Anyone got a good recommendation for one less than $200 US? Might need to get rid of this KDS CRT one.
Mike Chambers wrote:
Anyone got a good recommendation for one less than $200 US? Might need to get rid of this KDS CRT one.
Define "good". What matters to you? DVI input or Analog OK? Is viewing angle of importance? Contrast ratio? Size?
FWIW, I think it would be best for you to simply find a site that compares features of LCD screens and do a bit of research. Besides, I can probably find a very good LCD screen here in Taiwan that is a "no name" brand but won't be available in your area.
On Sun, 2007-10-28 at 23:38 -0500, Mike Chambers wrote:
Anyone got a good recommendation for one less than $200 US? Might need to get rid of this KDS CRT one.
Wouldn't you be better off to find what's being demonstrated in stores near you, and pick which looks best?
Tim wrote:
On Sun, 2007-10-28 at 23:38 -0500, Mike Chambers wrote:
Anyone got a good recommendation for one less than $200 US? Might need to get rid of this KDS CRT one.
Wouldn't you be better off to find what's being demonstrated in stores near you, and pick which looks best?
fwiw I have a thinkpad r40 with a 15" screen that does 1440x1050 (the panel's Samsung). I've not seen a desktop monitor advertised in any of the usual places that comes close to my eyes, and that's a few years old.
I don't like widescreen, but you may differ. It makes no sense to me to chop a 1280x1024 screen down to 1280x800. You may differ. I don't like reflective screens, I can hardly see anything other than my white tee shirt.
On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 19:34 +1030, Tim wrote:
On Sun, 2007-10-28 at 23:38 -0500, Mike Chambers wrote:
Anyone got a good recommendation for one less than $200 US? Might need to get rid of this KDS CRT one.
Wouldn't you be better off to find what's being demonstrated in stores near you, and pick which looks best?
Probably, but was just checking anyway. I work part-time at walmart and they have Proview and HP ones, but due to budget and what not, the Proview will probably be it. Just rather find one for under 200 if possible, like 19/20" wide screen would prolly work.
Tim:
Wouldn't you be better off to find what's being demonstrated in stores near you, and pick which looks best?
Mike Chambers:
Probably, but was just checking anyway. I work part-time at walmart and they have Proview and HP ones, but due to budget and what not, the Proview will probably be it. Just rather find one for under 200 if possible, like 19/20" wide screen would prolly work.
Whilst it's probably good to ask about things to be avoided, and thing to try and find, I really think you need to see things like monitors in action. Specs are all very well and good, but if the thing's dim, flimsy, needs viewing at precisely the right angle, doesn't have the connectors you want, relies on windows to control brightness/contrast, etc., you're going to be really annoyed.
If you do any graphic work, LCDs are crap. The colours/shading/etc change radically depending on your angle of view. If you absolutely must get an LCD and you do that sort of work, then you really need to find one with a wide angle of view, both horizontally, and vertically, but especially vertically. You'll mostly sit in front of a monitor, rather that side on, but how close you sit, and the tilt angle, changes very easily with just a slight change in body position.
The LCD on my laptop is really annoying. You have to sit way back, further than you can with a laptop, before you get to the point that the whole screen has the same shading. At normal distance, the top of the screen is different than the bottom. It's about as bad as those old rear-projection Kodak Carousel slide units with the fresnel screens.
On Sun, 2007-10-28 at 23:38 -0500, Mike Chambers wrote:
Anyone got a good recommendation for one less than $200 US? Might need to get rid of this KDS CRT one.
-- Mike Chambers Madisonville, KY
"Best lil town on Earth!"
I love my Viewsonic VA1812wb it is wide screen, 1440x900 and looks good, real whites, good contrast and nice pixel size. If you shop carefully, the 20 inch is sometimes right at $200 right now.
Regards, Les H
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 00:46:55 +1030 Tim ignored_mailbox@yahoo.com.au wrote:
If you do any graphic work, LCDs are crap. The colours/shading/etc change radically depending on your angle of view.
You may want to clarify that a bit further.
I do some desktop publishing and have found that my flat-screen monitors are much nicer for that purpose than the old CRT's, no matter how big they are.
I find it much easier to get stuff lined up and see how it will ultimately look on paper when I have a non-curved surface to view the work on.
On the other hand, my desktop publishing efforts are ultimately destined to be printed on a press that can do single colours ("grey scale" and spot colours) only. Perhaps if I had more involvement with full-colour printing my opinion would be different.
Tim wrote:
Tim:
Wouldn't you be better off to find what's being demonstrated in stores near you, and pick which looks best?
