If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
LCD monitors
I'm thinking of getting a 17" LCD monitor, which will be used in large part
for digital camera work. Most of the 17" monitors--in fact all that I've seen--have a maximum, and presumably optimal, resolution of 1280x1024. Obviously this 5:4 aspect ratio means non-square pixels, and this concerns me. I've tried viewing digital photos at 1280x1024 on my present CRT monitor, and while they don't look too bad it's obvious that they are slightly squashed vertically, when compared to square-pixel settings. So my questions a 1. Do 17" LCD monitors generally take well (or at all) to be used at a non-standard 1280x960? 2. If not, do those of you who use such monitors find this to be a problem? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
don't see the 5:4 aspect as a problem at all. LCD monitors have one setting
that they prefer. My graphics department has 3 out of 4 people using LCDs right now while they all agree it is not quite as sharp as a high quality CRT they all feel the quality is sufficient for what they do which is all different kinds of artwork using Adobe Illustrator, Canvas and digital photo editing with Photoshop all for the MAC. They even do some digital editing such as adding people to a group shot or getting rid of a parked car! If you wan to save space and other pluses a LCD offers go for it if not get a high quality CRT Wayne "Nostrobino" wrote in message m... I'm thinking of getting a 17" LCD monitor, which will be used in large part for digital camera work. Most of the 17" monitors--in fact all that I've seen--have a maximum, and presumably optimal, resolution of 1280x1024. Obviously this 5:4 aspect ratio means non-square pixels, and this concerns me. I've tried viewing digital photos at 1280x1024 on my present CRT monitor, and while they don't look too bad it's obvious that they are slightly squashed vertically, when compared to square-pixel settings. So my questions a 1. Do 17" LCD monitors generally take well (or at all) to be used at a non-standard 1280x960? 2. If not, do those of you who use such monitors find this to be a problem? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 00:12:16 GMT, "Nostrobino"
wrote: I'm thinking of getting a 17" LCD monitor, which will be used in large part for digital camera work. Most of the 17" monitors--in fact all that I've seen--have a maximum, and presumably optimal, resolution of 1280x1024. Obviously this 5:4 aspect ratio means non-square pixels Okay, I'm going to try and avoid confusion with the following statement. 1) The "picture elements" or pixels on a monitor don't change shape. They are physically locked by the design of the monitor and changing aspect ratio has no effect on their shape. 2) The "picture elements" or pixels of the file can be changed, but don't need to be to "accommodate" a particular monitor resolution. Using most image viewing programs you can zoom in so that one pixel of the image file uses hundreds of pixels of the monitor to display it. My point is so that the difference between hardware pixels and image pixels is understood and we don't confuse the two. So if I have a picture that is 1280x960 and I want to display it on a monitor set to 1280x1024 I have a couple of options. Option# 1: Alter the aspect ratio so that the 1280x960 image gets stretched out to fill a 1280x1024 screen. Obviously this will distort the image. Option# 2: Display the 1280x960 image AS a 1280x960 image which would result in some "letterboxing" (empty space at the top and bottom of the 1280x1024 screen) but would not distort the image. and this concerns me. I've tried viewing digital photos at 1280x1024 on my present CRT monitor, and while they don't look too bad it's obvious that they are slightly squashed vertically I think it's possible that you changed the resolution of the picture somewhere, maybe you set something to "fill screen" or similar. When I view a native 1280x960 image on my monitor set to 1280x1024 I get an image with the correct aspect ratio (1280x960) that is "letterboxed" on the screen (I.E. has some blank space at the top and bottom). , when compared to square-pixel settings. So my questions a 1. Do 17" LCD monitors generally take well (or at all) to be used at a non-standard 1280x960? Some better than others but I'm pretty sure that the resolution setting isn't your issue. 2. If not, do those of you who use such monitors find this to be a problem? I use twin 17" LCD monitors set to 1280x1024 resolution. The set I have are pretty high end so the color cast/balance is very good. The blackpoint is a bit odd, but I'm used to it now so my brain just automatically compensates. Of course I also have another bias. For whatever reason nearly all CRT monitors give me a headache after a fairly short period. None of the LCD monitors do that (except maybe the crappiest, fuzzy, low end ones), thus I would never go back to CRTs even if my LCD screens weren't as nice as they are. Of course YMMV. Drifter "I've been here, I've been there..." |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 00:12:16 GMT, "Nostrobino" wrote:
