Is LCD any good for photo editing?

[TME]

OT(a bit only): Lots of LCD support DVI, while I don't know any CRT can. Or my info is not up to date?

CRT is analogue so it wouldn't take a DVI interface (DVI = digital video interface). But I'm curious about the refresh rate thing cos LCDs do not need to refresh (AFAIK) the screen like a CRT does since it is not lit by a electron beam. Anyone can help? This would bea contributing factor to choosing between a LCD & CRT since no flicker obviously mean it's better for your eyes. (I dun use the term flicker-free cos CRTs also use this term when the refresh rate >85Hz to indicate that the flickering occurs so fast that it is not noticeable, although your eyes still get fatigued from the very fast flickering)

 

[linse]

LCDs are good enough for some people, and not good enough for some. Take a look at your own, and judge for yourself.

generally, LCDs are easier to color manage, with colorsync or spyders or whatever it is you use. Out of the box, they may already give you accurate color reproduction, with less chances of the balance going 'off'.

CRTs need to be calibrated, and recalibrated frequently. The procedure may also be more difficult. Depends on your OS, and your workflow. (go Macintosh. easy. )

This is the main reason why many hospitals are using LCDs for their imaging workstations, as the clinical engineers now do not have to recalibrate monitors all day. If it's good enough for the doctor to tell you whether you have polyps in your colon, i guess it's good enough, eh?

cheers,
Leon

I've read some posts in DP Review forum where some users found it impossible to colour manage their LCDs.

Imaging workstations use LCDs because LCDs have higher contrast ratios than CRTs. However, in case you haven't noticed, all the images are in black and white.

 

[leonzhu]

I've read some posts in DP Review forum where some users found it impossible to colour manage their LCDs.

Imaging workstations use LCDs because LCDs have higher contrast ratios than CRTs. However, in case you haven't noticed, all the images are in black and white.

sorry, linse. I'm a biomed engineer. there ARE color screens in hospital. If you're ever there, take a good look around.

 

[linse]

sorry, linse. I'm a biomed engineer. there ARE color screens in hospital. If you're ever there, take a good look around.

Well, I am a Radiologist. All radiological images are in black and white except for ultrasound and nuclear medicine studies. The radiology workstation LCDs (which can buy you a car, just not in S'pore) are all monochrome. The LCDs in the wards do not need to be colour accurate but just have high contrast ratios and save space.

 

[wanglk]

Let's come back to the refresh rate. LCDs DO have a refresh rate, normally it is 60Hz. But I feel this is somehow different from that of CRTs. You don't feel the flicker at all. BTW, if the refresh rate is high enough for CRTs (>85Hz), I don't think it does any harm to your eyes. Correct me if I am wrong. :bigeyes:

 

[jOhO]

no LCDs for me, for photoediting. colour totally off.

also, some of them, like my friends LCD that came with her dell, the aspect ratio is wierd.. the screen looked "squarer" than it usually is and made all my people photos look thinner~~

hmm maybe that's a good thing too.... :think:

 

[jnifur]

A radiologist and biomed engineer discussing abt LCD screen?
Wahaha...let me a microbiologist have a 0.02 worth

Personally at home, I am using a 15" LCD screen that comes with my compaq computer since 2 yrs ago.
I been using this LCD screen to view and edit my digital pictures. Seriously, when I got my photos, the colours looked of the rite saturations, bright and captivating. Very nice.
When I am satisfied and burnt it to CD and bring it to view on my office Phillips CRT monitor, hell.
The colours are off, dim and dull.
Even when I use my office CP 995 digicam to take pictures of my fungus, they appear so dull on my CRT screen. I took one sample picture home to view on my LCD, it looks perfectly fine. And over exposed. Because I brighten it too much at office as the CPT is just too dark. Now I wonder, is there a problem with CRT or my LCD is giving me results that are too fake to be real?

But then, as a microbiologist, I prefer LCD. The small small bacteria just appear so much nicer on my LCD...at least, to me

 

[TME]

A radiologist and biomed engineer discussing abt LCD screen?
Wahaha...let me a microbiologist have a 0.02 worth

Personally at home, I am using a 15" LCD screen that comes with my compaq computer since 2 yrs ago.
I been using this LCD screen to view and edit my digital pictures. Seriously, when I got my photos, the colours looked of the rite saturations, bright and captivating. Very nice.
When I am satisfied and burnt it to CD and bring it to view on my office Phillips CRT monitor, hell.
The colours are off, dim and dull.
Even when I use my office CP 995 digicam to take pictures of my fungus, they appear so dull on my CRT screen. I took one sample picture home to view on my LCD, it looks perfectly fine. And over exposed. Because I brighten it too much at office as the CPT is just too dark. Now I wonder, is there a problem with CRT or my LCD is giving me results that are too fake to be real?