Mike Chambers:
Probably, but was just checking anyway. I work part-time at walmart and they have Proview and HP ones, but due to budget and what not, the Proview will probably be it. Just rather find one for under 200 if possible, like 19/20" wide screen would prolly work.
Whilst it's probably good to ask about things to be avoided, and thing to try and find, I really think you need to see things like monitors in action. Specs are all very well and good, but if the thing's dim, flimsy, needs viewing at precisely the right angle, doesn't have the connectors you want, relies on windows to control brightness/contrast, etc., you're going to be really annoyed.
If you do any graphic work, LCDs are crap. The colours/shading/etc change radically depending on your angle of view. If you absolutely must get an LCD and you do that sort of work, then you really need to find one with a wide angle of view, both horizontally, and vertically, but especially vertically. You'll mostly sit in front of a monitor, rather that side on, but how close you sit, and the tilt angle, changes very easily with just a slight change in body position.
The LCD on my laptop is really annoying. You have to sit way back, further than you can with a laptop, before you get to the point that the whole screen has the same shading. At normal distance, the top of the screen is different than the bottom. It's about as bad as those old rear-projection Kodak Carousel slide units with the fresnel screens.
You said everything I was, but missed that contrast is another issue with LCD over CRT. The specifications for contrast are misleading. There are two contrast ratings. One for static and one for dynamic. If you are doing graphics work, you need a good static contrast or you can miss details.
Another thing is if the monitor is going to be used for gaming, then you will have to look at the refresh rates. If they are to slow, the monitor will look like a blur with any games. Also you have to know if the video card can work at the native resolution of the monitor.
I got rid of my LCD for a CRT monitor at work and home. I am waiting for OLED or SED monitors.
On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 14:10 -0600, Robin Laing wrote:
You said everything I was, but missed that contrast is another issue with LCD over CRT. The specifications for contrast are misleading. There are two contrast ratings. One for static and one for dynamic. If you are doing graphics work, you need a good static contrast or you can miss details.
Another thing is if the monitor is going to be used for gaming, then you will have to look at the refresh rates. If they are to slow, the monitor will look like a blur with any games. Also you have to know if the video card can work at the native resolution of the monitor.
I got rid of my LCD for a CRT monitor at work and home. I am waiting for OLED or SED monitors.
Well, this is just for home and no graphics work involved, as in for emails, browsing, script type editing a little, that type stuff. So would think it should be OK.
One I am looking at is Proview 19" Widescreen at Walmart.
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:38:51 -0500 Mike Chambers mike@miketc.com wrote:
One I am looking at is Proview 19" Widescreen at Walmart.
I have 12", 17" and 22" monitors. All are various models of Acer LCD's and, as you can see, some of them are getting a bit older now.
None of them have ever given me any problems at all.
Tim:
If you do any graphic work, LCDs are crap. The colours/shading/etc change radically depending on your angle of view.
Frank Cox:
You may want to clarify that a bit further.
LCDs work using the polarising effect (like the sunglasses). There's a fixed mesh (to use a simple descriptive term for it) with one fixed polarisation, and a variable one formed by the liquid crystals. The crystals are charged to line up either parallel or 90 degrees to the fixed mesh, and other angles between, where they block light, or let it through in varying amounts.
This is also why they're quite dim (they block light), why the contrast is poor (less than 90 degrees of the crystal turning point is useful), and slow (the crystals have to physically move).
The angle that you view the screen at pays a part in this, too. At extreme angles, you can see some colours and grays turning negative. At lesser angles you see some strange effects, where some things aren't brighter or darker than they should be. The LCD was doing its tricks to produce a picture for front-on viewing.
Also, the quality of the backlight affects how uniformly the entire screen is illuminated.
If you can see some cheap LCDs on display, then try these sorts of things: Look at it from the side, walk around to front on, keep going until you're looking at it from the other side. You'll probably see changes. Do the same vertically, stand up close and look down on it, squat down and look directly at it, then keep going down lower until you're looking up at the screen. Alternatively, stand in one spot and move the screen around with your arms, if they'll let you.
Chances are that the horizontal issues aren't a problem for most people, as they'll sit in one spot in front of their screen. But turn into an issue if you try to show something to someone next to you. The vertical changes are more of a problem, people do sit up, sit back, etc., and that's enough of a change for some monitors.
Tim:
If you do any graphic work, LCDs are crap. The colours/shading/etc change radically depending on your angle of view.
This is true of older Twisted Nematic LC panels but false for many modern panels.
The viewing angle problem has been dramatically reduced in the past 3 years, esp. on high-end panels like (for example) Sharp Corp. makes. For example, Multi-domain Vertically Aligned (MVA) technology has very nice angle properties---at the expense of LC response time. (No free lunch.)
