Re: Computer monitors
- From: miso@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 10 Dec 2005 18:23:52 -0800
CRTs are best for photography. There are some LCDs that are ok for
photograph, but not in the $500 range. [Check out the NEC 2180)
At this point in time, the high end CRTs are trinitron based. Can you
stand to see those trinitron lines?
I just had my Nokia 445x Pro repaired in order to have a high
resolution CRT that doesn't use a Trinitron tube. You may be able to
find a used Nokia 445x Pro or Eizo F930.
With CRTs, you have these problems:
1) Convergence error
2) weight and size
3) annoying trinitron lines (unless you get a shadow mask tube)
Regarding moire, some monitors look bad unless you drive them at their
maximum resolution, or at least one step less than maximum resolution.
I suspect 2048x1536 will be too fine for some computer programs, i.e
you may have to set up large fonts, icons, etc. I use 1600x1200 on a
21 inch screen. If you really want to use 2048x1536, you might want to
think about having two displays, using the LCD for text and the CRT for
WIth LCDs, you have these problems:
1) poor cool gamut
2) dead pixels
3) uneven lighting due to CCFT diffusion quality
4) slow response time will smear moving objects (not a problem with
5) screen door effect due to gaps between the pixels
You should probably get a CRT, and then get a LCD in a few years when
the technology has improved. I keep hoping they will have DLP monitors.
DLP color is fine. I'd be plenty happy with 1080p on my desk.
m Ransley wrote:
> What should one look for in a monitor for viewing photos in the under
> 500$ range. I see Viewsonic has a 21" CRT with 2048x 1536 or 3.145m
> resolution and LCDs are much much lower. Best Buy told me LCD are the
> best for photos. I use a Sony W5. Isnt the highest resolution the best
> for digital cameras .
- Computer monitors
- From: m Ransley
- Computer monitors
- Prev by Date: Re: TSA strikes again
- Next by Date: Re: Computer monitors
- Previous by thread: Computer monitors
- Next by thread: Re: Computer monitors