«

My excellent Sony 20" CRT is gradually giving up the ghost; it has
dimmed enough over the past two months that I no longer trust it for
photo work, and so I've suspended my scanning activities until I can
replace it.

I'm very interested in hearing recommendations for a new monitor. I
want a monitor that is well suited to precision photo work, and it
_must_ support at least 1600x1200 pixels at at least 60-70 Hz refresh.
It must have standard analog inputs compatible with my existing NVidia
video card. The monitor should be a 20" model (or a 19" viewing area
minimum). It must be able to resolve individual pixels on the screen at
1600x1200.

I'm interested in both flat-panel and CRT monitors. Traditionally I've
looked to CRTs for the very best quality for photo work (and I'd still
love to have a Sony Artisan, but I doubt if I can afford that now), but
I'm wondering how much the flat panels have improved. My CRT is
slipping so fast that just about anything would be better, I suppose.

I'd like recommendations based mainly on quality and reliability, and
also on both of these with respect to price (price/performance).

Have manufacturers succeeded in consistently producing large flat-panels
without defective pixels yet?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

"Mxsmanic" <> wrote in message news:...
> My excellent Sony 20" CRT is gradually giving up the ghost; it has
> dimmed enough over the past two months that I no longer trust it for
> photo work, and so I've suspended my scanning activities until I can
> replace it.
>
> I'm very interested in hearing recommendations for a new monitor. I
> want a monitor that is well suited to precision photo work, and it
> _must_ support at least 1600x1200 pixels at at least 60-70 Hz refresh.
> It must have standard analog inputs compatible with my existing NVidia
> video card. The monitor should be a 20" model (or a 19" viewing area
> minimum). It must be able to resolve individual pixels on the screen at
> 1600x1200.
>
> I'm interested in both flat-panel and CRT monitors. Traditionally I've
> looked to CRTs for the very best quality for photo work (and I'd still
> love to have a Sony Artisan, but I doubt if I can afford that now), but
> I'm wondering how much the flat panels have improved. My CRT is
> slipping so fast that just about anything would be better, I suppose.
>
> I'd like recommendations based mainly on quality and reliability, and
> also on both of these with respect to price (price/performance).

Price/performance-wise, even though LCDs have improved
over the past few years, still nothing touches Mitsubishi's
Diamondtron CRT. Their 22" 2070 is ~$700. To get the
same color gamut on an LCD costs 3x as much, or more.
Not to mention a CRT's resolution and refresh rate flexibility,
which cannot be had on an LCD at any price.

Mike

Personally I think you should invest in monitor like in speakers for your
stereo system. The speakers on your stereo system are literally what you
hear - you don't hear the DVD player or the receiver, etc. Within limits
and unless you have very discriminating ears and are a real audiophile, the
impact of receiver and other electronics are nothing next to the speakers'
quality. Also, everyone has different ideas about what sounds good to them.

Same thing, in my mind, applies to monitors. The process/box/memory needs
to meet certain minimum standards (depending on use) but after that I would
say it doesn't matter much. But that is not true of the monitor. Go to the
store, take a look, try to get the salespeople to display from a CD a jpeg
file that you KNOW should look a certain way. See what YOU prefer. If you
want that Sony, GET IT. It will be with you for years, the 100s of dollars
different it might cost you now are nothing compared to the enjoyment and
satisfaction you will get over the years because you bought the right
display that was perfect, in your mind, for your use and application.
"Mxsmanic" <> wrote in message
news:...
> My excellent Sony 20" CRT is gradually giving up the ghost; it has
> dimmed enough over the past two months that I no longer trust it for
> photo work, and so I've suspended my scanning activities until I can
> replace it.
>
> I'm very interested in hearing recommendations for a new monitor. I
> want a monitor that is well suited to precision photo work, and it
> _must_ support at least 1600x1200 pixels at at least 60-70 Hz refresh.
> It must have standard analog inputs compatible with my existing NVidia
> video card. The monitor should be a 20" model (or a 19" viewing area
> minimum). It must be able to resolve individual pixels on the screen at
> 1600x1200.
>
> I'm interested in both flat-panel and CRT monitors. Traditionally I've
> looked to CRTs for the very best quality for photo work (and I'd still
> love to have a Sony Artisan, but I doubt if I can afford that now), but
> I'm wondering how much the flat panels have improved. My CRT is
> slipping so fast that just about anything would be better, I suppose.
>
> I'd like recommendations based mainly on quality and reliability, and
> also on both of these with respect to price (price/performance).
>
> Have manufacturers succeeded in consistently producing large flat-panels
> without defective pixels yet?
>
> --
> Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Interesting, while a CRT does have inherently higher resolution and more
flexible resolution than LCD, with LCD there is as far as I know NO issue on
refresh rate - is not applicable to LCDs. The picture I've seen on LCDs is
always rock-steady. NEVER have observed ANY flickering.