The statement that LCDs "are crap" for serious graphics work is simply not true any more. High-end LC panels _far_ exceed CRTs in every category (e.g., brightness, colour gamut, tone scale, MTF, dynamic range) except response time, and with "overdrive" and the new "flashing backlight" techniques on the horizon, even that barrier will soon be gone. CRT technology, like the vacuum tube in general, is essentially dead.
Dean
----
Dean S. Messing Sr. Scientist Display Algorithms & Visual Optimization Lab Sharp Laboratories of America
Tim:
If you do any graphic work, LCDs are crap. The colours/shading/etc change radically depending on your angle of view.
Dean S. Messing:
This is true of older Twisted Nematic LC panels but false for many modern panels.
The viewing angle problem has been dramatically reduced in the past 3 years, esp. on high-end panels like (for example) Sharp Corp. makes. For example, Multi-domain Vertically Aligned (MVA) technology has very nice angle properties---at the expense of LC response time. (No free lunch.)
Every LCD screen that I've seen, from the cheapies to the horrendously expensive, has that issue. Just in differing amounts. The average LCD screen someone buys from the local retailers are still bloody awful. The $7,000 LCD TV set is about the time when things start to approach being as good as other display types.
The statement that LCDs "are crap" for serious graphics work is simply not true any more. High-end LC panels _far_ exceed CRTs in every category (e.g., brightness, colour gamut, tone scale, MTF, dynamic range) except response time, and with "overdrive" and the new "flashing backlight" techniques on the horizon, even that barrier will soon be gone. CRT technology, like the vacuum tube in general, is essentially dead.
Where I work, in television, where they do buy horrendously expensive monitors, they will not touch LCDs for anything other than monitors that aren't paid close attention to. CRTs far exceed them in all the things you just mentioned. The contrast range of the LCD is inferior, and that's the basis of all the other measurements. With a poor contrast range, you can't get the full colour gamut.
On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 16:38 -0500, Mike Chambers wrote:
One I am looking at is Proview 19" Widescreen at Walmart.
I found a slightly used DELL CRT monster display that is so huge that my computer desk is sagging, for $100. I think it is like 22 or 24 inches. It's fast, and the really good 3D games you almost fall into. I'm just not ready for LCD. I'll jam a 2X4 under the desk. <chuckles> Ric
--- Mike Chambers mike@miketc.com wrote:
Anyone got a good recommendation for one less than $200 US? Might need to get rid of this KDS CRT one.
-- Mike Chambers Madisonville, KY
"Best lil town on Earth!"
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Depending on chances and luck - which happened quite frequent, try www.frys.com or www.mwave.com, I had good experience
Dean S. Messing wrote:
Tim:
If you do any graphic work, LCDs are crap. The colours/shading/etc change radically depending on your angle of view.
This is true of older Twisted Nematic LC panels but false for many modern panels.
The viewing angle problem has been dramatically reduced in the past 3 years, esp. on high-end panels like (for example) Sharp Corp. makes. For example, Multi-domain Vertically Aligned (MVA) technology has very nice angle properties---at the expense of LC response time. (No free lunch.)
The statement that LCDs "are crap" for serious graphics work is simply not true any more. High-end LC panels _far_ exceed CRTs in every category (e.g., brightness, colour gamut, tone scale, MTF, dynamic range) except response time, and with "overdrive" and the new "flashing backlight" techniques on the horizon, even that barrier will soon be gone. CRT technology, like the vacuum tube in general, is essentially dead.
Dean
Dean S. Messing Sr. Scientist Display Algorithms & Visual Optimization Lab Sharp Laboratories of America
Dean,
Could you post some info (or just your opinion) about LED backlights? Also, what's up with OLED technology?
Regards,
John
: Tim: : >>> If you do any graphic work, LCDs are crap. The colours/shading/etc : >>> change radically depending on your angle of view. : : Dean S. Messing: : > This is true of older Twisted Nematic LC panels but false for : > many modern panels. : > : > The viewing angle problem has been dramatically reduced in the past 3 : > years, esp. on high-end panels like (for example) Sharp Corp. makes. : > For example, Multi-domain Vertically Aligned (MVA) technology has very : > nice angle properties---at the expense of LC response time. (No free : > lunch.) : : Every LCD screen that I've seen, from the cheapies to the horrendously : expensive, has that issue. Just in differing amounts. The average LCD : screen someone buys from the local retailers are still bloody awful. : The $7,000 LCD TV set is about the time when things start to approach : being as good as other display types.
