LCD vs CRT Monitor

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

wrote:

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

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.

wrote:

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

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.

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.


wrote in message
...
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

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.

wrote in message
...
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

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.

wrote in message
...
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

On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 07:20:46 GMT, wrote:

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.

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

On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 07:20:46 GMT, wrote:

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.

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

On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 07:20:46 GMT, wrote:

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.

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

"Bowser" writes:

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.

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
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.