"Michael" <> wrote in message
news:...
> "Mxsmanic" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> My excellent Sony 20" CRT is gradually giving up the ghost; it has
>> dimmed enough over the past two months that I no longer trust it for
>> photo work, and so I've suspended my scanning activities until I can
>> replace it.
>>
>> I'm very interested in hearing recommendations for a new monitor. I
>> want a monitor that is well suited to precision photo work, and it
>> _must_ support at least 1600x1200 pixels at at least 60-70 Hz refresh.
>> It must have standard analog inputs compatible with my existing NVidia
>> video card. The monitor should be a 20" model (or a 19" viewing area
>> minimum). It must be able to resolve individual pixels on the screen at
>> 1600x1200.
>>
>> I'm interested in both flat-panel and CRT monitors. Traditionally I've
>> looked to CRTs for the very best quality for photo work (and I'd still
>> love to have a Sony Artisan, but I doubt if I can afford that now), but
>> I'm wondering how much the flat panels have improved. My CRT is
>> slipping so fast that just about anything would be better, I suppose.
>>
>> I'd like recommendations based mainly on quality and reliability, and
>> also on both of these with respect to price (price/performance).
>
> Price/performance-wise, even though LCDs have improved
> over the past few years, still nothing touches Mitsubishi's
> Diamondtron CRT. Their 22" 2070 is ~$700. To get the
> same color gamut on an LCD costs 3x as much, or more.
> Not to mention a CRT's resolution and refresh rate flexibility,
> which cannot be had on an LCD at any price.
>
> Mike
>
>
>

Granted, refresh rate is not an issue for still photography work,
but certainly is for video. Ghosting is still a problem on most
LCDs.

"Dave" <> wrote in message news:6k1hd.32$...
> Interesting, while a CRT does have inherently higher resolution and more
> flexible resolution than LCD, with LCD there is as far as I know NO issue on
> refresh rate - is not applicable to LCDs. The picture I've seen on LCDs is
> always rock-steady. NEVER have observed ANY flickering.
>
> "Michael" <> wrote in message
> news:...
> > "Mxsmanic" <> wrote in message
> > news:...
> >> My excellent Sony 20" CRT is gradually giving up the ghost; it has
> >> dimmed enough over the past two months that I no longer trust it for
> >> photo work, and so I've suspended my scanning activities until I can
> >> replace it.
> >>
> >> I'm very interested in hearing recommendations for a new monitor. I
> >> want a monitor that is well suited to precision photo work, and it
> >> _must_ support at least 1600x1200 pixels at at least 60-70 Hz refresh.
> >> It must have standard analog inputs compatible with my existing NVidia
> >> video card. The monitor should be a 20" model (or a 19" viewing area
> >> minimum). It must be able to resolve individual pixels on the screen at
> >> 1600x1200.
> >>
> >> I'm interested in both flat-panel and CRT monitors. Traditionally I've
> >> looked to CRTs for the very best quality for photo work (and I'd still
> >> love to have a Sony Artisan, but I doubt if I can afford that now), but
> >> I'm wondering how much the flat panels have improved. My CRT is
> >> slipping so fast that just about anything would be better, I suppose.
> >>
> >> I'd like recommendations based mainly on quality and reliability, and
> >> also on both of these with respect to price (price/performance).
> >
> > Price/performance-wise, even though LCDs have improved
> > over the past few years, still nothing touches Mitsubishi's
> > Diamondtron CRT. Their 22" 2070 is ~$700. To get the
> > same color gamut on an LCD costs 3x as much, or more.
> > Not to mention a CRT's resolution and refresh rate flexibility,
> > which cannot be had on an LCD at any price.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Michael writes:

> Price/performance-wise, even though LCDs have improved
> over the past few years, still nothing touches Mitsubishi's
> Diamondtron CRT. Their 22" 2070 is ~$700.

Are you talking about just this specific model, or all the related
Diamondtron models?

I've always bought Sony, but I see that these Mitsubishi CRTs seem to be
widely appreciated. Do they age gracefully (no blurring or distortion
as they get older)? My Sony's only real problem is that it's going
dim--the resolution and sharpness and convergence and geometry have
barely changed at all.