Tim, I'm not going to argue with you. LC flat panel displays (and CRTs---I worked in Tektronix Laboratories for 15 years in Video Research) are my expertise. Certainly LCD panels do not have a 180° "no variation" viewing angle. But current high-end models using MVA or In-Plane Switching cells are very good---perfectly acceptable for graphics work.
We do demonstrations all the time for image and video processing experts (who have golden eyes) standing at various angles around the LCD panels. Very few problems.
: > The statement that LCDs "are crap" for serious graphics work is simply : > not true any more. High-end LC panels _far_ exceed CRTs in every : > category (e.g., brightness, colour gamut, tone scale, MTF, dynamic : > range) except response time, and with "overdrive" and the new : > "flashing backlight" techniques on the horizon, even that barrier will : > soon be gone. CRT technology, like the vacuum tube in general, is : > essentially dead. : : Where I work, in television, where they do buy horrendously expensive : monitors, they will not touch LCDs for anything other than monitors that : aren't paid close attention to.
That's because studio people are notoriaously over-conservative. (I worked with them extensively at Tektronix. Trying to get them to use digital scopes in the beginning was like pulling teeth. At one point we had to put a circuit into one of our products to make the noise floor "look analogue". It was entirely artificial but it made the studio engineers happy.)
: CRTs far exceed them in all the things : you just mentioned.
This is simply false. You don't appear to have looked at the specs in a while.
: The contrast range of the LCD is inferior, and : that's the basis of all the other measurements. With a poor contrast : range, you can't get the full colour gamut.
Again, you don't appear to have looked at the specs recently. At the last CES, I saw LC displays with contrast ratios exceeding 10000:1 made by every major manufacturer except Phillips. The best CRTs (measured in a dark room) don't usually don't exceed 6000:1. And a new generation of LCD is already being introduced by nearly every manufacturer that uses so-called dynamic backlight modulation. These have contrast ratios exceeding 100K:1
Then there's brightness. Can you show me a CRT that has a brightnesses exceeding 12000 cd/m^2 ? Modern High Dynamic Range LCDs always do. (They use modulated LED backlights).
Colour gamut? Are you kidding? With RGB LED backlights, or peaked phosphor fluorescent backlights, the LCD gamut completely engulfs the CRT gamut. Indeed LCDs in the laboratory are now competing with OLED. Are you going to claim that CRT gamut exceeds OLED? (And yes I'm aware of the relationship between gamut and max brightness.)
MTF? CRTs have _never_ been close to LCDs.
It's no accident that traditional CRT manufacturers (e.g. Sony, Sharp) have shut down their manufacturing lines.
Since this has drifted entirely off of Fedora, let's continue the discussion off-line if you wish. I doubt anyone else is interested.
Dean
Mike Chambers wrote:
On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 14:10 -0600, Robin Laing wrote:
You said everything I was, but missed that contrast is another issue with LCD over CRT. The specifications for contrast are misleading. There are two contrast ratings. One for static and one for dynamic. If you are doing graphics work, you need a good static contrast or you can miss details.
Another thing is if the monitor is going to be used for gaming, then you will have to look at the refresh rates. If they are to slow, the monitor will look like a blur with any games. Also you have to know if the video card can work at the native resolution of the monitor.
I got rid of my LCD for a CRT monitor at work and home. I am waiting for OLED or SED monitors.
Well, this is just for home and no graphics work involved, as in for emails, browsing, script type editing a little, that type stuff. So would think it should be OK.
One I am looking at is Proview 19" Widescreen at Walmart.
For that stuff then I think any LCD would work.
Just check the viewing angles and contrast.
: Could you post some info (or just your opinion) about LED backlights? : Also, what's up with OLED technology?
Short answer: LED backlight: The way of the future.
Longer answer:
Whitelight LEDs (used in HDR displays) are very bright but do not allow spatio-chromatic modulation. Individual RGB LEDs do, but their quantum efficiency (roughly: ratio of luminance to power consumption) is poor.
With an LED backlight, the thickness of the panels can (and will) be reduced to 0.5 inches in the midterm future (just like Sony's OLED panels).
LEDs are easier to "flash" than cold cathode fluorescents. Flashing removes the problem of "hold-type" blur that has plagued LCDs. LCDs are now coming out that run at 120 Hz and "flash" the frame on the screen similar to a CRT so their temporal characteristics are excellent.
The big win is LEDs ability to be spatio-temporally modulated. This _dramatically_ increases the panel's dynamic range and contrast ratio, which can exceed 100,000:1.
With RGB LEDs one can get colour purity that is stunning.
Here's a useful article on this:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/nec-2180wg.shtml
We have one of these in our lab and the colours (esp. green and red) are, um, voluptuous.
