Re: Which type of Monitor
- From: "Peter" <peternew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 10:19:58 -0400
"Joel" <Joel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:noaj14lstk791rndm5jtgk85tadifmj0gl@xxxxxxxxxx
"Burgerman" <burgerman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Joel" <Joel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:499i149660p5i6bi9dnplvo9hg499t8n3q@xxxxxxxxxx
> "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
>> well
>> but is starting to lose contrast. I am looking for a replacement and >> want
>> to
>> 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
style connection.
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.
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/question401.htm
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)
http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00LuHY
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)
http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum105/211.htm
http://www.epinions.com/cmd-review-8CA-A5976C0-39455FB8-prod2
http://www.epinions.com/cmd-review-8CA-A5976C0-39455FB8-prod2
.. 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.
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
> know
> how they use theirs.
You may have a technical point, but the answer may well be in the eye of the user. I have a 21" Viewsonic on which I cannot see any dots. I blow the image up to show pixels for the type of repair work you refer to and have not had that annoyance.
During my trial period for the monitor, I compared it side, by side with a LaCie CRT and found no real difference, except for the ambient light protection from the hood. For the difference in price I bought myself a good Spyder calibrator, had a hood fashioned and had enough left over for a new Nikkor 12-24 lens.
YMMV
--
Peter
.
- References:
- Re: Which type of Monitor
- From: Burgerman
- Re: Which type of Monitor
- Prev by Date: Re: Which type of Monitor
- Next by Date: The zoo of Hieronymus Bosch
- Previous by thread: Re: Which type of Monitor
- Next by thread: Re: Which type of Monitor
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
