Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Monitors, CRT of flat screen?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
March 20, 2005 2:46:18 PM

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

I went to the Apple shop and saw their new display monitors, 23inches and
even 30 inches. Conventional wisdom, at least so far, has been that for
digital photo work CRT are better, even much better. But would this apply
also to the new Mac displays just mentioned? For one thing, they costs so
much more than a pro CRT, that in theory at least should be at least as good
as a CRT. Thanks in advance for any comments.
Nobody
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
March 20, 2005 7:47:27 PM

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

If you believe that the MAC OS is superior to Windows then you will believe
that MAC LCD panels are superior to anything made for a Wintel machine. This
is despite the fact that latencies, color ramps etc on these MAC panels are
no better than average and sell at ultra-premium prices.

Personally I would rather believe in Geroge Bush, WMDs and a Republican
congress that backs a war policy that does not bother to count the number of
dead Iraquis but wants to pass special legislation to keep a brain dead
anorexic on a feeding tube.
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
March 20, 2005 8:39:56 PM

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

On 3/20/05 10:47 AM, in article
zOh%d.12311$C47.371@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com, "bmoag"
<apquilts@pacbell.net> wrote:

> If you believe that the MAC OS is superior to Windows then you will believe
> that MAC LCD panels are superior to anything made for a Wintel machine. This
> is despite the fact that latencies, color ramps etc on these MAC panels are
> no better than average and sell at ultra-premium prices.
>
> Personally I would rather believe in Geroge Bush, WMDs and a Republican
> congress that backs a war policy that does not bother to count the number of
> dead Iraquis but wants to pass special legislation to keep a brain dead
> anorexic on a feeding tube.
>
>
On ALL counts: A.F.I. Thanks for the useless info. NOT!


_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Related resources
March 20, 2005 9:25:00 PM

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

nobody wrote:
> I went to the Apple shop and saw their new display monitors, 23inches and
> even 30 inches. Conventional wisdom, at least so far, has been that for
> digital photo work CRT are better, even much better. But would this apply
> also to the new Mac displays just mentioned? For one thing, they costs so
> much more than a pro CRT, that in theory at least should be at least as good
> as a CRT. Thanks in advance for any comments.
> Nobody
>


I heard the HP version is cheaper. They are using the same Philips-LP
LCD anyway. If I had to buy one today, I think I'd get Sony or HP's 23"
version but I possibly be money strap and would seriously considered
Dell's 20" (1600x1200).

LCD is still not as good as CRT in some ways; ghosting, no deep black
and slight color shift, but it doesn't make sense to buy a CRT anymore.
Sinice I still have a Sony Trinitron 21" CRT so I got a small 15" LCD
for another PC and wait for LCD panel to mature a bit.
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
March 20, 2005 10:12:22 PM

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

Actually ... his first paragraph was pretty much "right on."




"George Kerby" <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BE631189.13DBB%ghost_topper@hotmail.com...
>
>
>
> On 3/20/05 10:47 AM, in article
> zOh%d.12311$C47.371@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com, "bmoag"
> <apquilts@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > If you believe that the MAC OS is superior to Windows then you will
believe
> > that MAC LCD panels are superior to anything made for a Wintel machine.
This
> > is despite the fact that latencies, color ramps etc on these MAC panels
are
> > no better than average and sell at ultra-premium prices.
> >
> > Personally I would rather believe in Geroge Bush, WMDs and a Republican
> > congress that backs a war policy that does not bother to count the
number of
> > dead Iraquis but wants to pass special legislation to keep a brain dead
> > anorexic on a feeding tube.
> >
> >
> On ALL counts: A.F.I. Thanks for the useless info. NOT!
>
>
>
___________________________________________________________________________
____
> Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 -
http://www.uncensored-news.com
> <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source
<><><><><><><><>
>
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
March 20, 2005 10:30:48 PM

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

In article <0ej%d.548$H06.123@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
someone@somewhere.net says...
> nobody wrote:
> > I went to the Apple shop and saw their new display monitors, 23inches and
> > even 30 inches. Conventional wisdom, at least so far, has been that for
> > digital photo work CRT are better, even much better. But would this apply
> > also to the new Mac displays just mentioned? For one thing, they costs so
> > much more than a pro CRT, that in theory at least should be at least as good
> > as a CRT. Thanks in advance for any comments.
> > Nobody
> >
>
>
> I heard the HP version is cheaper. They are using the same Philips-LP
> LCD anyway. If I had to buy one today, I think I'd get Sony or HP's 23"
> version but I possibly be money strap and would seriously considered
> Dell's 20" (1600x1200).
>
> LCD is still not as good as CRT in some ways; ghosting, no deep black
> and slight color shift, but it doesn't make sense to buy a CRT anymore.
> Sinice I still have a Sony Trinitron 21" CRT so I got a small 15" LCD
> for another PC and wait for LCD panel to mature a bit.
>

I recently ditched my Sony 21" Trinitron for a ViewSonic VX2000 (20",
1600x1200). The VX2000 is the best LCD I've ever seen, although I haven't
spent extensive time in front of the Apple displays. It is far brighter
and sharper than the Sony G520 CRT it replaced. Contrast is very good,
too.

Color is better than any LCD I've seen; the yellow daffodils I shot in
the front yard (using a D70) are just as yellow on-screen. Yellow is
a hard color for LCDs; they have to be good at both red and green to make
it work.