It is somewhat dim compared to white light backlights but that problem is going to be solved in the mid-term future. Also this is an "old" product. The new NEC 2190 exceeds the specs of the 2180 and is brighter.
OLED:
As for OLEDs, this is largely Sony's baby. I saw their 20" OLED panels at CES in January and they are beautiful in every respect. But they are still in the lab and Sony has not solved the aging problem for the blue OLEDs. On the other hand, high-end LCD panel manufacturers are actively working on LCDs that will make Sony very sad sometime soon. :-)
Have a look at:
http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/22/sharps-52-inch-lcd-tv-prototype-just-1-1-inches-thick/
Dean
Tim:
Where I work, in television, where they do buy horrendously expensive monitors, they will not touch LCDs for anything other than monitors that aren't paid close attention to.
Dean S. Messing:
That's because studio people are notoriaously over-conservative. (I worked with them extensively at Tektronix. Trying to get them to use digital scopes in the beginning was like pulling teeth. At one point we had to put a circuit into one of our products to make the noise floor "look analogue". It was entirely artificial but it made the studio engineers happy.)
It's blatantly obvious to everyone's eyes in an A/B comparison that the LCDs are crap. The resolution is seriously inferior, as is the contrast range.
CRTs far exceed them in all the things you just mentioned.
This is simply false. You don't appear to have looked at the specs in a while.
I have, and I've also seen the things in action. What I notice, quite frequently, is that manufacturers of LCD and Plasma screens LIE about the contrast, similar to manufacturers lies using PMPO for audio systems. It's horrendously obvious that they're do dithering patterns to try and fake a wider range of contrast than the device actually can. Just about all LCDs end up looking like bad JPEG compression (and this is from high quality uncompressed sources) or the use of Floyd Steinberg dithering on the old inkjet printers.
When you take something like a broadcast camera, which has brilliant image generation, and do A/B tests on CRTs versus LCDs, you notice that a CRT has a very wide, and usable range, of contrast. LCDs, in comparison, look like we're playing with less than eight-bit DACs.
You have to get ridiculously expensive LCD panels to compare to modest priced CRTs, and that's hardly a realistic test. A realistic comparison of vaguely similarly priced domestic sets shows, every time, that a $200 CRT set is vastly superior to a $700 LCD set. The same goes for computer monitors - cheaper CRTs producing better pictures than even more expensive LCDs than the CRT device.
The attempt to pretend that LCDs are better than CRTs is just another case of the emperor's new clothes.
MTF? CRTs have _never_ been close to LCDs.
When we have twenty year old LCD displays still going strong, I might believe that. Oh yes, CRT sets can have a long life.
It's no accident that traditional CRT manufacturers (e.g. Sony, Sharp) have shut down their manufacturing lines.
It's called marketing. The current technology trends, LCDs, digital video, etc., have been a step backwards in quality. For years the push was to improve the quality of devices, in more recent times it's been to see just how poorly things can be gotten away with (e.g. using the heaviest compression and lowest resolutions possible to get acceptable results).
It takes a really crap CRT (and there are examples of that) to look worse than a LCD.
Tim wrote:
You have to get ridiculously expensive LCD panels to compare to modest priced CRTs, and that's hardly a realistic test. A realistic comparison of vaguely similarly priced domestic sets shows, every time, that a $200 CRT set is vastly superior to a $700 LCD set. The same goes for computer monitors - cheaper CRTs producing better pictures than even more expensive LCDs than the CRT device.
The attempt to pretend that LCDs are better than CRTs is just another case of the emperor's new clothes.
MTF? CRTs have _never_ been close to LCDs.
When we have twenty year old LCD displays still going strong, I might believe that. Oh yes, CRT sets can have a long life.
It's no accident that traditional CRT manufacturers (e.g. Sony, Sharp) have shut down their manufacturing lines.
It's called marketing. The current technology trends, LCDs, digital video, etc., have been a step backwards in quality. For years the push was to improve the quality of devices, in more recent times it's been to see just how poorly things can be gotten away with (e.g. using the heaviest compression and lowest resolutions possible to get acceptable results).
It takes a really crap CRT (and there are examples of that) to look worse than a LCD.
I have two 20" CRT Sun monitors, they're rated at 1600x1200 (but I accidentally ran one much higher than that once). Sun sells damned find screens, IMV, Mine were actually made by Sony, and others - HP and SGI included, sold the same screens with their own branding.
More recently I ran them at 1280x1024, principally on account of my aged eyes.
I also have a DELL 1800FP Ultrasharp which _I_ find easier to use (albeit I'm limited to 1280x1024) than the bigger Sun Screens. I sit fairly close: with my eyes level with the bottom I can easily read the top of the screen, when I sit to the side where my eyes are level with the edge, there is a bit of darkening - but I don't normally sit there.
