Monitor Reccommendation Needed

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

1) Samsung monitors, in general, for a cheap price, give you very good
to excellent sRGB color matching (the standard used by digicams).
They'd be a top pick.
(Based on PC User Japan and other Japanese magazine color gamut
tests of monitors. EIZO have even better along with Apple Displays for
Macs, but they are very pricey.)

2) Make sure you're monitor has sRGB color mode - this auto sets the
monitor to match your digicam pics quickly and easily, and good
monitors, like Samsungs, means you won't have to tweak them to get good
colors. (Be careful, some no-brands will also have sRGB mode, but
they're so off in colors, you won't like what you see.)

3) www.microcenter.com
www.shopper.com
www.fatwallet.com/c/18/

Top places to look for cheap sale prices on monitors first.

eg. www.buy.com has an Acer 17" with built-in speakers for ~$220
right now. (A decent 2nd tier brand.)

4) LCDs, driven at their default resolution, will be sharper than any
CRT. But, if you're driving the LCD at other non-default (rated on the
panel) resolution, uglier than CRTs.

5) www.microcenter.com
30" Powerspec LCD monitor + HDTV for $799!

=)

Why suffer in front of a tiny, itsy-bitsy 17" when you can have a
30" on your desktop, and watch TV, too? Price, yes, 2x-3x more than the
smaller panel, but you can easily use this panel for years longer since
it's a TV as well.

One of the very best buys in larger LCD panels today, and I simply
would not even bother with a smaller panel at all myself.

And oh, yea! Quake & Doom run superb on these panels - truely
immersive widescreen!

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

On 9 May 2005 09:38:10 -0700, "Alan" <fake_address2001@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Now that I am using my new A95, I've found that my current 19" monitor
>just isn't good enough. The pictures look way too soft, and this was
>verified bt printing some out. The color representation is pretty good,
>but the lack of sharpness is a real problem. It wasn't an expensive
>monitor, and I'm sure the dot pitch is not all that fine. I will need a
>new monitor so I can see what I'm doing when I go to sharpen the
>images.
>
>What is a good monitor in the < $300 range? How about LCD panels? A 15"
>LCD would be good enough for me, I think (giving me the equivalent of a
>17" CRT). The computer is used occasionally for games, so a fast
>refresh would help, but is not a top priority. Sharpness and color
>reproduction are the toop needs (after price).

You might want to take a look as some of the Viewsonic LCD's.

http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?Product...


********************************************************

"When a true genius appears in this world you may know
him by the sign that the dunces are all in confederacy
against him."

Jonathan Swift
1667-1745

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

Alan wrote:

> Now that I am using my new A95, I've found that my current 19" monitor
> just isn't good enough. The pictures look way too soft, and this was
> verified bt printing some out. The color representation is pretty good,
> but the lack of sharpness is a real problem. It wasn't an expensive
> monitor, and I'm sure the dot pitch is not all that fine. I will need a
> new monitor so I can see what I'm doing when I go to sharpen the
> images.

Are you sharpening at 100% view? The lower % views use a fairly crude
downsampling algorithm to display them in real time.

>
> What is a good monitor in the < $300 range? How about LCD panels?

You're not going to get a good enough LCD for that price. Look for a monitor
with separate controls for each of the RGB channels, that's at least a sign
of a better monitor.

--

Stacey

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

Alan wrote:
> Now that I am using my new A95, I've found that my current 19" monitor
> just isn't good enough. The pictures look way too soft, and this was
> verified bt printing some out. The color representation is pretty good,
> but the lack of sharpness is a real problem. It wasn't an expensive
> monitor, and I'm sure the dot pitch is not all that fine. I will need a
> new monitor so I can see what I'm doing when I go to sharpen the
> images.
>
> What is a good monitor in the < $300 range? How about LCD panels? A 15"
> LCD would be good enough for me, I think (giving me the equivalent of a
> 17" CRT). The computer is used occasionally for games, so a fast
> refresh would help, but is not a top priority. Sharpness and color
> reproduction are the toop needs (after price).
>
> TIA.
>
You might consider the Viewsonic A90f+, if you can find one. I have the
17" model of this monitor and it is as close to perfect as any I have
seen. It has convinced me that I will only move to an LCD monitor when
this one will no longer work.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