> To get the same color gamut on an LCD costs 3x as much, or more.

So I've noticed.

> Not to mention a CRT's resolution and refresh rate flexibility,
> which cannot be had on an LCD at any price.

Yes. My other concern, though, is just putting the CRT into place. A
huge cube half a metre on a side weighing 30 kg is a lot to manipulate
by oneself, especially when it must be placed on the corner of a desk
(hard to avoid bending over in that case, and bending over with a heavy
weight is very risky).

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Michael writes:

> Granted, refresh rate is not an issue for still photography work,
> but certainly is for video. Ghosting is still a problem on most
> LCDs.

I don't work with video at all. The closest I come is an occasional
session with Flight Simulator. Also, I seem to be very insensitive to
flicker, so I can get by with refresh rates as low as 60 Hz at
1600x1200, without really noticing anything at all.

Also, overall my biggest requirement is for high resolution and
sharpness, but for photos I really do need proper gamma and color
rendition. So I have to try to find a balance between going for broke
just for the photo work and saving a bit in consideration of the fact
that I do a lot of other stuff on the machine that doesn't require fancy
image specifications.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

"Mxsmanic" <> wrote in message news:...
> Michael writes:
>
> > Price/performance-wise, even though LCDs have improved
> > over the past few years, still nothing touches Mitsubishi's
> > Diamondtron CRT. Their 22" 2070 is ~$700.
>
> Are you talking about just this specific model, or all the related
> Diamondtron models?

As far as I know the 2070 is Mitsubishi's only remaining 22"
model that uses this tube. But any monitor based on the
Diamondtron CRT will have about the same gamut. LaCie
and others use them, but they cost more.

> I've always bought Sony, but I see that these Mitsubishi CRTs seem to be
> widely appreciated. Do they age gracefully (no blurring or distortion
> as they get older)? My Sony's only real problem is that it's going
> dim--the resolution and sharpness and convergence and geometry have
> barely changed at all.

I routinely see 5 and 6 year-old Diamondtrons in the field
that are still perfectly calibrated and performing perfectly.
LCD backlights, like all other fluorescent bulbs lose much
of their brightness within the first 2-3 years.

> > To get the same color gamut on an LCD costs 3x as much, or more.
>
> So I've noticed.
>
> > Not to mention a CRT's resolution and refresh rate flexibility,
> > which cannot be had on an LCD at any price.
>
> Yes. My other concern, though, is just putting the CRT into place. A
> huge cube half a metre on a side weighing 30 kg is a lot to manipulate
> by oneself, especially when it must be placed on the corner of a desk
> (hard to avoid bending over in that case, and bending over with a heavy
> weight is very risky).

In that regard LCDs are a godsend. They're excellent for
text work, and even for casual, non-critical graphic work.

Mike

In article <>,
says...
> > Granted, refresh rate is not an issue for still photography work,
> > but certainly is for video. Ghosting is still a problem on most
> > LCDs.
>
> I don't work with video at all. The closest I come is an occasional
> session with Flight Simulator. Also, I seem to be very insensitive to
> flicker, so I can get by with refresh rates as low as 60 Hz at
> 1600x1200, without really noticing anything at all.
>
> Also, overall my biggest requirement is for high resolution and
> sharpness, but for photos I really do need proper gamma and color
> rendition. So I have to try to find a balance between going for broke
> just for the photo work and saving a bit in consideration of the fact
> that I do a lot of other stuff on the machine that doesn't require fancy
> image specifications.
>
> --
> Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
>

I know I'll get jumped on for this, but when working with
photos I allways get better results (whats on the screen is
whats comes out on paper) if I use a crt.

I have used LCD for video work (and I've spent a LOT of
money on 17", 19", and 20" LCD displays) and for video,
even high res video, the LCD monitors do a good job.

When it comes to WYSIWYG doing PRINTS, I'll settle for a
$300 or $400 CRT.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

Larry writes:

> I know I'll get jumped on for this, but when working with
> photos I allways get better results (whats on the screen is
> whats comes out on paper) if I use a crt.

Why would anyone jump on that? The superiority of CRTs for such work is
well known. Unfortunately, they are extremely bulky and heavy, and they
wear out faster, and their specs change continuously (albeit slowly)
over their lifetimes.

> I have used LCD for video work (and I've spent a LOT of
> money on 17", 19", and 20" LCD displays) and for video,
> even high res video, the LCD monitors do a good job.

Have you used LCD for photos? If so, what problems have you
encountered?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.