I'm also pretty happy with this: (II) RADEON(0): Panel ID string: Samsung LTN150P1-L02 (II) RADEON(0): Panel Size from BIOS: 1400x1050
It's in my Thinkpad.
Back to Sun: here are Sun's current screens: http://www.sun.com/desktop/index.jsp?tab=2 If you were going to buy a Sun screen today, it would be LCD. Same at HP: see http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/en/WF04a/382087-382087-64283-72270-4447...
Dean S. Messing wrote:
: > The statement that LCDs "are crap" for serious graphics work is simply : > not true any more. High-end LC panels _far_ exceed CRTs in every : > category (e.g., brightness, colour gamut, tone scale, MTF, dynamic : > range) except response time, and with "overdrive" and the new : > "flashing backlight" techniques on the horizon, even that barrier will : > soon be gone. CRT technology, like the vacuum tube in general, is : > essentially dead. : : Where I work, in television, where they do buy horrendously expensive : monitors, they will not touch LCDs for anything other than monitors that : aren't paid close attention to.
That's because studio people are notoriaously over-conservative. (I worked with them extensively at Tektronix. Trying to get them to use digital scopes in the beginning was like pulling teeth. At one point we had to put a circuit into one of our products to make the noise floor "look analogue". It was entirely artificial but it made the studio engineers happy.)
I will agree with you. They prefer tools that they are familiar with. Don't like change. Heck, some would still be using U-matic recorders if they could get a new portable one. :)
: CRTs far exceed them in all the things : you just mentioned.
This is simply false. You don't appear to have looked at the specs in a while.
I have looked at the specs as I am trying to purchase a new computer system for my work. I have yet to see a LCD monitor that provides all the specifications that meet the present CRT that I am using. The killer is the static contrast. I have seen a few that promote 5000:1 or 8000:1 contrast but when you read the fine print, this is only for dynamic contrast. Some of them have static contrasts in the 300:1 to 500:1 range. Pretty low for working on static images.
: The contrast range of the LCD is inferior, and : that's the basis of all the other measurements. With a poor contrast : range, you can't get the full colour gamut.
Again, you don't appear to have looked at the specs recently. At the last CES, I saw LC displays with contrast ratios exceeding 10000:1 made by every major manufacturer except Phillips.
I have yet to see one LCD monitor that provides a static contrast of 1000. The high contrasts specified are all dynamic contrasts done by changing the intensity of the backlight. Can you provide one manufacturer that makes a high contrast (Static) LCD monitor? I may be interested in purchasing it.
The best CRTs (measured in a dark room) don't usually don't exceed 6000:1. And a new generation of LCD is already being introduced by nearly every manufacturer that uses so-called dynamic backlight modulation. These have contrast ratios exceeding 100K:1
I need high contrast in static images for my work. This dynamic backlight is useless when comparing individual frames from highspeed cameras looking for a subtle change in the contrast to see shock fronts.
Then there's brightness. Can you show me a CRT that has a brightnesses exceeding 12000 cd/m^2 ? Modern High Dynamic Range LCDs always do. (They use modulated LED backlights).
Colour gamut? Are you kidding? With RGB LED backlights, or peaked phosphor fluorescent backlights, the LCD gamut completely engulfs the CRT gamut. Indeed LCDs in the laboratory are now competing with OLED. Are you going to claim that CRT gamut exceeds OLED? (And yes I'm aware of the relationship between gamut and max brightness.)
MTF? CRTs have _never_ been close to LCDs.
It's no accident that traditional CRT manufacturers (e.g. Sony, Sharp) have shut down their manufacturing lines.
Since this has drifted entirely off of Fedora, let's continue the discussion off-line if you wish. I doubt anyone else is interested.
Dean
I think it is useful to allow others to learn. There are some people that can learn from these discussions. Marked OT is a good idea though.
In this thread I have learned about RGB LED backlights.
FWIW, I just read a forum post about laser driven monitors that are supposed to be shown in January. Could be even better than OLED or SED.
Robin Laing wrote:
Dean S. Messing wrote:
: > The statement that LCDs "are crap" for serious graphics work is simply : > not true any more. High-end LC panels _far_ exceed CRTs in every : > category (e.g., brightness, colour gamut, tone scale, MTF, dynamic : > range) except response time, and with "overdrive" and the new : > "flashing backlight" techniques on the horizon, even that barrier will : > soon be gone. CRT technology, like the vacuum tube in general, is : > essentially dead. : : Where I work, in television, where they do buy horrendously expensive : monitors, they will not touch LCDs for anything other than monitors that : aren't paid close attention to.