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

"Alan" <fake_address2001@hotmail.com> wrote:


> What is a good monitor in the < $300 range? How about LCD panels? A 15"
> LCD would be good enough for me, I think (giving me the equivalent of a
> 17" CRT). The computer is used occasionally for games, so a fast
> refresh would help, but is not a top priority. Sharpness and color
> reproduction are the toop needs (after price).
>
> TIA.
>
>

Forget LCD panel monitors. They're not nearly good enough yet for
critical color work, and probably won't be for another 5 years or so.

Samsung Syncmaster CRT monitors offer pretty good color gamut and
excellent focus (you definitely will have to use a monitor calibrator,
but this is true of ANY monitor you buy), and their price is reasonable.
They tend to drift so you'll want to calibrate every 3 weeks or so.

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

"Bubbabob" <rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9651B6624EA5Adilfjelfoiwepofujsdk@216.168.3.30...
<snip>
Forget LCD panel monitors. They're not nearly good enough yet for
> critical color work, and probably won't be for another 5 years or so.


Perhaps you just haven't used a good enough LCD. The good ones clearly ARE
good enough. My Samsung 213T, 21" LCD is stunning and flawless. Incredible
for photo work.

Tom

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

On Mon, 09 May 2005 23:55:42 -0000, Bubbabob
<rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> wrote:

>"Alan" <fake_address2001@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> What is a good monitor in the < $300 range? How about LCD panels? A 15"
>> LCD would be good enough for me, I think (giving me the equivalent of a
>> 17" CRT). The computer is used occasionally for games, so a fast
>> refresh would help, but is not a top priority. Sharpness and color
>> reproduction are the toop needs (after price).
>>
>> TIA.
>>
>>
>
>Forget LCD panel monitors. They're not nearly good enough yet for
>critical color work, and probably won't be for another 5 years or so.
>

REALLY, then why do some many pro designers use the LaCie
photon20visionII or Ezio ColorEdge CG220 or Apple's Cinema.

Admit you don't know what you are talking about?

LCD monitors are mature and more than good enough for the most
critical color work.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/displays.shtm...

http://tech2.nytimes.com/mem/technology/techreview.html...


*********************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/

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

Tom Scales wrote:
> "Bubbabob" <rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9651B6624EA5Adilfjelfoiwepofujsdk@216.168.3.30...
> <snip>
> Forget LCD panel monitors. They're not nearly good enough yet for
>
>>critical color work, and probably won't be for another 5 years or so.
>
>
>
> Perhaps you just haven't used a good enough LCD. The good ones clearly ARE
> good enough. My Samsung 213T, 21" LCD is stunning and flawless. Incredible
> for photo work.
>
> Tom
>
>
Most LCD monitors seem better for images than text, or better for text
than images. It seem difficult to build one that works well for either,
read 'difficult' as 'expensive'.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

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

"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote:

>
> "Bubbabob" <rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9651B6624EA5Adilfjelfoiwepofujsdk@216.168.3.30...
><snip>
> Forget LCD panel monitors. They're not nearly good enough yet for
>> critical color work, and probably won't be for another 5 years or so.
>
>
> Perhaps you just haven't used a good enough LCD. The good ones
> clearly ARE good enough. My Samsung 213T, 21" LCD is stunning and
> flawless. Incredible for photo work.
>
> Tom
>
>
>

Good enough if you never look at your work on anything else. If you're
doing high quality magazine printing your shadow errors will be obvious and
photographers will point at them and say to each other "Shitty LCD
monitor". Even at $5000 they still don't cut the mustard. I got a 19"
Samsung (obviously not the above-mentioned $5000 unit) a few months back
and took it back within 48 hours. You should see the nasty LUT correction
curves my calibrator needed to apply to it. You can't trust the dynamics,
the shadows or the linearity of an LCD and even if you could you'd have to
lock your head in a vice to get around the off-axis problems.

