LCD vs CRT Monitor

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by mmjmm, Aug 9, 2004.

  1. mmjmm

    mmjmm Guest

    I will be getting a new monitor soon and I have read that CRT monitors
    are better for graphics. As I will be using it much of the time for
    viewing/processing scanned slides and negs I would like to know how
    big the difference is. I will not be using it for games so it is
    mainly the still images I am interested in using it for.

    Thanks
    Mike
     
    mmjmm, Aug 9, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. mmjmm

    Ryadia Guest

    I used a Cornerstone 21" monitor for years until finally it just
    couldn't make a bright enough picture anymore. I bought a Philips 17"
    TFT screen to replace it. I liked the thing well enough but after 6
    months I bought a Viewsonic 19" G90f+, Graphics CRT monitor. It balances
    the colour right off the CD and I can truly say: For the first time in a
    long time, I see exactly what my printer outputs. This was never the
    case with the TFT screen. At half the price of TFT, I think these
    Viewsonic's are likely to find wide acceptance with photographers for
    many years to come.

    Ryadia.
     
    Ryadia, Aug 9, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. mmjmm

    Nostrobino Guest

    I have very limited experience with LCD monitors, and don't own any except
    for the 15" monitor on my Toshiba laptop (or notebook as they call 'em now).

    That one is quite nice, given the inherent limitations of LCDs. Like all
    LCDs has the advantage that it is (and will remain) completely
    distortion-free and in perfect "focus," which CRTs obviously cannot promise
    to do. I use it for showing photos of family events, etc., when I visit on
    family get-togethers.

    It's satisfactory for that, but inferior to what a CRT of equivalent image
    size (meaning about 17") would be. Chiefly this is because the LCD monitor
    a) cannot show a really solid black as a CRT does, and b) it is quite
    sensitive to viewing angle as far as seeing good contrast over the whole
    image is concerned. The blacks as well as the brightness fall off markedly
    when viewed from something other than the optimal viewing angle.

    Like most LCDs of this size, its maximum (and optimal) resolution is
    1024x768. While this is nice and sharp for text and images generally, it's
    definitely not as sharp for photos as a good, equivalent sized print
    (meaning 9x12") would be. A friend of mine who does a lot of digital
    photography has a really expensive notebook computer which does 1600x1200 on
    its 15" screen; while that is obviously better in resolution it still has
    the other shortcomings of LCDs.

    For a desktop PC, the only real advantages to LCD monitors that I can see is
    that they're nice and light, and don't take up much space. If those are
    really important factors, and for some people they probably are, they're a
    good reason to go for an LCD. Otherwise I'd stay with CRTs.

    N.
     
    Nostrobino, Aug 9, 2004
    #3
  4. mmjmm

    Bowser Guest

    Based on my experience, CRTs are much better for photo editing that LCDs.
    The LCD screens don't have the range of brightness, and as a result, whites
    wash out and blacks go totally black much quicker. I tried a high quality
    LCD, and dumped it in a week. The colors were more accurate, the grayscale
    response was much better, and I spend less time making test prints to see
    what the photo actually looked like.
     
    Bowser, Aug 9, 2004
    #4
  5. I have a dual-monitor setup. The 22" CRT is my primary monitor and
    the 19" TFT is my secondary.

    The great thing about my CRT is that it has very good colour
    capability and a very wide viewing angle. But it's huge!

    The TFT is very sharp and is great for text. However, colour
    reproduction is a bit more troublesome. Also, I've noticed banding
    which can be a problem, and the brightness changes dependent upon
    viewing angle. But as a secondary monitor it is more than adequate,
    and I've got it swiveled at 90 degrees so that it is in portrait
    mode...great for reading documents, etc! Doesn't take up much space
    either.

    You could buy a more expensive TFT which doesn't have the limitations
    that mine does (like the new Apple displays!)...I couldn't justify
    the costs for my own particular needs.

    --
    Kulvinder Singh Matharu
    Website : www.metalvortex.com
    Contact : www.metalvortex.com/form/form.htm

    "It ain't Coca Cola, it's rice" - The Clash
     
    Kulvinder Singh Matharu, Aug 9, 2004
    #5
  6. Actually, the best LCD's are better than the best CRT's. There are
    two conditions on that, however:

    1. I'm talking about the best LCD's. I know the Apple Cinema Displays
    are good, and suspect there are others. But a low-cost LCD may
    well be worse than a CRT of similar price.

    2. It has to be calibrated with software designed for LCD displays,
    as the needed compensations are different. I think Macbeth has
    software capable of calibrating LCD's well.

    Good LCD's have color gamuts that are thoroughly competitive with
    CRT's, and a brightness range that often exceeds that of CRT's under
    real conditions. They can be calibrated well (folks from the RIT
    Munsell Color Science Lab tell me ~1 delta E max, mean ~0.5 delta E,
    where 1 delta E is designed to be the minimum perceptible color difference.
    They are far more uniform across their full screen area, and have much
    better resolution characteristics. They also are quite stable over time.

    Laptop LCD's don't fit into this category, since they are designed to
    optimize light throughput to save battery power for the
    backlight. Desktop LCD's don't have this constraint.

