Monitors slowly evolving
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Superzoom P&S's may have long "effective" focal lengths, but....
Next: What is the point of having 16 bit colour if a computer monitor can only display 8 bit colour? How do you edit 16 bit colour when you can only see 8 bit?
From: R. Mark Clayton on 12 Jul 2010 19:22 "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:5dfm365fhlvh04eu3dn4ddgovsvqjc8v9o(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:45:13 +0100, "R. Mark Clayton" > <nospamclayton(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > >>Last year I bought an LG M227WD. It cost under �200 and is currently in >>use >>as a telly in the kitchen, however the image at 1920x1080 when tested as a >>monitor is better than the Iiyamas. > > > Define "better". For most purposes better means a flat, linear image with no distortion and every pixel where it is meant to be digitally. The only areas where they might not be better are: - Reliability - CRT's can last for decades, degrading relatively slowly. Colour rendition - CRT's can have sophisticated gamma correction applied [and re-applied], making the image closer to the real colour. This is useful for colour printers, fabric designers and other trades where colour accuracy is very important, but for most practical puroposes reasonable accuracy and monotonicity are well sufficient. LCD monitors have also fallen well below the price of large CRT's and may fall further - for instance a 21" Iiyama cost profile was: - 1995 1600x1200 [@60Hz] �1,300 1997 1600x1200 [@60Hz] �900 2005 1600x1200 [@85Hz FST] �500 last 1600x1200 [@85Hz FST] �400 In theory [and practice] it can display 2048x1536, but the dot pitch is only sufficient for 1600x1200 (6Mp), and even with an FST tube there is just discernible divergence at the corners and a need for regular degaussing to remove a cast. By contrast an equivalent 1920x1080 22" screen is under �200 and comes with a built in digital TV and massed of connectivity. If you want to spend equivalent ��� to old CRT monitors then a Dell U2711 has 2560x1440 will give twice the resolution, a 50% bigger image and lots of frills for <�700 Fairly obviously high volumes at full HD TV resolution (1920x1080) has driven the price point for this resolution so low it is difficult to cost justify buying anything with more pixels. > > It may be "better" for web browsing, email etc., but inexpensive LCD > monitors just don't cut it for serious post-processing of high quality > images. The very best monitors, from manufacturers such as Apple, > Eizo and LaCie, are only now approaching the quality levels of the > better CRT monitors. > > One day, there will be a flat screen LCD (or some other technology) > monitor which will surpass the image quality of the best CRTs, but we > are not there yet. Of course there is no shortage of manufacturers > who claim we are already there, and end users who claim that the cheap > LCD screen they just bought is better than any CRT screen they ever > used - but it was always thus, and these people should be ignored. > And where do you buy a new CRT?
From: Me on 13 Jul 2010 22:25 On 12/07/2010 2:16 p.m., RichA wrote: > On Jul 10, 10:59 pm, Me<u...(a)domain.invalid> wrote: >> On 11/07/2010 2:15 p.m., RichA wrote:>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/10bit.shtml >> >> Not saying that having 10 bit panels isn't an advance, but one of the >> problems with LCDs (vs CRT) is non-linear response on the LCD sub-pixels >> to the signal. That can be corrected to some degree by calibration, and >> so 10 bits probably with more precision (or can it - when>10 bit >> internal LUTs are already used in these monitors?), but: >> Some of the 8 bit IPS panels available at relatively low cost are pretty >> good these days - minimal or no visible banding of (8 bit) gradients. > > When my beloved 19" CRT died and I was forced to buy LCD, I was > shocked at the lack of tonality. It sickened me. I wish they still > made CRTs, but economics and weight killed them. My 21" diamontron CRT didn't die. To list why I prefer my relatively cheap LCD (US$300 Dell 2209WA IPS panel): It's larger screen but takes up a fraction of the space. It's got a crisper, nicer looking image - on text, on images, on video. It doesn't need regular degaussing, and even then hard to get rid of colour discrepancy across the screen. It doesn't need recalibrating every week or so, or when it gets shifted. It doesn't shimmy on screen when I bump the desk. I don't have to look at the aperture grille retaining wires across the screen. It uses less power. It can be tilted, height adjusted, or rotated to portrait orientation easily. It connects via DVI-D. Calibrated with a colorimeter, I get average delta E of about 1 or less, so colour accuracy is plenty good enough for most (even "serious") photographic uses. Some graphics pros may need more. Soft-proofing properly, I get excellent screen/print matches - at least as good as I ever got with the CRT. I don't need to compromise between moire on patterns, and the softening effect from enabling moire reduction. There's no flicker at default refresh rate and resolution - it's far less tiring when viewed for long periods. It cost a lot less than the CRT it replaced. Reasons I preferred my CRT: nil, zip none.
From: Ray Fischer on 15 Jul 2010 04:19 RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: >http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/10bit.shtml And only $2300 for monitor and adapter for a display that will look just like monitors that sell for hundreds less. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Mxsmanic on 15 Jul 2010 07:25 Ray Fischer writes: > And only $2300 for monitor and adapter for a display that will look > just like monitors that sell for hundreds less. Eizo monitors are pricey, but they are very good monitors.
From: Me on 15 Jul 2010 19:42
On 15/07/2010 11:25 p.m., Mxsmanic wrote: > Ray Fischer writes: > >> And only $2300 for monitor and adapter for a display that will look >> just like monitors that sell for hundreds less. > > Eizo monitors are pricey, but they are very good monitors. > Yes - some of the high-end ones are measured individually in the factory, have a LUT and adjust across areas of the screen for backlight non-uniformity, coming with a guarantee and measurement certificate that variation from area to area on the panel will be less than Delta E (2.0 - IIRC) but in practice often much less. Very nice for graphic art pros and/or extremely colour critical work. Other more affordable brands (NEC/HP) are introducing similar concepts, not always successfully according to some reviews on TFTCentral. For most photography, unless the panel is particularly non-uniform, it doesn't matter much at all. |