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

John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 09 May 2005 23:55:42 -0000, Bubbabob
><rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> wrote:
>
>>"Alan" <fake_address2001@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> What is a good monitor in the < $300 range? How about LCD panels? A
>>> 15" LCD would be good enough for me, I think (giving me the
>>> equivalent of a 17" CRT). The computer is used occasionally for
>>> games, so a fast refresh would help, but is not a top priority.
>>> Sharpness and color reproduction are the toop needs (after price).
>>>
>>> TIA.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Forget LCD panel monitors. They're not nearly good enough yet for
>>critical color work, and probably won't be for another 5 years or so.
>>
>
> REALLY, then why do some many pro designers use the LaCie
> photon20visionII or Ezio ColorEdge CG220 or Apple's Cinema.

Designers are not photographers. They have lower standards and usually
inferior education concerning color calibration. They'll use whatever's
trendy.

You ARE aware that LaCie doesn't make their own monitors but just
rebrands those from other manufacturers and jacks up the price, aren't
you?

APPLE CINEMA??? You've got to be joking. Garbage. Expensive garbage,
though.
>
> Admit you don't know what you are talking about?

But I do. 20+ years of experience on monitor and TV studio camera
calibration systems, 40+ as a photographer.
>
> LCD monitors are mature and more than good enough for the most
> critical color work.

They're not good enough for me. I don't give a damn what other people
use. It shows up in the final print. If I'm using a good CRT it gives me
a definite competitive edge.

>
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/displays.shtm...
>
> http://tech2.nytimes.com/mem/technology/techreview.html...
> 8F930A25752C0A9639C8B63

NY Times? Great source for technical data.

I have high hopes for the next generation of organic phosphors IF they
can clean up the blue spectral purity problems (which are also a major
defect in LCD and TFT displays). The chances of finding a fix with
organic phosphors is a good deal better.

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

Bubbabob wrote:
> John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>On Mon, 09 May 2005 23:55:42 -0000, Bubbabob
>><rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Alan" <fake_address2001@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>What is a good monitor in the < $300 range? How about LCD panels? A
>>>>15" LCD would be good enough for me, I think (giving me the
>>>>equivalent of a 17" CRT). The computer is used occasionally for
>>>>games, so a fast refresh would help, but is not a top priority.
>>>>Sharpness and color reproduction are the toop needs (after price).
>>>>
>>>>TIA.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Forget LCD panel monitors. They're not nearly good enough yet for
>>>critical color work, and probably won't be for another 5 years or so.
>>>
>>
>>REALLY, then why do some many pro designers use the LaCie
>>photon20visionII or Ezio ColorEdge CG220 or Apple's Cinema.
>
>
> Designers are not photographers. They have lower standards and usually
> inferior education concerning color calibration. They'll use whatever's
> trendy.
>
> You ARE aware that LaCie doesn't make their own monitors but just
> rebrands those from other manufacturers and jacks up the price, aren't
> you?
>
> APPLE CINEMA??? You've got to be joking. Garbage. Expensive garbage,
> though.
>
>>Admit you don't know what you are talking about?
>
>
> But I do. 20+ years of experience on monitor and TV studio camera
> calibration systems, 40+ as a photographer.
>
>>LCD monitors are mature and more than good enough for the most
>>critical color work.
>
>
> They're not good enough for me. I don't give a damn what other people
> use. It shows up in the final print. If I'm using a good CRT it gives me
> a definite competitive edge.
>
>
>>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/displays.shtm...
>>
>>http://tech2.nytimes.com/mem/technology/techreview.html...
>>8F930A25752C0A9639C8B63
>
>
> NY Times? Great source for technical data.
>
> I have high hopes for the next generation of organic phosphors IF they
> can clean up the blue spectral purity problems (which are also a major
> defect in LCD and TFT displays). The chances of finding a fix with
> organic phosphors is a good deal better.
Their use life also needs considerable improvement...


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

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

What CRT monitor would you recommend for photo-work? The Lacie 22 blue? Or
something else, even better?


