Is LCD any good for photo editing?
Me thinking of upgrading as my CRT is going to spoil already...
Thanks...
Me thinking of upgrading as my CRT is going to spoil already...
Thanks...
Is LCD any good for photo editing?
- Thread starter AReality
- Start date
- Status
haha, this's a potential thread to topple the Thread Champion?
Without going too much into technicalities and/or ergonimics or whatsoever, my personal take is CRT monitors. My simple reasons (in general),
(1) size for size, CRT is cheaper
(2) colour accuracy
(3) better saturation, hue, contrast
(4) faster response, higher refresh frequency
(5) I :heart: old technology
That's my opinion.
And let the war BEGINS. :blah:
Without going too much into technicalities and/or ergonimics or whatsoever, my personal take is CRT monitors. My simple reasons (in general),
(1) size for size, CRT is cheaper
(2) colour accuracy
(3) better saturation, hue, contrast
(4) faster response, higher refresh frequency
(5) I :heart: old technology
That's my opinion.
And let the war BEGINS. :blah:
Flame indeed!AJ23 said:haha, this's a potential thread to topple the Thread Champion?
Without going too much into technicalities and/or ergonimics or whatsoever, my personal take is CRT monitors. My simple reasons (in general),
(1) size for size, CRT is cheaper
(2) colour accuracy
(3) better saturation, hue, contrast
(4) faster response, higher refresh frequency
(5) I :heart: old technology
That's my opinion.
And let the war BEGINS. :blah:
LCD:
Less space: Have you seen a 21" CRT vs 19" LCD?!?
Less Power consumption
Latest tech have very fast response (20+ms response), Color? With the exception of the black point, the color gamut is the "size" of sRGB. Note that the better ones have a contrast ratio of 700:1, almost the same as the 500-1000:1 for CRT.
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:
AJ23 said:haha, this's a potential thread to topple the Thread Champion?
Without going too much into technicalities and/or ergonimics or whatsoever, my personal take is CRT monitors. My simple reasons (in general),
(1) size for size, CRT is cheaper
(2) colour accuracy
(3) better saturation, hue, contrast
(4) faster response, higher refresh frequency
(5) I :heart: old technology
That's my opinion.
And let the war BEGINS. :blah:
(6) no dead, stuck, hot pixels - how many companies offer 'Zero bright dot' warranty on their larger 19" LCD monitors? - from my inquiries, the answer is 'ZERO' -
(7) My $650 19" monitor looks better than any sub $1k 17" LCD
(8) 'Consumer' 19" LCD screens have 1280x1024 resolution, the same resolution as 17" LCD screens. So whats the point at getting a 19" LCD screen. Might as well get 17" LCD screen and stare closer
(9) As for the 'top of the line', CRT monitor which supports Adobe RGB going to be released soon
(10) The murky blacks. Hopefully, the 700:1 contrast ratio claimed by the new generation of monitors will improve things.
I am looking forward to getting an LCD monitor for my photoediting computer because of the space saving. Fortunately, LCD monitors are improving all the time, so I hope it'll be soon.
erwinx said:
What's the price like for a reasonably top-of-the-line LCD suitable for photoediting work? Say 19" and above?
AJ23 said:haha, this's a potential thread to topple the Thread Champion?
There is a long way to go, the thread cham is now 74 pages,
with a mind bogging 1464 post.
AJ23 said:Without going too much into technicalities and/or ergonimics or whatsoever, my personal take is CRT monitors. My simple reasons (in general),
(1) size for size, CRT is cheaper
(2) colour accuracy
(3) better saturation, hue, contrast
(4) faster response, higher refresh frequency
(5) I :heart: old technology
That's my opinion.
And let the war BEGINS. :blah:
For quality, there is little arguing that CRT is better, but the size really kills it.
I'm currently using a Sanyo 171N and found LCD too bright for photoediting. the previous Sharp LCD I had for a while is better.
get a mac.
mac LCDs / CRT colour meant to be accurate... =) if not go for a CRT much better for colours! :thumbsup:
Or sillcon graphics LCD lor.... top in color accuracy followed by mac and others.
mac LCDs / CRT colour meant to be accurate... =) if not go for a CRT much better for colours! :thumbsup:
Or sillcon graphics LCD lor.... top in color accuracy followed by mac and others.
Seems like every thread of this vs that will become OT after a while...
But nvm... Thanks for the comments anway... whether on topic, or off topic...
There are some who believe LCD is good (like me).
And some who swear by their CRT.
LCD technology is constantly improving - the LCD's screens of today are far superior to their predecessors. The LCD on my Toshiba notebook is right up there with the best CRT's. It's native resolution is 1600 x 1200, it's bright, colourful and very sharp. I use it for all my PS work.
And some who swear by their CRT.
LCD technology is constantly improving - the LCD's screens of today are far superior to their predecessors. The LCD on my Toshiba notebook is right up there with the best CRT's. It's native resolution is 1600 x 1200, it's bright, colourful and very sharp. I use it for all my PS work.
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
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
scanner said::bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:
So is D2H an old camera model?
yeah, by today's digital standard, it's old.
AJ23 said:(4) faster response, higher refresh frequency
That's my opinion.
And let the war BEGINS. :blah:
tho LCD dun have such thing "refresh frequency" ? :think:
Yes it does.ledmirage said:
LCD refresh frequency is lower than CRT, but that doesn't mean CRT is better because of it. Different hardware = different rates. Flicker free CRT rate will be higher than equivalent on LCD.
AJ23 said:haha, this's a potential thread to topple the Thread Champion?
Without going too much into technicalities and/or ergonimics or whatsoever, my personal take is CRT monitors. My simple reasons (in general),
(1) size for size, CRT is cheaper
(2) colour accuracy
(3) better saturation, hue, contrast
(4) faster response, higher refresh frequency
(5) I :heart: old technology
That's my opinion.
And let the war BEGINS. :blah:
Hahaha
I agree, very controversial subject but I go with your opinion... CRT much better......Royce said:
So is it a myth that LCDs do not flicker? I mean those which are connected via DVI cables from gfx card to LCD panel? I thought LCDs dun have refresh rates technically - meaning the vertical sync rate of a CRT.... or do they refresh in another sense? Thanks!
Well mine doesn't flicker one bit, so guess it must be a myth!TME said:
Not sure how it is connected to the GPU as it's a notebook.
The specs for it do mention Vertical frequency. Interestingly just noticed that it supports 100hz at 1600 x 1200 - having just changed it to 100 though cannot see the difference between that and 60hz (default).
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?
- Status
