Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Wanted: advice on monitor for photo editing.

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
September 19, 2005 2:47:35 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I'm in dire need of a new faster computer for digital photo work.
I was planning on getting a PowerMac G5 ( but now I'm hearing
rumors of new systems coming out soon, so I may wait a month or so ).
I'm not so concerned about the computer itself, but of the monitor.
I'd like to get a large LCD about 23" or so. I've seen the Apple
monitor at the Apple store and it looks much nicer that my current CRT.
I'm a bit concerned about the price. Also I would save about $370
in sales tax ( for the complete system ) if I mail order, but I am
worried about bad pixels on the display. Are there other users of this
display that can comment on bad pixels? Dell has some interesting
options. Their 2405FPW is about $500 less and it's about an inch
bigger. Can anyone with first hand experience with this display
comment on it? I would like to skip CRTs because of space
requirements. What other displays do others recommend? Any advice
would be appreciated. Thanks.


Woggy
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
September 20, 2005 12:01:35 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 9/19/05 12:47 PM, in article
1127152055.049093.256740@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "iwoggy64@yahoo.com"
<iwoggy64@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I'm in dire need of a new faster computer for digital photo work.
> I was planning on getting a PowerMac G5 ( but now I'm hearing
> rumors of new systems coming out soon, so I may wait a month or so ).
> I'm not so concerned about the computer itself, but of the monitor.
> I'd like to get a large LCD about 23" or so. I've seen the Apple
> monitor at the Apple store and it looks much nicer that my current CRT.
> I'm a bit concerned about the price. Also I would save about $370
> in sales tax ( for the complete system ) if I mail order, but I am
> worried about bad pixels on the display. Are there other users of this
> display that can comment on bad pixels? Dell has some interesting
> options. Their 2405FPW is about $500 less and it's about an inch
> bigger. Can anyone with first hand experience with this display
> comment on it? I would like to skip CRTs because of space
> requirements. What other displays do others recommend? Any advice
> would be appreciated. Thanks.
>
>
> Woggy
>

I have an Apple 23 in. HD LCD display and it has zero bad pixels that I have
observed. Of course that is one display and is no guarantee of the quality
of a display that you might purchase. I would recommend you purchase from a
dealer with a good return policy so that you can return any display with
which you are dissatisfied. As far as Apple warrantee policy is concerned
they will not replace monitors with just a few bad pixels. That is why I
say (specially if you are fussy) that a purchase from a dealer with a great
return policy is a good idea. I am not sure exactly what the policy of
Apple's stores is, that is if they will take back a monitor that you are
dissatisfied with or if they use the same rules as Apple's warrantee.
Chuck
September 20, 2005 12:21:37 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<iwoggy64@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1127152055.049093.256740@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I'm in dire need of a new faster computer for digital photo work.
> I was planning on getting a PowerMac G5 ( but now I'm hearing
> rumors of new systems coming out soon, so I may wait a month or so ).
> I'm not so concerned about the computer itself, but of the monitor.
> I'd like to get a large LCD about 23" or so. I've seen the Apple
> monitor at the Apple store and it looks much nicer that my current CRT.
> I'm a bit concerned about the price. Also I would save about $370
> in sales tax ( for the complete system ) if I mail order, but I am
> worried about bad pixels on the display. Are there other users of this
> display that can comment on bad pixels? Dell has some interesting
> options. Their 2405FPW is about $500 less and it's about an inch
> bigger. Can anyone with first hand experience with this display
> comment on it? I would like to skip CRTs because of space
> requirements. What other displays do others recommend? Any advice
> would be appreciated. Thanks.

If cost is a concern at all, an LCD monitor is the last thing you
should buy. You'll get 2, maybe 3 years tops before the
backlight has faded to a point where it's essentially useless for
graphic editing.

Unless you have the budget to replace them every few years,
the only thing dumber than buying an LCD is buying an
expensive LCD.