On 10/5/05 06:23, in article
Xns9651EDE3CDD90dilfjelfoiwepofujsdk@216.168.3.30, "Bubbabob"
<rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> wrote:

> John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 09 May 2005 23:55:42 -0000, Bubbabob
>> <rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Alan" <fake_address2001@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> What is a good monitor in the < $300 range? How about LCD panels? A
>>>> 15" LCD would be good enough for me, I think (giving me the
>>>> equivalent of a 17" CRT). The computer is used occasionally for
>>>> games, so a fast refresh would help, but is not a top priority.
>>>> Sharpness and color reproduction are the toop needs (after price).
>>>>
>>>> TIA.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Forget LCD panel monitors. They're not nearly good enough yet for
>>> critical color work, and probably won't be for another 5 years or so.
>>>
>>
>> REALLY, then why do some many pro designers use the LaCie
>> photon20visionII or Ezio ColorEdge CG220 or Apple's Cinema.
>
> Designers are not photographers. They have lower standards and usually
> inferior education concerning color calibration. They'll use whatever's
> trendy.
>
> You ARE aware that LaCie doesn't make their own monitors but just
> rebrands those from other manufacturers and jacks up the price, aren't
> you?
>
> APPLE CINEMA??? You've got to be joking. Garbage. Expensive garbage,
> though.
>>
>> Admit you don't know what you are talking about?
>
> But I do. 20+ years of experience on monitor and TV studio camera
> calibration systems, 40+ as a photographer.
>>
>> LCD monitors are mature and more than good enough for the most
>> critical color work.
>
> They're not good enough for me. I don't give a damn what other people
> use. It shows up in the final print. If I'm using a good CRT it gives me
> a definite competitive edge.
>
>>
>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/displays.shtm...
>>
>> http://tech2.nytimes.com/mem/technology/techreview.html...
>> 8F930A25752C0A9639C8B63
>
> NY Times? Great source for technical data.
>
> I have high hopes for the next generation of organic phosphors IF they
> can clean up the blue spectral purity problems (which are also a major
> defect in LCD and TFT displays). The chances of finding a fix with
> organic phosphors is a good deal better.

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

"Bubbabob" <rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9651EA8851BD4dilfjelfoiwepofujsdk@216.168.3.30...
> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Bubbabob" <rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9651B6624EA5Adilfjelfoiwepofujsdk@216.168.3.30...
>><snip>
>> Forget LCD panel monitors. They're not nearly good enough yet for
>>> critical color work, and probably won't be for another 5 years or so.
>>
>>
>> Perhaps you just haven't used a good enough LCD. The good ones
>> clearly ARE good enough. My Samsung 213T, 21" LCD is stunning and
>> flawless. Incredible for photo work.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>
>>
>
> Good enough if you never look at your work on anything else. If you're
> doing high quality magazine printing your shadow errors will be obvious
> and
> photographers will point at them and say to each other "Shitty LCD
> monitor". Even at $5000 they still don't cut the mustard. I got a 19"
> Samsung (obviously not the above-mentioned $5000 unit) a few months back
> and took it back within 48 hours. You should see the nasty LUT correction
> curves my calibrator needed to apply to it. You can't trust the dynamics,
> the shadows or the linearity of an LCD and even if you could you'd have to
> lock your head in a vice to get around the off-axis problems.


It seems like adding "In my opinion" to your post would have been
appropriate. Because in MY opinion, you're absolutely wrong. For example,
the results from my Epson 7600 are stunning and flawlessly match the, gasp,
LCD monitor. Off-axis is quite reliable, although I can't imagine why you'd
want to look at your monitor at a 45 degree angle.

It just seems like you haven't used good quality equipment that is properly
profiled.

I do agree that a CRT can be easier to initially setup and use. Just don't
discount a good LCD panel because you're unfamiliar with how to make it work
properly. You're also disparaging a particular example, the 213T, without,
it seems, ever using one.

Saying you've used the 19" is similar to saying "I don't think Honda makes a
very good Formula 1 car, because I drive a Civic and it can't go that fast".

Tom

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

> Forget LCD panel monitors. They're not nearly good enough yet for
> critical color work, and probably won't be for another 5 years or so.

really!?

Think not - Apple graphic designers have already thought otherwise:

http://www.apple.com/displays/technology.html

http://seminars.apple.com/seminarsonline/perfectcolor/a...

