Re: Which type of Monitor
- From: "Burgerman" <burgerman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 14:02:45 GMT
"Joel" <Joel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:noaj14lstk791rndm5jtgk85tadifmj0gl@xxxxxxxxxx
"Burgerman" <burgerman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Joel" <Joel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> "jime" <jimeiffe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Can you REALLY edit photos on a LCD monitor as well as you can on a >> CRT
>> monitor? I would think things like sharpening would be difficult.
>> I am using a 15 year old Sony 19" that was $800 back then. It has work
>> but is starting to lose contrast. I am looking for a replacement and >> want
>> explore LCD.
>> I am interested in opinions a recomendations on make and model.
> I really want to replace CRT with LCD, and I have looked at many > different
> models (couple Sony models cost around $600-700 few years ago), but I > just
> can't stand the LCD displaying. Also, I am often working on slose-up
> portrait and zoom in 100-300% to work on skin-texture etc. and the DOT > on
> LCD is too big and visible for my taste.
The dots are pixels/transistors/points exactly the same resolution depending
on what you choose. EG 1600 x 1200 on a 21 inch monitor (20 inch visible)
gives about 18 inches width. so thats 88 dots or digital pixels per inch. On
both CRT or Flat panel They are both around 80 to 100 dpi depending on model
May be DOT isn't the right word to describe what I am talking about, and I
am not talking about the resolution but the HARDWARE (the metal screen). or
the DOT is so tiny on my CRT that nearly invisible (you have to look so
close to see very very tiny dots) when you can see clearly on LCD. Or just
like the difference between old low resolution EGA/VCD (.50-.75mm) monitor
with .21mm or .25mm average.
chosen.. About 1/3rd the resolution needed for decent printing quality. So
the only difference when viewed at 100 to 300 percent is due to the less
than perfect CRT monitors "focus". The digital connected and displayed
monitor has no error. At 100 percent view it faithfully displays what the
I am talking about zooming in to repair some skin-damaged *not* for normal
viewing and normally don't have much to do with printing as I normally
retouch for large print (up to around 20x30" or so), but most of them won't
be printed larger than 8x10" or 8x12"
pixels in the cameras sensor captured. The camera takes for example in my
case 4288 picel wide pictures. At 100 percent I would need a display
resolution to be the same size to display the while picture at once. On my
1920 wide 24 inch monitor that would be 2.23 monitors wide. And deep. So I
see a faithful reproduction of a little less than 1/4 of the photos are. I
would need 4 monitors to see the (almost) complete picture. And the exact
same thing applies to a CRT monitor. The difference isnt dot size but a
smoother "look" due to less accurate analog convertion. But its an effect.
Its not real as the file does consist of what you see on the sharper LCD
screen. This only applies to digitally connected monitors not to analog CRT
Also, I am not talking about the displaying resolution of neither image
nor displaying, but I am talking about the HARDWARE.
OK, I just found an article and it mentions DOT PITCH and this is what I
was trying to say.
Here, more people misunderstood or didn't give the answer the OP had in
mind. Yup! they talked about Dot Pitch (of CRT) but don't seem to see the
DOTs on the LCD monitor (metal screen)
Read it carefully. Thats what I already said and I quote from that article:
"The dot pitch translates directly to the resolution on the screen. If you were to put a ruler up to the glass and measure an inch, you would see a certain number of dots, depending on the dot pitch. Here is a table that shows the number of dots per square centimeter and per square inch in each of these common dot pitches:"
"No, it's not the same situation with CRTs. On a CRT display the dot pitch is a physical parameter of the tube, and the display resolution is set by the video output of the computer, up to a certain maximum. One pixel from the computer will not line up exactly with the phosphor patterns and may cover several dots. For an LCD panel running at best quality the dot pitch will match the the resolution of the video output exactly. One pixel from the computer displays on one and only one physical RGB pixel on the screen.
"If both screens have the same display resolution (1440 x 900, or whateever they might be) then the one with the smaller dot pitch will be physically smaller than the other".
Dot pitch IS the resolution. If you had a 1024 pixel (or dot pitch - same thing) on a 24 inch LCD the "dots" or pixels would be very far apart and you would see them. Its entirely possible to have an LCD screen (like my sony laptop for eg) with a 17 inch screen and a 1280 resolution. OR at more expense which added 450 pounds to the price the same laptop is with 1920 (x1200) wide screen! Thats a finer dot pitch than any Cathode ray monitor than I have ever seen.
In other words any two monitors with the same sized veiwable screen and the same say 1024 resolution have the SAME dot pitch as each other by definition! In other words exactly what I already said in a previous post!
Except that if you try to display a typical 1600 x 1200 on a old analog Cathode ray tube the pixel output from the computer never actually matches the dots on the screen. You nesassarily get a mismatch that softens the image as its no longer a 1 to 1 pixel to display. The LCD is therefore sharper and more accurate but you "see" this accuracy as dots?
more .. also, I read an article says most LCD has dot pitch between .26 -
.29 which seems pretty right, but it seems that the LCD shows more visible
than CRT (or I can even see smaller dots inside bigger dot)
.. and lot more but I think we get the idea. Or to me, right now most
average LCD may be ok for text or graphic displaying, but for close-up
retouching the large dot pitch (I read LCD doesn't use Dot Pitch but you
know what I mean) still bother me quite a bit, and that's the only reasons
why I am still using CRT even I really like the space saver of LCD.
You really should try my monitor. Its sharper and cleaner and shows less "dots" than my old Trinitron tubed 21 inch HP monitors. You have been looking at low resolution large screen monitoirs I think.
My laptop for eg has 1920 pixels in less than 13.5 inches wide screen...
Thats WAY WAY tighter than any old school cathode ray tube. They are from 70 to 100 max.
You couldnt see a dot or pixel with a magnifying glass.
Thats around 140 pixels to an inch!
Thats exactly double what the performance bikes magazine that I used to work for gets printed at...
Now the same 1920 on widescreen 24 inch monitor that I am using right now gives a true 20 inch horizontal width.
So if you get close enough you CAN see pixels. Just. Because now the dot pitch is 96. But you really have to try and so close you cant see anything other than the tiny spot you are staring at. And with my D300 images at 100 percent that would be pixel to pixel so you cannot get any bigger. That would be 40+ inches wide. At 100 percent. At 300 percent (which is pointless as each camera pixel would be 9 identical monitor pixels) the image would be as big as a wall! So would you study a poster on a billboard, wall sixed, for pixels?
I am not even talking about color
> which I never tried to have any experience.
> I read some mentioned about the professional LCD which costs around
> $3000-5000 for the 19-20" model which is too expensive. And I read > some
> mentions they are happy or happier with their LCD than CRT, but I don't
> how they use theirs.
- Re: Which type of Monitor
- From: Burgerman
- Re: Which type of Monitor