22" CRTs are going for dirt cheap these days and you'll get
at least 4-5 years out of them, probably more.
Related resources
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
September 20, 2005 3:00:11 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Entity Peter spoke thus:

>> I am
>> worried about bad pixels on the display. Are there other users of this
>> display that can comment on bad pixels?
I have had the ADC flat panel for 5 years and abused it unbelievably and it
has never had a bad pixel.

>> Dell has some interesting
>> options. Their 2405FPW is about $500 less and it's about an inch
>> bigger. Can anyone with first hand experience with this display
>> comment on it?
You're not going to have software control over the display with a Dell LCD.
By that I mean brightness control, resolution, color profiles, etc.

>> What other displays do others recommend? Any advice
>> would be appreciated. Thanks.
The Sony X-Brite SDM-HS95P is pretty unusual, it has amazing brightness for
an LCD and an antiglare surface. Still, it's only a VGA interface.

> If cost is a concern at all, an LCD monitor is the last thing you
> should buy. You'll get 2, maybe 3 years tops before the
> backlight has faded to a point where it's essentially useless for
> graphic editing.
What? I am using the very first LCD Apple sold and it is as bright as the
day I bought it after 5 years.

> Unless you have the budget to replace them every few years,
> the only thing dumber than buying an LCD is buying an
> expensive LCD.
What kind of advice is this? There is nothing "dumb" about buying a good
LCD.

> 22" CRTs are going for dirt cheap these days and you'll get
> at least 4-5 years out of them, probably more.
That may be true initially, but then you have huge power consumption, heat
radiation, lack of software control, eye fatigue from electron bombardment,
a huge footprint and other limitation's I'm tired of mentioning.

-- Gnarlie
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
September 20, 2005 3:15:14 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>-Not to mention the complete lack of eye-straining flicker on an LCD...and
>sharpness that doesn't vary--accross the entire screen. CRTs flicker and
>tend to have sharpness sweet-spots...along with fuzzy corners.
>
>If a person really needs a lower resolution for some odd reason (like lowly
>DVD playback previews??????), it costs about $60 to have a second brand new
>smaller CRT for a dual monitor display...or...just get a second lower-res
>LCD. This makes for a nice system, since you don't need high res for
>palettes, e-mail, web, etc.

I wouldn't touch another CRT if possible...

A pair of 19" LCD's on a dual monitor system is a delight!

--
FloydL. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
September 20, 2005 3:16:16 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Gnarlodious" <gnarlodious@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:BF549F0D.132EF%gnarlodious@yahoo.com...
> Entity Peter spoke thus:
> > If cost is a concern at all, an LCD monitor is the last thing you
> > should buy. You'll get 2, maybe 3 years tops before the
> > backlight has faded to a point where it's essentially useless for
> > graphic editing.
> What? I am using the very first LCD Apple sold and it is as bright as the
> day I bought it after 5 years.

No it isn't. That's a physical impossibility. No one has yet
developed a fluorescent bulb that maintains the same brightness
for 2 years, let alone 5. Fluorescent bulbs lose 50% of their
brightness within the first 3 years, and if you try and color
correct an image with lots of near blacks you'll see this for
yourself.

> > Unless you have the budget to replace them every few years,
> > the only thing dumber than buying an LCD is buying an
> > expensive LCD.
> What kind of advice is this? There is nothing "dumb" about buying a good
> LCD.

Until LED technology is ready for prime time, yeah it is dumb.
LCDs are great for text work, or for non-critical image editing.

> > 22" CRTs are going for dirt cheap these days and you'll get
> > at least 4-5 years out of them, probably more.
> That may be true initially, but then you have huge power consumption, heat
> radiation, lack of software control, eye fatigue from electron bombardment,
> a huge footprint and other limitation's I'm tired of mentioning.

Lack of software control? Get real. A CRT supports any
number of resolutions, refresh rates etc, not to mention their
wider color gamut (at least on decent models).
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
September 20, 2005 3:16:17 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <4FHXe.1000$q1.558@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, Peter
<nospamplease@rsii.net> wrote:

> > What? I am using the very first LCD Apple sold and it is as bright as the
> > day I bought it after 5 years.