That's because studio people are notoriaously over-conservative. (I worked with them extensively at Tektronix. Trying to get them to use digital scopes in the beginning was like pulling teeth. At one point we had to put a circuit into one of our products to make the noise floor "look analogue". It was entirely artificial but it made the studio engineers happy.)
I will agree with you. They prefer tools that they are familiar with. Don't like change. Heck, some would still be using U-matic recorders if they could get a new portable one. :)
: CRTs far exceed them in all the things : you just mentioned.
This is simply false. You don't appear to have looked at the specs in a while.
I have looked at the specs as I am trying to purchase a new computer system for my work. I have yet to see a LCD monitor that provides all the specifications that meet the present CRT that I am using. The killer is the static contrast. I have seen a few that promote 5000:1 or 8000:1 contrast but when you read the fine print, this is only for dynamic contrast. Some of them have static contrasts in the 300:1 to 500:1 range. Pretty low for working on static images.
: The contrast range of the LCD is inferior, and : that's the basis of all the other measurements. With a poor contrast : range, you can't get the full colour gamut.
Again, you don't appear to have looked at the specs recently. At the last CES, I saw LC displays with contrast ratios exceeding 10000:1 made by every major manufacturer except Phillips.
I have yet to see one LCD monitor that provides a static contrast of 1000. The high contrasts specified are all dynamic contrasts done by changing the intensity of the backlight. Can you provide one manufacturer that makes a high contrast (Static) LCD monitor? I may be interested in purchasing it.
The best CRTs (measured in a dark room) don't usually don't exceed 6000:1. And a new generation of LCD is already being introduced by nearly every manufacturer that uses so-called dynamic backlight modulation. These have contrast ratios exceeding 100K:1
I need high contrast in static images for my work. This dynamic backlight is useless when comparing individual frames from highspeed cameras looking for a subtle change in the contrast to see shock fronts.
Then there's brightness. Can you show me a CRT that has a brightnesses exceeding 12000 cd/m^2 ? Modern High Dynamic Range LCDs always do. (They use modulated LED backlights).
Colour gamut? Are you kidding? With RGB LED backlights, or peaked phosphor fluorescent backlights, the LCD gamut completely engulfs the CRT gamut. Indeed LCDs in the laboratory are now competing with OLED. Are you going to claim that CRT gamut exceeds OLED? (And yes I'm aware of the relationship between gamut and max brightness.)
MTF? CRTs have _never_ been close to LCDs.
It's no accident that traditional CRT manufacturers (e.g. Sony, Sharp) have shut down their manufacturing lines.
Since this has drifted entirely off of Fedora, let's continue the discussion off-line if you wish. I doubt anyone else is interested.
Dean
I think it is useful to allow others to learn. There are some people that can learn from these discussions. Marked OT is a good idea though.
In this thread I have learned about RGB LED backlights.
FWIW, I just read a forum post about laser driven monitors that are supposed to be shown in January. Could be even better than OLED or SED.
I'm interested in this thread, too. How about a link the forum referenced above?
FYI, google for "silicon light machine" for some info on a really promising MEMS/laser based display technology, now owned by Sony. Several prototypes were developed about 5 years ago that were superior to anything else available then (or now). Then Sony bought the tech and they've been sitting on it ever since. Maybe waiting for solid-state laser technology to catch up?
Regards,
John
Robin Laing wrote: : Dean S. Messing wrote: : > Tim wrote: : > : Where I work, in television, where they do buy horrendously expensive : > : monitors, they will not touch LCDs for anything other than monitors that : > : aren't paid close attention to. : > : > That's because studio people are notoriaously over-conservative. (I : > worked with them extensively at Tektronix. Trying to get them to use : > digital scopes in the beginning was like pulling teeth. At one point : > we had to put a circuit into one of our products to make the noise : > floor "look analogue". It was entirely artificial but it made the : > studio engineers happy.) : : I will agree with you. They prefer tools that they are familiar with. : Don't like change. Heck, some would still be using U-matic recorders if : they could get a new portable one. :)
And claim that they have better recording charateristics in A/B tests than modern digital recorders!
: > : > : CRTs far exceed them in all the things : > : you just mentioned. : > : > This is simply false. You don't appear to have looked at : > the specs in a while. : : I have looked at the specs as I am trying to purchase a new computer : system for my work. I have yet to see a LCD monitor that provides all : the specifications that meet the present CRT that I am using. The : killer is the static contrast. I have seen a few that promote 5000:1 or : 8000:1 contrast but when you read the fine print, this is only for : dynamic contrast. Some of them have static contrasts in the 300:1 to : 500:1 range. Pretty low for working on static images.