Fact is, unless you're trying to match a NTSC TV color space (or
HDTV), LCD monitors made today are already 'good enough' for critical
color work, and in fact, w/o the color warm up time required of CRTs,
even more stable over time than CRTs.

"Proof Perfect

In fact, Apple displays are so good at color, that you can use them in a
SWOP-certified soft-proofing workflow. Display-based proofing systems
Remote Director 2.0 from Integrated Color Solutions, Inc. and Matchprint
Virtual Proofing System-LCD from Kodak are both SWOP (Specifications for
Web Offset Publications) certified. The prestigious SWOP certification
means you can use Remote Director 2.0 to approve jobs for press
production onscreen without the need for hard-copy proofs, providing
significant time and cost saving for print professionals.
ICS

Certified systems are capable of producing proofs visually identical to
the SWOP Certified Press Proof as defined in ANSI CGATS TR 001, Graphic
Technology. ICS and KPG chose Apple flat-panel displays because they are
the only ones able to provide the luminance and color gamut ICS needs to
create an onscreen proof that has the same brightness and feel as paper."

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

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

>> I have high hopes for the next generation of organic phosphors IF
>> they can clean up the blue spectral purity problems (which are also a
>> major defect in LCD and TFT displays). The chances of finding a fix
>> with organic phosphors is a good deal better.
> Their use life also needs considerable improvement...
>
>

It wouldn't hurt.

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

nobody <nobody@nowhere.com.re> wrote:

> What CRT monitor would you recommend for photo-work? The Lacie 22
> blue? Or something else, even better?
>

If you need to spend a lot of money, it's a nice unit. I'm using Mitsubishi
Diamond Pro 900u's and 2040u's at work and a Samsung 763 at home, and I
redo the calibration every three weeks or so. The nice thing about CRT's is
that you get 10 times the bang for the buck as far as color response goes
compared to LCD's. Even a $200 monitor, properly calibrated, will
outperform almost any LCD display made.

I'll admit, though, that LCD's are VERY nice for text work and have certain
advantages when perfect orthogonality is required.

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

David Chien wrote:

>> Forget LCD panel monitors. They're not nearly good enough yet for
>> critical color work, and probably won't be for another 5 years or so.
>
>
> really!?
>
> Think not - Apple graphic designers have already thought otherwise:
>
> http://www.apple.com/displays/technology.html
>
> http://seminars.apple.com/seminarsonline/perfectcolor/a...
>
> Fact is, unless you're trying to match a NTSC TV color space (or
> HDTV), LCD monitors made today are already 'good enough' for critical
> color work, and in fact, w/o the color warm up time required of CRTs,
> even more stable over time than CRTs.
>
> "Proof Perfect
>
> In fact, Apple displays are so good at color, that you can use them in a
> SWOP-certified soft-proofing workflow. Display-based proofing systems
> Remote Director 2.0 from Integrated Color Solutions, Inc. and Matchprint
> Virtual Proofing System-LCD from Kodak are both SWOP (Specifications for
> Web Offset Publications) certified. The prestigious SWOP certification
> means you can use Remote Director 2.0 to approve jobs for press
> production onscreen without the need for hard-copy proofs, providing
> significant time and cost saving for print professionals.
> ICS
>
> Certified systems are capable of producing proofs visually identical to
> the SWOP Certified Press Proof as defined in ANSI CGATS TR 001, Graphic
> Technology. ICS and KPG chose Apple flat-panel displays because they are
> the only ones able to provide the luminance and color gamut ICS needs to
> create an onscreen proof that has the same brightness and feel as paper."


I'm relatively clueless but isn't SWOP really poor gamut "commercial
production" printing? I just recall seeing various gamuts & that SWOP
was the worst/lowest. I could definitely be mistaken.


