| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Flat panel LCD monitors or CRT Monitors?
Eric Jones, Photographer
 |
Greenville | NC | USA | Posted: 10:29 PM on 11.22.06 |
->> I'm in process at updating my monitors and right now I have 2 monitors side by side and both are 19" CRTs. They are taking up too much space on my desk and I've been looking at the Flat panel LCD monitors and was wondering who else has made the switch over to LCD flat panel monitors or are you still using your CRT monitors? I do most of my editing in photoshop and web design work but I know the technology has changed so much. I was trying to do away with 2 monitors and go with 1 widescreen, such as a 24" widescreen or go back to 2 20" widescreens. I did find this thread but it's back in 2003...to be sure they have changed since then.
http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=6546
Any feedback is welcome...should I stick with what I got and deal with the buckly monitors and know I'm getting the best picture quality or move up with the Flat Panel LCD monitors?
Thanks
EKJ |
|
Ian L. Sitren, Photographer
|
Palm Springs | CA | USA | Posted: 11:27 PM on 11.22.06 |
| ->> I pretty much think there are no more CRT's. Obsolete. As they die off now, the replacements are the LCD's. |
|
Dave Prelosky, Photographer
|
Lower Burrell | Pa | US | Posted: 11:36 PM on 11.22.06 |
->> As with any reccomendation your mileage may vary, but I've gathered some insight from Mr Crockett and his crew here:
http://www.shootsmarter.com/monitorcentral.html
Someday I'm gonna run into one of the Eizo monitore he raves about....
dp |
|
Drew Buchanan, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Fort Walton Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 12:38 AM on 11.23.06 |
| ->> CRT's are still supreme. LCD's may look sleek and sexy, but I'd choose CRT's over LCD's any day. What's wrong with a little junk in the trunk...no, not that...get your minds out of the gutter. :) |
|
Corey Perrine, Photographer
|
Hudson | NH | USA | Posted: 2:47 AM on 11.23.06 |
->> I have a friend in video production and I walked into his little studio and was like, "Man you really need a new T.V. the one you are viewing it on really sucks." My friend promptly replied,"That's the point. If I can make it look good on that T.V. then I know it's good." Granted this isn't T.V. and most of us are still trying to make things look good on toilet paper (a.k.a. newsprint) I'd suggest a modest flat non-vibrant screen. Remember everything looks good with light passing through it, i.e. monitors. CRT's have a wider color latitude but tend to flicker. LCD's have more endurance and have to be calibrated less frequently.
In short, an LCD with a matte screen. My two cents.
A little light reading on CRT's and LCD's...
http://www.webopedia.com/DidYouKnow/Hardware_Software/2005/all_about_monito... |
|
Jay Adeff, Photographer
|
Salinas | CA | USA | Posted: 3:20 AM on 11.23.06 |
| ->> CRT's are still superior to LCD's for color accuracy and contrast. Unfortunately, Sony stopped making the Trinitron monitor tubes and that's what most of the superior graphics CRT's were based on. I have a Trinitron based LaCie 20" CRT at work that blows away any LCD I've ever seen. Unfortunately, they don't make it anymore. I've heard that many production companies in the movie industry are buying every used high-end CRT they can find and hoarding them because LCD's just don't cut it. |
|
David Templeton, Assistant, Photographer
|
Hammonton | NJ | USA | Posted: 3:47 AM on 11.23.06 |
->> LCDs can be fine for photo editing, as long as you get the right screen. Most cheap screens won't cut it, but spending a lot of money won't necessarily get you what you need either.
I could go on about this, but to make it simple, there are three types of panels: S-IPS, PVA, and TN. You've probably sat in front of all three types of panels and didn't know it, as they look more or less the same, but there are differences.
TN panels are good for watching movies or playing games because they have the lowest level of ghosting (the pixels change color the fastest). However they also have the lowest color accuracy/gamut/etc.
S-IPS panels are best for pre-press work because they have the best color characteristics. They aren't as good as TN for games or movies because their pixels are less responsive. However S-IPS technology is starting to catch up with TN in this respect.
PVA is intermediate in both respects. It has medium-good color and medium-good ghosting.
Bottom line: if you're a photographer, you want an S-IPS panel. It's non-trivial to figure out what type of panel is in a display though, manufacturers typically don't list this in their specs, and salespeople are oblivious to this detail. It takes some careful googling.
The Dell 2007fpw used to be S-IPS, but there are rumors they have changed this to a PVA panel. Same thing with the Dell 2007fp. All three sizes of Apple Cinema Display and the Dell 3007fpw are S-IPS. Pretty much any expensive LCD marketed towards professional photographers (most LaCie and Enzo models, etc) are S-IPS.
I currently use a 20" Dell 2007fpw Rev. A02 which is S-IPS, calibrated, and it performs very nicely for critical pre-press work.
