmcw" <"jpmcw"@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > My desktop CRT is now useless for photography; it's just too worn down,
> > so at its brightest settings, the colors appear washed and too dark.
>
> Many monitors have a sub brightness control that can only be accessed by
> removing the case.
>
> WARNING, THIS IS VERY DANGEROUS!!!!
>
> There should be a potentiometer, often marked Sub Brightness near the rear
of
> the tube. A special plastic screwdriver should be used to adjust this.
Use of
> a metal one may result in 50,000V passing into your fingers. ;-)
>
>
>
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 1:06:47 AM

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

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 14:55:08 +0200, "Dimitrios Tzortzakakis" <use@address.below>
wrote:

>The primary anode of any crt has a a voltage no higher than 29,5kV.Even at
>this potential, any crt produces enough xrays, so it has to be shielded,
>with added lead in the side glass and I think barium in the front
>glass.Touching the primary anode during operation, could result in great
>shock, of course, but since current is as small as 1 mA cannot be fatal.The
>secondary anodes have "lower" voltages, in the range of some kV, which is
>also very dangerous.CRTs have an evolution history for more than 50 years,
>so for me are more reliable and robust than any LCD.

Excellent advice Dimitrios, but even a few microamps can cause
dangerous heart fibrillation if you get tied into the circuit.
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 1:06:48 AM

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

irwell wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 14:55:08 +0200, "Dimitrios Tzortzakakis" <use@address.below>
> wrote:
>
>
>>The primary anode of any crt has a a voltage no higher than 29,5kV.Even at
>>this potential, any crt produces enough xrays, so it has to be shielded,
>>with added lead in the side glass and I think barium in the front
>>glass.Touching the primary anode during operation, could result in great
>>shock, of course, but since current is as small as 1 mA cannot be fatal.The
>>secondary anodes have "lower" voltages, in the range of some kV, which is
>>also very dangerous.CRTs have an evolution history for more than 50 years,
>>so for me are more reliable and robust than any LCD.
>
>
> Excellent advice Dimitrios, but even a few microamps can cause
> dangerous heart fibrillation if you get tied into the circuit.

I don't believe my 6-7 year old 20" Apple mutlisync monitor- a beauty
and a bargain then at "only" $1000- reg. retail was 2K- is
resurrectible. Otoh, if cranking a screw or two at only a modest risk of
death brings it new life, I am fascinated. Sorta like blowfish....

--
John McWilliams
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 1:06:49 AM

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

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:36:17 -0800, "jpmcw" <"jpmcw"@comcast.net> wrote:

>irwell wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 14:55:08 +0200, "Dimitrios Tzortzakakis" <use@address.below>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The primary anode of any crt has a a voltage no higher than 29,5kV.Even at
>>>this potential, any crt produces enough xrays, so it has to be shielded,
>>>with added lead in the side glass and I think barium in the front
>>>glass.Touching the primary anode during operation, could result in great
>>>shock, of course, but since current is as small as 1 mA cannot be fatal.The
>>>secondary anodes have "lower" voltages, in the range of some kV, which is
>>>also very dangerous.CRTs have an evolution history for more than 50 years,
>>>so for me are more reliable and robust than any LCD.
>>
>>
>> Excellent advice Dimitrios, but even a few microamps can cause
>> dangerous heart fibrillation if you get tied into the circuit.
>
>I don't believe my 6-7 year old 20" Apple mutlisync monitor- a beauty
>and a bargain then at "only" $1000- reg. retail was 2K- is
>resurrectible. Otoh, if cranking a screw or two at only a modest risk of
>death brings it new life, I am fascinated. Sorta like blowfish....
Just keep one hand in your pocket!
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 4:07:30 PM

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

never thought of that...
great explanation... thanks

fd
!