> No it isn't. That's a physical impossibility. No one has yet
> developed a fluorescent bulb that maintains the same brightness
> for 2 years, let alone 5. Fluorescent bulbs lose 50% of their
> brightness within the first 3 years, and if you try and color
> correct an image with lots of near blacks you'll see this for
> yourself.

nobody has made a monitor that doesn't fade either. after a couple of
years, monitors are no longer suitable for critical color work. in
many cases, they become impossible to calibrate because the monitor
cannot be adjusted to compensate for the changes. monitors also drift
during normal operation which is why it is recommended to let a monitor
'warm up' for an hour or so before attempting to do a calibration.

> Until LED technology is ready for prime time, yeah it is dumb.
> LCDs are great for text work, or for non-critical image editing.

totally false.

> Lack of software control? Get real. A CRT supports any
> number of resolutions, refresh rates etc, not to mention their
> wider color gamut (at least on decent models).

why would one want a lower resolution than the maximum? might as well
buy a lower resolution monitor and save money. in any event, current
professional lcd monitors are excellent and your claims that lcds are
less capable are representative of older and/or budget lcds.
September 20, 2005 4:12:48 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:190920051641592138%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <4FHXe.1000$q1.558@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, Peter
> <nospamplease@rsii.net> wrote:
>
> > > What? I am using the very first LCD Apple sold and it is as bright as the
> > > day I bought it after 5 years.
>
> > No it isn't. That's a physical impossibility. No one has yet
> > developed a fluorescent bulb that maintains the same brightness
> > for 2 years, let alone 5. Fluorescent bulbs lose 50% of their
> > brightness within the first 3 years, and if you try and color
> > correct an image with lots of near blacks you'll see this for
> > yourself.
>
> nobody has made a monitor that doesn't fade either. after a couple of
> years, monitors are no longer suitable for critical color work.

That last part is absolute nonsense. I routinely see 6, 7 and 8
year-old Diamondtrons and Trinitrons whicht are still perfectly
calibrated and still have perfectly usable gamut range. Tubes do
fade, but the curve is much, much less pronounced than LCD
backlights.

> in
> many cases, they become impossible to calibrate because the monitor
> cannot be adjusted to compensate for the changes. monitors also drift
> during normal operation which is why it is recommended to let a monitor
> 'warm up' for an hour or so before attempting to do a calibration.

True for low-end CRTs, not for decent CRTs.

> > Until LED technology is ready for prime time, yeah it is dumb.
> > LCDs are great for text work, or for non-critical image editing.
>
> totally false.
>
> > Lack of software control? Get real. A CRT supports any
> > number of resolutions, refresh rates etc, not to mention their
> > wider color gamut (at least on decent models).
>
> why would one want a lower resolution than the maximum?

Huh? When you can put your LCD into 2048x1536 mode to
properly preview page layouts, or reduce it to 800x600 to
maximize DVD playback screens, or any one of 1000 other
cases where resolution changes are useful, please let us know.

> might as well
> buy a lower resolution monitor and save money. in any event, current
> professional lcd monitors are excellent and your claims that lcds are
> less capable are representative of older and/or budget lcds.

Nope. You'll need to spend 3-4x as much to get equivalent
performance out of the box as a good $700 Diamondtron CRT.
And that's not even taking into account the backlight fading over
time.
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
September 20, 2005 4:12:49 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <4uIXe.1037$q1.764@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, Peter
<nospamplease@rsii.net> wrote:

> > nobody has made a monitor that doesn't fade either. after a couple of
> > years, monitors are no longer suitable for critical color work.
>
> That last part is absolute nonsense. I routinely see 6, 7 and 8
> year-old Diamondtrons and Trinitrons whicht are still perfectly
> calibrated and still have perfectly usable gamut range.

how are you measuring this 'perfectly usable gamut range' ? and how
often do you calibrate these monitors and with what device?

> Tubes do
> fade, but the curve is much, much less pronounced than LCD
> backlights.

cite a source.