--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants

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

"David Chien" <chiendh@uci.edu> wrote in message
news 5ra0c$qve$1@news.service.uci.edu...
>> Forget LCD panel monitors. They're not nearly good enough yet for
>> critical color work, and probably won't be for another 5 years or so.
>
> really!?
>
> Think not - Apple graphic designers have already thought otherwise:
>
> http://www.apple.com/displays/technology.html
>
> http://seminars.apple.com/seminarsonline/perfectcolor/a...
>
> Fact is, unless you're trying to match a NTSC TV color space (or HDTV),
> LCD monitors made today are already 'good enough' for critical color work,
> and in fact, w/o the color warm up time required of CRTs, even more stable
> over time than CRTs.
>
> "Proof Perfect
>
> In fact, Apple displays are so good at color, that you can use them in a
> SWOP-certified soft-proofing workflow. Display-based proofing systems
> Remote Director 2.0 from Integrated Color Solutions, Inc. and Matchprint
> Virtual Proofing System-LCD from Kodak are both SWOP (Specifications for
> Web Offset Publications) certified. The prestigious SWOP certification
> means you can use Remote Director 2.0 to approve jobs for press production
> onscreen without the need for hard-copy proofs, providing significant time
> and cost saving for print professionals.
> ICS
>
> Certified systems are capable of producing proofs visually identical to
> the SWOP Certified Press Proof as defined in ANSI CGATS TR 001, Graphic
> Technology. ICS and KPG chose Apple flat-panel displays because they are
> the only ones able to provide the luminance and color gamut ICS needs to
> create an onscreen proof that has the same brightness and feel as paper."



Great!

Can you tell us where we can get one of these superb displays for the $300
mentioned.

Roy G

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

Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:

> I'm relatively clueless but isn't SWOP really poor gamut "commercial
> production" printing? I just recall seeing various gamuts & that SWOP
> was the worst/lowest. I could definitely be mistaken.
>
>
> --
> Paul Furman
> http://www.edgehill.net/1
> san francisco native plants
>

Not as clueless as you think <g>. SWOP is very definitely small gamut.

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

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:jOYfe.711$i03.338@fe06.lga...
> Tom Scales wrote:
>> "Bubbabob" <rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9651B6624EA5Adilfjelfoiwepofujsdk@216.168.3.30...
>> <snip>
>> Forget LCD panel monitors. They're not nearly good enough yet for
>>
>>>critical color work, and probably won't be for another 5 years or so.
>>
>>
>>
>> Perhaps you just haven't used a good enough LCD. The good ones clearly
>> ARE good enough. My Samsung 213T, 21" LCD is stunning and flawless.
>> Incredible for photo work.
>>
>> Tom
> Most LCD monitors seem better for images than text, or better for text
> than images. It seem difficult to build one that works well for either,
> read 'difficult' as 'expensive'.
>
>
> --
> Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

Seems like Samsung has pulled it off! They're currently $599 with rebate
for a 21" LCD that is INCREDIBLE.

Tom

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

"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote:

>> --
>> Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
>
> Seems like Samsung has pulled it off! They're currently $599
> with rebate for a 21" LCD that is INCREDIBLE.
>
> Tom
>
>
>

Plus another $400+ for a calibration systen that actually works
accurately on LCD's.

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

"BubbaBob" <rnorton@_remove_this_medlab5.unm.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns9656FCDB1E6lkdfe09fgid56fvg4@216.168.3.30...
> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote:
>
>>> --
>>> Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
>>
>> Seems like Samsung has pulled it off! They're currently $599
>> with rebate for a 21" LCD that is INCREDIBLE.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>
>>
>
> Plus another $400+ for a calibration systen that actually works
> accurately on LCD's.

OK, so before you were against LCD panels because they were just bad.
Now you just say they're harder to calibrate?

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

"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote:


>
> OK, so before you were against LCD panels because they were just bad.
> Now you just say they're harder to calibrate?
>
>
>
>

I'm saying that most available calibration systems that do a reasonable
job on CRT's do a piss-poor job on LCD's. It's not an inherent problem of
the LCD display but it's an impediment to their use in critical or sub-
critical work. Even the ones that sometimes work seem to have really poor
production quality control with huge differences in performance between
two units (Color SPyder). I'm sure there is something out there that can
do consistent quality calibration on LCD's but I haven't found it yet and
I expect that it would cost as much as the display.