For computer monitor grade panels this is correct. But for the next generation modulated LED backlit displays the static contrast is very large, as is the max cd/m^2. That's because in dark areas the backlight is off so very dim so there's no leakage thru the pixels. These won't be available as Joe Sixpack computer monitors for some time, but for studio quality, or home theatre quality viewing they are right around the corner. As I've said already, their specs (as carefully measured by trained metrologists) exceed the best CRTs, despite what certain people on this list want to believe. And we are not talking about specsmanship and fooling around with special patterns to get the best numbers. We are talking worst case static C.R.
But (again) these are for spendy applications, not the average desktop monitor. (However even for reasonably priced LCDs, CRT specs are now exceeded in several categories: gamut, brightness, and MTF (moducation transfer function, not mean-time-to-failure) being three. That's why text on an LCD with a given native resolution looks so much sharper than on a CRT scanning at the same resolution.
It is important that the LCD be operated at the native resolution (so called "dot-on-dot") or text and images will look poor.
: > : The contrast range of the LCD is inferior, and : > : that's the basis of all the other measurements. With a poor contrast : > : range, you can't get the full colour gamut. : > : > Again, you don't appear to have looked at the specs recently. At the : > last CES, I saw LC displays with contrast ratios exceeding 10000:1 made : > by every major manufacturer except Phillips. : : I have yet to see one LCD monitor that provides a static contrast of : 1000.
I have three in our lab that spec out at 50000:1, one with max brightness that approaches outdoor daylight. Have a look at: http://www.dolby.com/promo/hdr/technology.html
: The high contrasts specified are all dynamic contrasts done by : changing the intensity of the backlight.
On cheap panels that advertise 5000:1 you are correct. For high-end stuff, with modulated backlight, it's static.
: Can you provide one : manufacturer that makes a high contrast (Static) LCD monitor? I may be : interested in purchasing it.
I gave you a link above. But you are not interested in purchasing it :-) But in about three years they will be available.
On the other hand, the LCD has so many other advantages, like high brightness, colour gamut, and MTF that I wouldn't live w/o one. I have a high quality Panasonic CRT and high-end LCD with a KDE desktop spanning them. Whenever I look at text on the (well-adjusted) CRT, I feel like squinting because it is so blurred compared to the LCD. That's due to the Gaussian Spot profile of the CRT compared with the pixel profile of the LCD.
There's also a type of sampling that's called subpixel subsampling that gives about 1.5 times more horizontal resolution on a striped pattern LCD. This type of sampling will not work on any CRT.
Also, 1920x1080 (so-called "full HD") LCDs are now common and relatively inexpensive. What's the current price of an HDTV CRT?
There's much more that I could say (about new sampling geometries, multiprimary displays, white subpixel displays, etc).
: : > The best CRTs (measured in a dark room) don't usually don't exceed : > 6000:1. And a new generation of LCD is already being introduced by : > nearly every manufacturer that uses so-called dynamic backlight : > modulation. These have contrast ratios exceeding 100K:1 : : I need high contrast in static images for my work. This dynamic : backlight is useless when comparing individual frames from highspeed : cameras looking for a subtle change in the contrast to see shock fronts.
Why don't you tell me more offline? Your application sounds interesting. I'm happy to discuss it with you. You may be misunderstanding "dynamic backlight." An old technology merely dimmed the backlight as a function of the luminance histogram. That's not to what I'm referring. Image an array of LEDs (and appropriate diffusion screens) behind the LCD that is spatio-temporally modulated. In dark areas of the image the LEDs are dimmed below their average, in highlights, they are brightened above their average. If the LEDs are RGB, this can be done in each colour plane to not only increase luminance contrast but chrominance contrast as well. That's what is now called "dynamic backlight" or "area active" backlight. With very bright LEDs (as in the link above), 16 bits of dynamic range are achievable.
: I think it is useful to allow others to learn. There are some people : that can learn from these discussions. Marked OT is a good idea though. : : In this thread I have learned about RGB LED backlights. : : FWIW, I just read a forum post about laser driven monitors that are : supposed to be shown in January. Could be even better than OLED or SED. :
Ok. I'll wait to see if anyone screems about cluttering up the Fedora list with irrelevant junk. :-)
Dean
On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 22:34 -0700, Dean S. Messing wrote:
Ok. I'll wait to see if anyone screems about cluttering up the Fedora list with irrelevant junk. :-)
Please continue! While I don't understand one half of what is being posted, in due time whatever is relevant to me will slowly get absorbed! That's how I learn nifty stuff. I also thank you both for an intelligent discussion free of petty dogmas. It's very refreshing. Ric