> > in
> > many cases, they become impossible to calibrate because the monitor
> > cannot be adjusted to compensate for the changes. monitors also drift
> > during normal operation which is why it is recommended to let a monitor
> > 'warm up' for an hour or so before attempting to do a calibration.
>
> True for low-end CRTs, not for decent CRTs.

all crts require a warm up period. this is a difference that can be
measured. for color critical work, it is vital.

> > why would one want a lower resolution than the maximum?
>
> Huh? When you can put your LCD into 2048x1536 mode to
> properly preview page layouts, or reduce it to 800x600 to
> maximize DVD playback screens, or any one of 1000 other
> cases where resolution changes are useful, please let us know.

dvd playback can utilize full screen regardless of monitor resolution
so there is no need to switch resolutions. what are the other 999
cases?

> > might as well
> > buy a lower resolution monitor and save money. in any event, current
> > professional lcd monitors are excellent and your claims that lcds are
> > less capable are representative of older and/or budget lcds.
>
> Nope. You'll need to spend 3-4x as much to get equivalent
> performance out of the box as a good $700 Diamondtron CRT.
> And that's not even taking into account the backlight fading over
> time.

lcds do cost more than a monitor of the same resolution but offer other
benefits such as smaller physical space, brighter image, less heat,
lower power consumption and longer life. for a lot of people, that is
worth it.
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
September 20, 2005 4:12:50 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

nospam wrote:
> In article <4uIXe.1037$q1.764@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, Peter
> <nospamplease@rsii.net> wrote:
>
>>> nobody has made a monitor that doesn't fade either. after a couple
>>> of years, monitors are no longer suitable for critical color work.
>>
>> That last part is absolute nonsense. I routinely see 6, 7 and 8
>> year-old Diamondtrons and Trinitrons whicht are still perfectly
>> calibrated and still have perfectly usable gamut range.
>
> how are you measuring this 'perfectly usable gamut range' ? and how
> often do you calibrate these monitors and with what device?
>
>> Tubes do
>> fade, but the curve is much, much less pronounced than LCD
>> backlights.
>
> cite a source.
>
>>> in
>>> many cases, they become impossible to calibrate because the monitor
>>> cannot be adjusted to compensate for the changes. monitors also
>>> drift during normal operation which is why it is recommended to let
>>> a monitor 'warm up' for an hour or so before attempting to do a
>>> calibration.
>>
>> True for low-end CRTs, not for decent CRTs.
>
> all crts require a warm up period. this is a difference that can be
> measured. for color critical work, it is vital.
>
>>> why would one want a lower resolution than the maximum?
>>
>> Huh? When you can put your LCD into 2048x1536 mode to
>> properly preview page layouts, or reduce it to 800x600 to
>> maximize DVD playback screens, or any one of 1000 other
>> cases where resolution changes are useful, please let us know.
>
> dvd playback can utilize full screen regardless of monitor resolution
> so there is no need to switch resolutions. what are the other 999
> cases?
>
>>> might as well
>>> buy a lower resolution monitor and save money. in any event,
>>> current professional lcd monitors are excellent and your claims
>>> that lcds are less capable are representative of older and/or
>>> budget lcds.
>>
>> Nope. You'll need to spend 3-4x as much to get equivalent
>> performance out of the box as a good $700 Diamondtron CRT.
>> And that's not even taking into account the backlight fading over
>> time.
>
> lcds do cost more than a monitor of the same resolution but offer
> other benefits such as smaller physical space, brighter image, less
> heat, lower power consumption and longer life. for a lot of people,
> that is worth it.

-Not to mention the complete lack of eye-straining flicker on an LCD...and
sharpness that doesn't vary--accross the entire screen. CRTs flicker and
tend to have sharpness sweet-spots...along with fuzzy corners.

