Re: Which type of Monitor
- From: "Burgerman" <burgerman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 09:16:31 GMT
"Joel" <Joel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:q1pk1419mmvctu8l556vgd61vbc42oig7m@xxxxxxxxxx
"Burgerman" <burgerman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Joel" <Joel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:rcrj149cg3bq9uttmvan33pmb0nqesk05r@xxxxxxxxxx
> Joel <Joel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> ray <ray@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:27:55 -0400, jime 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.
>> >
>> > After moving to my 20" widescreen LCD, I'll never go back - even if >> > it
>> > were suboptimal for photo editing. I find it works quite well.
>>
>> Of course most people won't go back. But I wonder do you see those
>> visible large dot pitch?
>>
>> I am portrait retoucher, and I often looking at the skin-texture like
>> seeing under magnifier glass, and that is similar to what I see on LCD
>> monitor (except around 1/2-1/4 smaller when I zoom in, but sharper).
>>
>> Hmmm it actually don't look like skin-texture, but something like >> those
>> circles or almost square (?) below
>>
>> oooooooo
>> oooooooo
>> oooooooo
>> oooooooo
>>
>> Except skin-texture is much softer, and more like a mold than hollow
>> circle.
>
> I may wanna add more comparison between the Dot Pitch I see between > most
> LCD montiors I have checked at local stores to the dot pitch of my > current
> CRT (not the smallest as I think it's around .23 or so).
>
> LCD
>
> ( ) ( ) ( )
> ( ) ( ) ( )
> ( ) ( ) ( )
>
> or at least (cuz the CRT looks almost solid)
>
> OOO
> OOO
> OOO
>
> CRT (the dot is MUCH MUCH smaller and lighter to almost none)
> ......
> ......
> ......
My laptop is 0.18 dot pitch! Thats a few years old vgn-a497xp Sony VAIO 17
inch widescreen (14 inches horizontal width) with 1920 x 1200 resolution on
an X-Black screen. Like this. Trust me its the screen you are paying for.
But you better have good eyes to use this resolution on a smaller that 14
inch wide screen... Great for photos but bad for trying to use windows
without a magnifying glass.
It seems pretty similar to my old Aqcess Abe laptops those had just about
anything, like built-in web cam, touch-screen, pen, landscape/portrait mode,
hand writing recognizer (?) those cost around $4000-4500 a pop then.
0.18 - Thats so close you cannot see any pixels without photographing the
screen in close up and then zooming in hugely. I never saw any CRT get
.21 is probably the smallest CRT I known, most of mine is/were between .23
to .25
remotely close to that. However my best monitor and one thats MUCH better
for photographic work in only the same resolution on a 24 inch widescreen.
Thats the Samsung SyncMaster 244T. Its just better, brighter and clearer
with better contrast and brilliant accurate 12bit per chanel colour. It
makes fotos come alive and is a perfect photo editing screen. Its dot pitch
is 1920 pixels and divided by 20 inches (measured horizontal real width) =
96 pixels per inch. Or if you convert to metric 25.4 (mm per inch) divided
by 96 = 0.26 dot pitch. And no mater how hard I look I cannot see them any
more than on the old cathode ray tube! Its just sharper and brighter and
absolutely 1 pixel from the cameras ccd or cmos censor per monitor pixel.
And accurate as its possible to get. Its what the camera saw! Admitedly skin
looks softer and smoother on an old tube but thats just because of pixels
not lining up bperfectly and focus in the tube issues. The file isnt
actually like that, the CRT just adds a sort of analog soft focus filter. As
do analogue connected Flat panels but less so.
I haven't looked at the 24" Samsung yet, but I have looked at either Sony
or Samsung (I often get mixed up between these two names) and I was so close
to go for the 22" (or 20" or 21" I can't remember but it was one of the
largest and the best of the line then) which was onsale for around $740-780
few years ago. I stopped by the local store 3 days but just can't get over
the visible dot pitch, then I grabbed another CRT to stop me from going back
<bg>
And Office Depot is 1/2 block from my house, Best Buy, OfficeMax, Sam's
Club etc. just about 2-4 miles from where I live, and even the LCD is dirt
cheap these days .. may be few more years? .. but I may not live that long
<bg>
Also, I am not talking about the Image itself which I can understand the
higher the resolution the sharper the display, but I am talking about the
Metal Screen, Dot Pitch of the metal screen *not* the image. And if I can
get over it then I think I should have no problem with LCD displaying.
I am not sure what you are refering to. There is no metal screen on LCD displays that I can see?. You see the image directly from the transister/pixel.
If I go to any computer store and look at all the dozens of lcd monitors they all look too small by miles as nobody here seems to keep decent sized ones on stock or if they do they are lower resolution cheaper ones and generally all look dull and lifeless and dont have good blacks, bright true colours shadow or highlight detail etc.
I dont see how any self respecting photographer can work on and use anything less in size than a 24 widescreen of GOOD quality for photo work.
Wide because thats the shape of our images. Big because our cameras have huge resolution and at monitors typical 100 dpi can display a clean clear image the size of a typical fridge.
I take images to freinds houses including some pros and computer stores to check out monitors - my pictures look dull with no shadow detail, and lacklustre colours even on calibrated "cheap" monitors. And the blacks are purple off axis etc. colours change with angle. You cant get decent monitors at discount stores it seems! And you get what you pay for in this case. I have a friend with a nasty cheap monitor that uses a D200. he overprocesses to get some life and detail in the shadows and overdoes the saturation and white cloud detail because it then looks right to him. It look totally false and ott on my monitor or even on my laptop! He cant figure out why the prints he orders look totally different to what he sees on his calibrated monitor...
Dells newest 24 wide screen is cheaper than the Samsung and uses the same actual matrix. Its just as good. The earlier Dell 24 inch is less bits per channel and the reason I bought the Samsung, which was better at the time. That was a couple of years ago, but things havent really changed since other than its now about half the price! And there may be more good photographic monitors out there now but beware!
The reason you think you can see the metal grid is because they are clinically sharp. at 100 percent viewing the screen displays the image that your cameras sensor saw from each individual photo site on to each pixel on screen. As long as you use a digital graphics card and cable conection. Thats correct. Thats real.
The reason they dont look like that on the old fuzzy CRT tubes (or incorrectly connected LCDs) is because that cant ever happen and several "sites" (holes in grill) "light up" as the beam tries to fire an analog version of each pixel at an incorrectly spaced and laid out aperture grill. This grill is neither spaced correctly or can be spaced correctly and the beam is never focused accurately and the picture is distorted by magnetism etc. So instead of a single pixel lighting as should happen a bunch of nearby phosphers glow!
This may be "complimentary" for portrait or skin (and allows the monitor a choice of resolutions) but its false. Its similar to interpolation but in an analog way. LCD at 100 percent IS the original. Once you achieve your perfect skin on a CRT monitor in reality its still not what you are seeing on screen, or in print. The file is actually what you see on an LCD. You effectively have a soft focus filter in front.
Incidentally zooming to 300 percent is exactly the same as increasing dot pitch by 3x. 9 pixels used for every 1 in the original image.
.
- References:
- Re: Which type of Monitor
- From: ray
- Re: Which type of Monitor
- From: Burgerman
- Re: Which type of Monitor
- Prev by Date: Lumières d'Opale, Album 31
- Next by Date: Re: AE Bracketing?
- Previous by thread: Re: Which type of Monitor
- Next by thread: Re: Which type of Monitor
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