I'm thinking of getting a 17" LCD monitor, which will be used in large part for digital camera work. Most of the 17" monitors--in fact all that I've seen--have a maximum, and presumably optimal, resolution of 1280x1024. Obviously this 5:4 aspect ratio means non-square pixels, and this concerns me. I've tried viewing digital photos at 1280x1024 on my present CRT monitor, and while they don't look too bad it's obvious that they are slightly squashed vertically, when compared to square-pixel settings. I'd say get a good CRT and forget the LCD for now. I have a top of the line graphics quality NEC 19" CRT and the picture is awesome! No LCD comes close! AND I paid half of what an 18" LCD would cost! So my questions a 1. Do 17" LCD monitors generally take well (or at all) to be used at a non-standard 1280x960? If you don't use an LCD in it's native resolution, it will suffer from distortion in fine details. Also, the color has to be generated over multiple cells and that can cause problems as well. Remember that an LCD monitor has a cell for each pixel and is very precise that way, but a glass monitor can have it's beam deflection size varied all over the place and still maintain perfect color. It's easy on a CRT to adjust the picture size to the exact aspect ratio you want - you don't have to display edge to edge just because it can! And top quality CRTs have much finer 'pixels'. 2. If not, do those of you who use such monitors find this to be a problem? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Nostrobino" wrote in message m... I'm thinking of getting a 17" LCD monitor, which will be used in large part for digital camera work. Most of the 17" monitors--in fact all that I've seen--have a maximum, and presumably optimal, resolution of 1280x1024. Obviously this 5:4 aspect ratio means non-square pixels, and this concerns me. I've tried viewing digital photos at 1280x1024 on my present CRT monitor, and while they don't look too bad it's obvious that they are slightly squashed vertically, when compared to square-pixel settings. So my questions a 1. Do 17" LCD monitors generally take well (or at all) to be used at a non-standard 1280x960? 2. If not, do those of you who use such monitors find this to be a problem? You won't wan't to use your flat panel in anything other than it's native setting. That said, you may well have some pinched photos, though I have not found this to be a real problem on my 20.1" 1600x1200 flat panel. BTW--To those who automatically rule out flat panels for photo editing work, I'll just say that I've never had a better time color-matching and printing than with this flat panel. Once you get used to judging sharpness (which can tend to look sharper on panels) it's fabuloso. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Bob writes:
I'd say get a good CRT and forget the LCD for now. I have a top of the line graphics quality NEC 19" CRT and the picture is awesome! No LCD comes close! AND I paid half of what an 18" LCD would cost! Did you have fun testing the 30" Apple Cinema display? That's an LCD, so you must have checked against it to make such a statement. Right? B |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Nostrobino" wrote in message m...
I'm thinking of getting a 17" LCD monitor, which will be used in large part for digital camera work. Most of the 17" monitors--in fact all that I've seen--have a maximum, and presumably optimal, resolution of 1280x1024. Obviously this 5:4 aspect ratio means non-square pixels, and this concerns me. I've tried viewing digital photos at 1280x1024 on my present CRT monitor, and while they don't look too bad it's obvious that they are slightly squashed vertically, when compared to square-pixel settings. So my questions a 1. Do 17" LCD monitors generally take well (or at all) to be used at a non-standard 1280x960? 2. If not, do those of you who use such monitors find this to be a problem? I'd be less concerned about aspect ratio and more concerned about the 20-30% color gamut you'll be losing by switching to an LCD. Rick |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Kibo informs me that "Nostrobino" stated that:
[aspect ratio problems] So my questions a 1. Do 17" LCD monitors generally take well (or at all) to be used at a non-standard 1280x960? You should never, ever use an LCD monitor at a non-native resolution. Unlike CRTs, LCD panels are made up of an array of individual pixels, so a non-native resolution requires the display to stretch the pixels from your computer to cover the screen. Because they won't map 1:1, the result is unbelievably ugly distortion. 2. If not, do those of you who use such monitors find this to be a problem? I have both an LCD & a CRT monitor on this PC. I only use the LCD for text work (such as reading Usenet , & use the CRT for photo work. LCDs just don't have the colour/tonal resolution needed for working with photos, even when calibrated. My advice is to stick with CRTs if colour accuracy is important to you. -- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Kibo informs me that "Nostrobino" stated that:
[aspect ratio problems] So my questions a 1. Do 17" LCD monitors generally take well (or at all) to be used at a non-standard 1280x960? You should never, ever use an LCD monitor at a non-native resolution. Unlike CRTs, LCD panels are made up of an array of individual pixels, so a non-native resolution requires the display to stretch the pixels from your computer to cover the screen. Because they won't map 1:1, the result is unbelievably ugly distortion. 2. If not, do those of you who use such monitors find this to be a problem? I have both an LCD & a CRT monitor on this PC. I only use the LCD for text work (such as reading Usenet , & use the CRT for photo work. LCDs just don't have the colour/tonal resolution needed for working with photos, even when calibrated. My advice is to stick with CRTs if colour accuracy is important to you. -- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Kibo informs me that Bruce Murphy stated that:
Bob writes: I'd say get a good CRT and forget the LCD for now. I have a top of the line graphics quality NEC 19" CRT and the picture is awesome! No LCD comes close! AND I paid half of what an 18" LCD would cost! Did you have fun testing the 30" Apple Cinema display? That's an LCD, so you must have checked against it to make such a statement. Right? You can obtain 30" Apple Cinema displays for the price of an 18" generic LCD screen? Impressive! -- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
LCD Monitors dynamic range | David J Taylor | Digital Photography | 6 | July 26th 04 06:47 PM |
Help with image size before taking image to printer. | Mr. Rather B. Beachen | Digital Photography | 5 | July 4th 04 04:23 PM |
graphics monitors | Steven Laughmiller | Digital Photography | 3 | June 29th 04 09:50 PM |