If a person really needs a lower resolution for some odd reason (like lowly
DVD playback previews??????), it costs about $60 to have a second brand new
smaller CRT for a dual monitor display...or...just get a second lower-res
LCD. This makes for a nice system, since you don't need high res for
palettes, e-mail, web, etc.
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
September 20, 2005 5:02:33 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 9/19/05 7:12 PM, in article
4uIXe.1037$q1.764@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net, "Peter"
<nospamplease@rsii.net> wrote:


>> might as well
>> buy a lower resolution monitor and save money. in any event, current
>> professional lcd monitors are excellent and your claims that lcds are
>> less capable are representative of older and/or budget lcds.
>
> Nope. You'll need to spend 3-4x as much to get equivalent
> performance out of the box as a good $700 Diamondtron CRT.
> And that's not even taking into account the backlight fading over
> time.
>
>
And the debate rages on . . .!! If one reads the archives of some of the
graphics/photography/Photoshop groups, where some folks make a living doing
critical photo work, you will find continuing arguments regarding CRT's vs.
LCD's. However, most (and I emphasize most - not all) believe that the high
end LCD's are now every bit the match for CRT's. Cheap LCD's are another
matter!
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
September 20, 2005 5:02:34 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"C Wright" <wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com> wrote in message
news:BF54C9D7.3C743%wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com...
> On 9/19/05 7:12 PM, in article
> 4uIXe.1037$q1.764@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net, "Peter"
> <nospamplease@rsii.net> wrote:
>
>
> >> might as well
> >> buy a lower resolution monitor and save money. in any event, current
> >> professional lcd monitors are excellent and your claims that lcds are
> >> less capable are representative of older and/or budget lcds.
> >
> > Nope. You'll need to spend 3-4x as much to get equivalent
> > performance out of the box as a good $700 Diamondtron CRT.
> > And that's not even taking into account the backlight fading over
> > time.
> >
> >
> And the debate rages on . . .!! If one reads the archives of some of the
> graphics/photography/Photoshop groups, where some folks make a living
doing
> critical photo work, you will find continuing arguments regarding CRT's
vs.
> LCD's. However, most (and I emphasize most - not all) believe that the
high
> end LCD's are now every bit the match for CRT's.

Except for this part of Peter's last post:

"Huh? When you can put your LCD into 2048x1536 mode to
properly preview page layouts, or reduce it to 800x600 to
maximize DVD playback screens, or any one of 1000 other
cases where resolution changes are useful, please let us know."

Greg
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
September 20, 2005 1:16:15 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Peter wrote:
>
>
> If cost is a concern at all, an LCD monitor is the last thing you
> should buy. You'll get 2, maybe 3 years tops before the
> backlight has faded to a point where it's essentially useless for
> graphic editing.
>
Bad news!
What factors influence this aging? Are the 3 years for 'average' office hours
usage? What about using the LCD at lower brightness?

-- Hans
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
September 20, 2005 1:16:16 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

HvdV wrote:
> Peter wrote:
>>
>>
>> If cost is a concern at all, an LCD monitor is the last thing you
>> should buy. You'll get 2, maybe 3 years tops before the
>> backlight has faded to a point where it's essentially useless for
>> graphic editing.
>>
> Bad news!
> What factors influence this aging? Are the 3 years for 'average'
> office hours usage? What about using the LCD at lower brightness?
>
> -- Hans

Take heart.
He is mostly full of doo-doo in this discussion.
September 20, 2005 2:00:04 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"HvdV" <nohanz@svi.nl> wrote in message news:c2df7$432fb73f$3e3aaa83$12766@news.versatel.net...
> Peter wrote:
> >
> > If cost is a concern at all, an LCD monitor is the last thing you
> > should buy. You'll get 2, maybe 3 years tops before the
> > backlight has faded to a point where it's essentially useless for
> > graphic editing.
> >
> Bad news!
> What factors influence this aging? Are the 3 years for 'average' office hours
> usage? What about using the LCD at lower brightness?

The ratings are based on POH (power-on hours). Most
consumer LCD backlights are rated for 10,000 hours,
which works out to about 14 months of use. There's not
much you can do to extend this usable lifespan.

BTW this Mark person is utterly clueless. I'm not going to
waste any effort answering his drivel. Suffice it to say
there's a definite reason (actually reasons) why most LCDs
have one-year warranties while decent CRTs have
three-year warranties.
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
September 20, 2005 9:23:45 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> I wouldn't touch another CRT if possible...
>
> A pair of 19" LCD's on a dual monitor system is a delight!