Ghosting seems to be dependent on the video card. I get ghosting with
my Dell laptops (using NVIDIA GeForce display adapters). With my home-built
desktop machine, using a Matrox G550, there is no ghosting at all.
All of these are with analog video input; I haven't tried digital
video input yet. (First I need to find a digital KVM switch!)

I can't vouch for professional-quality color calibration, but as an
amateur, I'm extremely pleased with this monitor. As far as
calibration goes, ViewSonic does do color calibration in terms of
color temperature; not all LCDs will do that.

The price is down to $693 (US) on Amazon, which beats the heck out
of Apple.

Diane
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
March 20, 2005 10:30:49 PM

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

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 19:30:48 GMT, Diane Wilson <diane@firelily.com>
wrote:


>I recently ditched my Sony 21" Trinitron for a ViewSonic VX2000 (20",
>1600x1200). The VX2000 is the best LCD I've ever seen, although I haven't
>spent extensive time in front of the Apple displays. It is far brighter
>and sharper than the Sony G520 CRT it replaced. Contrast is very good,
>too.
>
>Color is better than any LCD I've seen; the yellow daffodils I shot in
>the front yard (using a D70) are just as yellow on-screen. Yellow is
>a hard color for LCDs; they have to be good at both red and green to make
>it work.
>
>Ghosting seems to be dependent on the video card. I get ghosting with
>my Dell laptops (using NVIDIA GeForce display adapters). With my home-built
>desktop machine, using a Matrox G550, there is no ghosting at all.
>All of these are with analog video input; I haven't tried digital
>video input yet. (First I need to find a digital KVM switch!)
>
>I can't vouch for professional-quality color calibration, but as an
>amateur, I'm extremely pleased with this monitor. As far as
>calibration goes, ViewSonic does do color calibration in terms of
>color temperature; not all LCDs will do that.
>
>The price is down to $693 (US) on Amazon, which beats the heck out
>of Apple.


Yellow is actually one of the strong areas in the
gamut of most LCDs, while blues and greens are weaker
(compared to CRTs.)

I've also made the switch to LCD recently, with no
regrets. Using a Matrox G450. The sharpness is
spectacular. The LCD is a 21" Samsung 213T
with a native res of 1600x1200. Under $700 now.

No problem calibrating it with a Gretag Eye-One.

In absolute terms, the CRT has a slightly
wider gamut, but the LCD is much more
pleasant to work with overall.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
March 21, 2005 1:15:39 AM

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

nobody <nobody@nowhere.com.re> wrote:
>I went to the Apple shop and saw their new display monitors, 23inches and
>even 30 inches. Conventional wisdom, at least so far, has been that for
>digital photo work CRT are better, even much better. But would this apply
>also to the new Mac displays just mentioned?

Yes. It's not just the manufacturer but the technology used. LCDs
shift color and brightness as the viewing angle changes. Some more
than others. CRTs don't.

> For one thing, they costs so
>much more than a pro CRT, that in theory at least should be at least as good
>as a CRT.

No, it means that they're harder to make. For display that's 1280x1024
there are some 4 million little LCD units, each with it's own
controlling transister. If one is bad then you get a spot on the
screen.

With CRTs there's one tube, a grid of RGB phosphors printed on the glass,
a shadow mask, and electron guns. Small failures don't have big
results.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
March 21, 2005 11:52:11 AM

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

Ray Fischer wrote:
[]
> No, it means that they're harder to make. For display that's
> 1280x1024 there are some 4 million little LCD units, each with it's
> own controlling transister. If one is bad then you get a spot on the
> screen.
>
> With CRTs there's one tube, a grid of RGB phosphors printed on the
> glass, a shadow mask, and electron guns. Small failures don't have
> big results.

Whilst LCDs are indeed harder to make, the Dell 19 inch monitor I just
replaced with an LCD had a missing set of pixels, one dark pixel
effectively. The LCD does not.

Cheers,
David
March 21, 2005 2:07:50 PM

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

RSD99 wrote:

> Actually ... his first paragraph was pretty much "right on."
>
>
>
The 23" panel is made by Samsung.

r
March 21, 2005 2:07:51 PM

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

Rob wrote:
> RSD99 wrote:
>
>> Actually ... his first paragraph was pretty much "right on."
>>
>>
>>
> The 23" panel is made by Samsung.
>
> r


It should be Philips/LG.
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
March 21, 2005 8:26:44 PM

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

I've been told that the better LCDs are as good as a CRT now. However, you
do get more of a viewing angle with a CRT, and you can flip a CRT to many
resolutions without losing any quality in the image. Most LDCs have a
"native" resolution and don't look so hot when you use any other resolution.
If you're like me, the resolution you use for digital imaging may be too
high for word processing. So, if you like to flip around like I do just get
a decent "flat screen" CRT.


"nobody" <nobody@nowhere.com.re> wrote in message
news:BE63130A.D06%nobody@nowhere.com.re...
>I went to the Apple shop and saw their new display monitors, 23inches and
> even 30 inches. Conventional wisdom, at least so far, has been that for
> digital photo work CRT are better, even much better. But would this apply
> also to the new Mac displays just mentioned? For one thing, they costs so
> much more than a pro CRT, that in theory at least should be at least as
> good
> as a CRT. Thanks in advance for any comments.
> Nobody
>
!