    <snip>
     
    Stephen H. Westin, Aug 10, 2004
    #6
  7. mmjmm

    Bowser Guest

    I took a look at the Apple displays, but at the time, they didn't work with
    anything but Macs. The newer models do, but the cost is just ridiculous. I
    tried a Viewsonic model (19") with a DVI input, and it was horrible. The CRT
    I use now is very inepensive, sharp, and produces great color. I'll pass on
    LCDs for another year or so. I've read what you say, that good LCDs can be
    calibrated to better CRTs, but I just can't see it in real life. I guess
    I'll keep looking.
     
    Bowser, Aug 10, 2004
    #7
  8. mmjmm

    Dallas Guest

    Holy crap, Kulvinder! Are you blind? 22" and 19"???

    Are you the same Kulvinder who posts on rasf1? Or am I just going slightly
    mad?
     
    Dallas, Aug 10, 2004
    #8
  9. There is an adapter, though at a $100 cost.
    Actually, probably a bit less than high-end CRT's.
    Yup, for those of us spending our own money, a CRT is probably a better
    compromise for right now.

    <snip>
     
    Stephen H. Westin, Aug 10, 2004
    #9
  10. Why? What hardware and software are you using for calibration and
    profiling? What errors do you measure?
    Then I guess the folks who measured it are lying.

    <snip>
     
    Stephen H. Westin, Aug 12, 2004
    #10
  11. mmjmm

    Dallas Guest

    Hey! How's it going!? I thought I recognised the name, but I started
    getting confused about where I remembered it from. I popped into that
    group a few months ago to see what was up, but it was, as you say, not
    such a friendly place. Same old people, just a little more jaded.
    I seen one of those 22" jobs before and I had to sit about ten rows back
    to get the whole thing in my field of vision!
    Cool. Just don't design any web pages with high resolution. I find it an
    absolute pain to have to reset my monitor to 1024x768 whenever I want to
    change a page on my site. Thing is, if I don't people who have that
    resolution or smaller have to scroll to see the whole page.
     
    Dallas, Aug 12, 2004
    #11
  12. [snip]
    I'm sure we discussed your new guitar here (digital or 3mm NG) a few
    months ago!

    I just had a look in rasf1...getting real nasty between a few people!
    LOL! I do tend to move my head around a little more than other
    people!
    Hey, I'm running 1280x1024 on each monitor! Seriously, I think my own
    web pages flow quite well across different resolutions. But being
    mostly a photo gallery, it makes sense to use a resolution that takes
    in the whole image. One or the pages may need to be scrolled to the
    right (that's a real web design sin!) but the images really do look
    better at these large sizes...but it's only one or two pages. 800x600
    should be fine on most of my pages.

    However, just saw that thread about the 23" LCD monitors
    (Phillips/Sony/Apple)...bloody nice but bloody expensive. I'm still
    tempted though!

    Just remembered...I've got two Xboxes on the LAN. One Xbox is
    connected to the TV, and the other Xbox is connected to the 22" CRT
    monitor...so that large size comes in handy when playing Halo (in
    fact 22" is almost not big enough considering that the TV is a 28"
    widescreen).

    --
    Kulvinder Singh Matharu
    Website : www.metalvortex.com
    Contact : www.metalvortex.com/form/form.htm

    "It ain't Coca Cola, it's rice" - The Clash
     
    Kulvinder Singh Matharu, Aug 12, 2004
    #12
  13. mmjmm

    Dallas Guest

    Just goes to show how shot my memory is! I'm wondering now which guitar
    that was? I have three of them now. A Swuier Bullet Strat, Fender
    mini-jumbo and most recently a Yamaha solid top 12 string.
    I have been using 1280-1024 since getting a 17" monitor about a year back.
    I designed my website using Frontpage and it looked great on my screen
    until I saw it on somebody who was running a 1024x768 res. They were
    scrolling all over the place in each frame!

    I still use frames but I try to keep the size of them to fit properly in a
    1024x768 resolution.
    Okay you almost lost me with the Xbox and you definitely lost me on the
    "halo" bit! I have loads of games on my PC, but they are mostly my sons.
    He plays all this Harry Potter shit, plus he has a bunch of EA Sports
    games.

    I'm not much of a gamer myself, but I did enjoy cheating my way through
    Indiana Jones and the Infernal Machine! ;-)
     
    Dallas, Aug 13, 2004
    #13
  14. SNIP
    You may also have noticed that 1280x1024 has a 5:4 aspect ratio and
    1024x768 has a 4:3 ratio.
    Apparently the majority of web browser is now using that resolution,
    and a fair number is still on 800x640.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Aug 13, 2004
    #14
  15. mmjmm

    Alan Browne Guest

    Web browswers, like most "window" oriented programs, fit into the
    selected res.

    Page design is another thing.
     
    Alan Browne, Aug 13, 2004
    #15
  16. [snip]
    Playing Halo over the LAN with others...way to go!

    Some say Halo is the best game ever, some say it is over hyped but I
    keep going back to it for multiplayer fragging!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/collective/A2286957
    http://archive.gamespy.com/reviews/november01/halo/

    There is PC version but it isn't quite as good. Can't wait for
    Halo2...

    --
    Kulvinder Singh Matharu
    Website : www.metalvortex.com
    Contact : www.metalvortex.com/form/form.htm

    "It ain't Coca Cola, it's rice" - The Clash
     
    Kulvinder Singh Matharu, Aug 13, 2004
    #16
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.