What is the max res you can get on an LCD these days...the Apple 23" for
example?
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
September 20, 2005 9:24:29 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Entity Peter spoke thus:

> The ratings are based on POH (power-on hours). Most
> consumer LCD backlights are rated for 10,000 hours,
> which works out to about 14 months of use. There's not
> much you can do to extend this usable lifespan.
Utter nonsense. The OP posted to an Apple newsgroup, if you expect 14 months
from your Windows LCD maybe you should consider Apple products so you can
get your money's worth and stop buying landfill material.

-- Gnarlie's Applescript page:
http://Gnarlodious.com/Apple/AppleScript/
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
September 20, 2005 9:45:47 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Peter <nospamplease@rsii.net> wrote:
>"HvdV" <nohanz@svi.nl> wrote in message news:c2df7$432fb73f$3e3aaa83$12766@news.versatel.net...
>> Peter wrote:
>> >
>> > If cost is a concern at all, an LCD monitor is the last thing you
>> > should buy. You'll get 2, maybe 3 years tops before the
>> > backlight has faded to a point where it's essentially useless for
>> > graphic editing.
>> >
>> Bad news!
>> What factors influence this aging? Are the 3 years for 'average' office hours
>> usage? What about using the LCD at lower brightness?
>
>The ratings are based on POH (power-on hours). Most
>consumer LCD backlights are rated for 10,000 hours,
>which works out to about 14 months of use. There's not
>much you can do to extend this usable lifespan.

And CRTs are subject to burn in, fading phosphors, fading electron
guns, and color shifts over time. Nothing lasts forever.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
September 21, 2005 12:28:19 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <sTOXe.24175$sx2.10183@fed1read02>,
Mark² <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>HvdV wrote:
>> Peter wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> If cost is a concern at all, an LCD monitor is the last thing you
>>> should buy. You'll get 2, maybe 3 years tops before the
>>> backlight has faded to a point where it's essentially useless for
>>> graphic editing.

>> Bad news!
>> What factors influence this aging? Are the 3 years for 'average'
>> office hours usage? What about using the LCD at lower brightness?

>Take heart.
>He is mostly full of doo-doo in this discussion.

Well, LCD backlights do fade. But CRT phosphors fade too; I've got a
couple of old monitors which demonstrate that pretty well.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
September 21, 2005 12:35:24 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Gnarlodious" <gnarlodious@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:BF55A1E6.133B5%gnarlodious@yahoo.com...
> Entity Peter spoke thus:
>
> > The ratings are based on POH (power-on hours). Most
> > consumer LCD backlights are rated for 10,000 hours,
> > which works out to about 14 months of use. There's not
> > much you can do to extend this usable lifespan.
> Utter nonsense. The OP posted to an Apple newsgroup, if you expect 14 months
> from your Windows LCD maybe you should consider Apple products so you can
> get your money's worth and stop buying landfill material.

If you're referring to Apple's Cinema Displays, there's nothing
special about those backlights. Even Apple's high-end 23/30"
models have only a one-year warranty.

If you want to spend the better part of $3K for a monitor with
a one-year warranty, not to mention inferior brightness/contrast
specs compared to a $700 Diamondtron, more power to you.
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
September 21, 2005 3:02:13 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"John Ortt" <johnortt@noemailsuppliedasdontwantspam.com> wrote:
>> I wouldn't touch another CRT if possible...
>>
>> A pair of 19" LCD's on a dual monitor system is a delight!
>
>What is the max res you can get on an LCD these days...the Apple 23" for
>example?

I don't know. But the two 19" LCD's that I use are each
1280x1024; hence what I'm using is a 1280x2048 display. In this
case, these are relatively the cheapest reasonable 19" LCD's
that I could find. They replaced a couple of fairly nice 17"
CRTs, one by ViewSonic and the other by Hitachi. Even an analog
interface on the LCD is better than the CRT in most ways (less
distortion, sharper image, etc), but a digital connection is
distinctly better. When I first put these into service, one
look convinced me to buy a second video card to provide both
LCDs with a digital connection.