So, yeah, CRT vs LCD... I think LCDs are better than CRTs as long as you buy the correct LCD. And no matter what you choose, calibration isn't optional.
final notes:
1) LCDs last much longer than CRTs, every CRT i've seen, even LaCie Electron Blue models, they lose all of their contrast after 2-3 years.
2) I'm not an expert on LCD technology, maybe someone more knowledgeable can comment on the technical details I mentioned in this post. |
|
Ron Scheffler, Photographer
|
Hamilton (Toronto area) | Ontario | Canada | Posted: 3:47 AM on 11.23.06 |
->> My Lacie 19" died this past summer. I couldn't find any other reputable 19" CRTs new, so instead bought a 20" wide screen LCD. I generally like it and have adapted to it. Just recently I bought a second 20" to replace the 15" LCD I had been using with the Lacie and subsequently with the first 20" to give me even more real estate. I very much like the dual 20" combo. Dual 24 or 30" would be cooler, but it's not in the current budget. Anyway, two 20" are cheaper than one 24" (dependant on what you buy) and give you more total area.
Back a few months ago some of the Mac sites had links to a "study" commissioned by Apple that determined the single large wide screen displays created greater work efficiencies than the displays used in most office environments. Less time flpping through open application windows, etc. But that was countered by other "experts" who stated that dual displays are even better than a single large display because you can split the applications and windows across two screens. That's my preference too. One is dedicated to working on images, either with the raw converter, Photo Mechanic or Photoshop, while the other is my web apps screen for the RSS browser, surfing, emial, chats, Photoshop tool palettes, etc. But I'm sure you do that as well with your set-up.
I'm curious - what resolution do you run your CRTs? I had mine at 1600x1200 and the switch to the 20" LCD actually resulted in some lost area since it runs at 1650x1080, or somethng like that. Anyway, here is what I've found: The pixel size on the LCDs is slightly larger than the CRT meaning it's a bit easier to read text (compared to the CRT at 1600x1200). The LCDs also reproduce text more clearly resulting in less eyestrain (and don't flicker like CRTs). Colour accuracy is pretty good but it also depends on the display and proper calibration. Not all are suited to critical photo editing, so make sure you do some research first. The digital nature of LCDs is such that tonal transitions/gradations may not appear as smoothly as on a CRT. Or minor tonal changes may be somewhat exaggerated. Noise in shadow areas could look significant yet would never resolve once printed on paper and also wouldn't be as obvious on a CRT. An example is that a LCD shows a density difference between 99% black and 100% black pixels. This can look a bit disturbing on screen but it's important to keep in mind that a 1% density difference, especially in the shadow areas, once printed, is very minor if even visible. My theory is the analog nature of CRTs introduces some pixel blending that smooths minor tonal variations whereas the digital representation of the LCD does not... kind of like how printing a digital image on paper results in some ink blending and smoothing of the image....
I still think CRTs offer a better image, but they also have their share of problems, particularly color shifts over time. If your CRTs are still working within an operational range that can be calibrated, I wouldn't be so quick to get rid of them. That said, it would also be wise for you to keep up to date with LCD options for the time when you will have to replace them. |
|
Eric Jones, Photographer
|
Greenville | NC | USA | Posted: 5:49 AM on 11.23.06 |
->> David and Ron, thanks for the info and hope it didn't take you that long to type all that out but very good reading.
Ron, right now I'm running my resolution at 1024x768 as I design websites based on that size resolution.
I do have a question, the monitor I'm looking at is a Dell
UltraSharp™ 2407WFP. It also states "To optimize this monitor's performance, your system must be able to support WUXGA resolution (1920x1200)." After looking at my monitors resolution they will only go up to 1600X1200. Will that monitor work on my system? This screen is wide enough to run two programs side by side.
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19...
My other options is going with (2)E207WFP 20" monitors from Dell and having them set up like I have them now side by side which with what Ron said will give you more screen than the 24". I'll never go back to one monitor unless it's wide!
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19...
Anyone using any of these monitors? |
|
David Templeton, Assistant, Photographer
|
Hammonton | NJ | USA | Posted: 9:36 AM on 11.23.06 |
->> I use a 2407fpw on another computer of mine. You should use a DVI video connection to connect this monitor, not the traditional VGA connector. If you dont have a DVI connector on your video card, upgrade it. The good thing about DVI is that it allows a certain level of communication with the computer, and the computer will know that the monitor likes 1920x1200, so it will either default to that or be available in display settings. It has good, not great color.
Note that this monitor was a hundred bucks cheaper a month ago, looks like Dell jacked the price for the christmas season.
I would use the 2007fpw instead of the E207wfp if youre planning on doing photo work... the extra hundred bucks gets you a better panel, among other things. Make sure your computer has TWO free DVI ports if youre getting two of these monitors.
DVI is such a superior interface that its worth getting a new video card if you can't go all-DVI without a new one. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|