But then, as a microbiologist, I prefer LCD. The small small bacteria just appear so much nicer on my LCD...at least, to me

Maybe your Philips monitor at work is going to die liaoz....... did u try adjusting? I usually hear that CRTs give really good colour fidelity whle LCDs may not always give correct colours due to the inherent inability to display beyond a certain number of colours due to the way the colours are made on an LCD. Correct me if this is incorrect but I always thought that colour fidelity is one of LCD panels' weakest suites.

 

[Royce]

A radiologist and biomed engineer discussing abt LCD screen?
Wahaha...let me a microbiologist have a 0.02 worth

Personally at home, I am using a 15" LCD screen that comes with my compaq computer since 2 yrs ago.
I been using this LCD screen to view and edit my digital pictures. Seriously, when I got my photos, the colours looked of the rite saturations, bright and captivating. Very nice.
When I am satisfied and burnt it to CD and bring it to view on my office Phillips CRT monitor, hell.
The colours are off, dim and dull.
Even when I use my office CP 995 digicam to take pictures of my fungus, they appear so dull on my CRT screen. I took one sample picture home to view on my LCD, it looks perfectly fine. And over exposed. Because I brighten it too much at office as the CPT is just too dark. Now I wonder, is there a problem with CRT or my LCD is giving me results that are too fake to be real?

But then, as a microbiologist, I prefer LCD. The small small bacteria just appear so much nicer on my LCD...at least, to me

I have exactly the same problem and I believe the problem is with the CRT's at work. My LCD is very new while the CRTs at work are old. I've looked at my photos on a number of CRT's at work and they look different on each one. I've roughly tried to calibrate some of these (well just brightness and contrast) and some of these cannot even be calibrated. Who knows how old these monitors are??? The only issue i've had is when i had my photos printed - they looked very different on the printers comp, but their comps are calibrated for the hardware, so you expect that to happen.

 

[roygoh]

Let's come back to the refresh rate. LCDs DO have a refresh rate, normally it is 60Hz. But I feel this is somehow different from that of CRTs. You don't feel the flicker at all. BTW, if the refresh rate is high enough for CRTs (>85Hz), I don't think it does any harm to your eyes. Correct me if I am wrong. :bigeyes:

On an LCD, all the pixels are lit all the time. Every pixel is updated at a rate of 60 Hz but the change is almost instantaneous thus there is no flickering.

On a CRT, each pixel is only lit when the electron beams strike it. Thus every pixel is flashing at the refresh rate.

 

[TME]

On an LCD, all the pixels are lit all the time. Every pixel is updated at a rate of 60 Hz but the change is almost instantaneous thus there is no flickering.

On a CRT, each pixel is only lit when the electron beams strike it. Thus every pixel is flashing at the refresh rate.

I see..... thanks!

 

[Ah Pao]

To those who says LCDs have poor color reproduction, try getting your eyes on an Apple Studio Display. :bigeyes:

Nevertheless, for the sake of cost, I still prefer CRTs over LCDs for color work. Consumer LCDs are not guaranteed to have good color reproduction and they are still too expensive to own.

 

[TME]

To those who says LCDs have poor color reproduction, try getting your eyes on an Apple Studio Display. :bigeyes:

Nevertheless, for the sake of cost, I still prefer CRTs over LCDs for color work. Consumer LCDs are not guaranteed to have good color reproduction and they are still too expensive to own.

A friend who has been trying to convince to switch over the dark side (Mac) also told me the same thing. What is it about the Apple Studio display that makes it so highly praised? I understand it is good enough for pro work?

 

[jnifur]

I didnt know LCD screen n CRT screen have such vast difference when it comes to colour editing pictures...
Die, I had always been editing my pictures on LCD...but then, so far I see the pictures in my office (apart from the dying wan) one of the CRT screen gives ok results loh...but then, haiz.........I am too used to LCD le.... :sweat:

 

[wacko]

Cost? Not really. Check the price of a good 21" CRT vs 19" LCD. A Sony Artisian (sp) cost S$3+k (US$1.8k). A Sony 19" LCD (which provides the same viewing size) is around S$2k.

:blah:

apples and oranges. a 21" CRT does not have the same viewing area as a 19" LCD, in fact it has 1" more. which you may not think to be a lot, but in terms of pricing, a 1" increment in the upper end of the scale means a big jump in price.