Regardless there are a number of high res LCD monitors available
in various sizes. A seach with google turned up these examples:

Manufacturer size resolution contrast
Eizo 19" 1280x1024 1000:1
NEC 20" 1600x1200 600:1
ViewSonic 21" 1600x1200 600:1
Planar 23" 1920x1200 800:1
Samsung 24" 1920x1200 500:1
Sharp 26" 1366x768 800:1
Apple 30" 2560x1600 400:1
NEC 40" 1600x1200 600:1

Obviously there are many other models, but these were selected
as being the highest resolution and/or highest contrast in each
size. Typically the resolution is what most manufacturers make
for that screen size, but the contrast ratios listed represent
more of a "high water mark", with most other models being lower
(e.g., typically 500:1). Prices, of course, went from high to
out of sight!

--
FloydL. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
September 21, 2005 10:47:33 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

John Ortt wrote
(in article <43303516$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net>):

>
>> I wouldn't touch another CRT if possible...
>>
>> A pair of 19" LCD's on a dual monitor system is a delight!
>
> What is the max res you can get on an LCD these days...the Apple 23" for
> example?

Take a look at the Apple 30" cinema display. It's way up there.
The Apple 23" and Dell 2405 are both what, 1920x1200?

Imagine running two of them side by side. :-)


--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
September 21, 2005 10:55:24 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² wrote
(in article <aO1Ye.24233$sx2.3368@fed1read02>):

> I have never maintained color-matching as well and as consitently as I have
> with my 20" 1600x1200 LCD, and I've had many quality CRTs.

You're lucky. I have a 5-yr-old 1600x1200 20" LCD panel, that
cost a small fortune back in the day, that is faded to almost
unusable, and there is NO way to get a pure white out of it
anymore, the best you can hope for is about a #FFFFEE. When I
first got it, it was staggeringly beautiful. No amount of
calibration effort can get it looking good anymore. If you
think you can fix it, I'll make you a heck of a deal on it. :-)
It also has a very annoying left-right brightness variation
which is incredibly noticeable on solid color backgrounds, and
requires a pretty aggressive background image to disguise. I'm
not sure exactly when that started creeping in.

I got a new 1920x1200 flat panel shortly after I bought my Mac,
and they're not even close to looking the same. I had intended
to use them side by side in a dual-monitor config, but I can't
stand to look at the old one anymore, it's simply horrid after
getting something better to compare to it. It creeps up on you
over time and you don't notice it until suddenly you get a brand
new one to compare with.

To be fair, 1600x1200 was fairly new and rare 5 years ago in
LCD, so they might be made better today. I certainly hope so,
after what I spent on this last one.



--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
September 21, 2005 2:13:30 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"John Ortt" <johnortt@noemailsuppliedasdontwantspam.com> wrote:
>Cheers Floyd, It's been a while since I have been in the market and they
>appear to have moved on quite a bit since I last looked.
>
>Unfortunately my savings account hasn't so I'll have to stick to CRT for a
>while yet :) 

One of the interesting (to me at least) points this thread has
demonstrated is that LCDs have taken over the middle ground, but
CRTs still have a firm grasp on the high end and the low end.

If money is the only consideration, buy a cheap CRT. It will be
good enough, and can be replaced every two years for the same
price as owning an LCD.

If performance is the only consideration, buy the best CRT. It
will perform better than an LCD, and can be replaced on a
regular basis for less than the price of the best LCDs.

If desk space, weight, and heat are problems worth spending
money to avoid, LCDs are preferable as long as a medium-high
limit on performance is acceptable.

In certain odd situations the scale is tipped by things that
might not be a consideration for others. For example, in my
case it was clear (a while back) that my old 17" CRTs need
replacement, and that I could afford a pair of larger monitors;
the price consideration that you see as making CRTs preferable
was exactly the *opposite* in my case, simply because shipping
two 19" CRTs to Barrow is more costly than the purchase price
difference for comparable quality monitors! (In fact I brought
them to Barrow as free luggage instead of paying $125 each that
it would have cost with CRTs.) Most people would not have that
circumstance to tip the balance.

>"Floyd Davidson" <floyd@barrow.com> wrote:
>> "John Ortt" <johnortt@noemailsuppliedasdontwantspam.com> wrote:
>
>> Obviously there are many other models, but these were selected
>> as being the highest resolution and/or highest contrast in each
>> size. Typically the resolution is what most manufacturers make
>> for that screen size, but the contrast ratios listed represent
>> more of a "high water mark", with most other models being lower
>> (e.g., typically 500:1). Prices, of course, went from high to
>> out of sight!

--
FloydL. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
September 21, 2005 5:13:46 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Cheers Floyd, It's been a while since I have been in the market and they
appear to have moved on quite a bit since I last looked.

Unfortunately my savings account hasn't so I'll have to stick to CRT for a
while yet :) 

"Floyd Davidson" <floyd@barrow.com> wrote in message
news:87vf0u3nuy.fld@barrow.com...
> "John Ortt" <johnortt@noemailsuppliedasdontwantspam.com> wrote:

> Obviously there are many other models, but these were selected
> as being the highest resolution and/or highest contrast in each
> size. Typically the resolution is what most manufacturers make
> for that screen size, but the contrast ratios listed represent
> more of a "high water mark", with most other models being lower
> (e.g., typically 500:1). Prices, of course, went from high to
> out of sight!
>
> --
> FloydL. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
September 21, 2005 7:17:24 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 2005-09-19 23:21:37 +0300, "Peter" <nospamplease@rsii.net> said:

> <iwoggy64@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1127152055.049093.256740@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> I'm in dire need of a new faster computer for digital photo work.
>> I was planning on getting a PowerMac G5 ( but now I'm hearing
>> rumors of new systems coming out soon, so I may wait a month or so ).
>> I'm not so concerned about the computer itself, but of the monitor.
>> I'd like to get a large LCD about 23" or so. I've seen the Apple
>> monitor at the Apple store and it looks much nicer that my current CRT.
>> I'm a bit concerned about the price. Also I would save about $370
>> in sales tax ( for the complete system ) if I mail order, but I am
>> worried about bad pixels on the display. Are there other users of this
>> display that can comment on bad pixels? Dell has some interesting
>> options. Their 2405FPW is about $500 less and it's about an inch
>> bigger. Can anyone with first hand experience with this display
>> comment on it? I would like to skip CRTs because of space
>> requirements. What other displays do others recommend? Any advice
>> would be appreciated. Thanks.
>
> If cost is a concern at all, an LCD monitor is the last thing you
> should buy. You'll get 2, maybe 3 years tops before the
> backlight has faded to a point where it's essentially useless for
> graphic editing.
>
> Unless you have the budget to replace them every few years,
> the only thing dumber than buying an LCD is buying an
> expensive LCD.
>
> 22" CRTs are going for dirt cheap these days and you'll get
> at least 4-5 years out of them, probably more.

I know lots of people in movie editing and they select CRT over LCD.
Its not price of course, they use them on $200.000 AVID machines.

LCD has a problem with displaying pure white and also calibration.

Only good thing about LCD is desktop space.

I use a 19" Samsung SyncMaster 957DF for 5 or more years without a
glitch. Even something bad happens, my next monitor will be a Samsung
CRT too.

I can buy a 15" LCD as a secondary monitor.

New CRT monitors doesn't require too much space, if you can check.

Ilgaz
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
September 21, 2005 9:39:32 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Cost
> Moderate
> Low

I would change that to:

Cost
High
Low

I don't see wow you can view LCD displays as moderately priced when it is
pretty much at the top of the technology foodchain.
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
September 21, 2005 10:38:50 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

John Ortt wrote:
>> Cost
>> Moderate
>> Low
>
> I would change that to:
>
> Cost
> High
> Low
>
> I don't see wow you can view LCD displays as moderately priced when
> it is pretty much at the top of the technology foodchain.

They have come **WAY** down.

I paid $1400 for my current LCD two years ago.
The same exact model still sells, but for $699.
We're talking about IDENTICAL product.

Just about exactly HALF price in less than two years.
!