LCD monitors

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Nostrobino, Aug 24, 2004.

  1. Nostrobino

    Nostrobino Guest

    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 are:

    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?
     
    Nostrobino, Aug 24, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Nostrobino

    wayne Guest

    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
    news:AJvWc.6958$...
    > 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 are:
    >
    > 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?
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    wayne, Aug 24, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Nostrobino

    Drifter Guest

    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 are:
    >
    >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..."
     
    Drifter, Aug 24, 2004
    #3
  4. Nostrobino

    Bob Guest

    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 are:
    >
    >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?
    >
    >
    >
     
    Bob, Aug 24, 2004
    #4
  5. Nostrobino

    Mark M Guest

    "Nostrobino" <> wrote in message
    news:AJvWc.6958$...
    > 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 are:
    >
    > 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.
     
    Mark M, Aug 24, 2004
    #5
  6. Nostrobino

    Bruce Murphy Guest

    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>
     
    Bruce Murphy, Aug 24, 2004
    #6
  7. Nostrobino

    Rick Guest

    "Nostrobino" <> wrote in message news:AJvWc.6958$...
    > 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 are:
    >
    > 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
     
    Rick, Aug 24, 2004
    #7
  8. Nostrobino

    Guest

    Kibo informs me that "Nostrobino" <> stated that:

    [aspect ratio problems]

    >So my questions are:
    >
    >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
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    , Aug 24, 2004
    #8
  9. Nostrobino

    Guest

    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
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    , Aug 24, 2004
    #9
  10. Nostrobino

    Nostrobino Guest

    "Mark M" <> wrote in message
    news:u_xWc.99394$Lj.68496@fed1read03...
    >
    > "Nostrobino" <> wrote in message
    > news:AJvWc.6958$...
    > > 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 are:
    > >
    > > 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.


    But your 1600x1200 has the correct 4:3 aspect ratio. That's why you don't
    have any vertical squashing of your pictures. If I could find a good,
    affordable 17" or so monitor that did 1600x1200 that would solve the
    problem.

    N.



    >
    > 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.
    >
    >
     
    Nostrobino, Aug 24, 2004
    #10
  11. Nostrobino

    Al Dykes Guest

    In article <>,
    <> wrote:
    >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!
    >
    >--




    B&H Photo has an advert in the June 2004 issue of The NAAP Photoshop
    Professional's magazine (pg 15) with a bundle; Buy a Microtek 997M (19
    in) LCD and get a book free. Microtek also bundles this screen with a
    calibration spider so I'd guess it's an LCD that's good enough for
    some professional graphics work.

    It's about $700. I used to pay that much for 17in CRTs. I go into
    B&H once in a while and am going to look at it, just for grins.

    OTOH I just bought a Viewsonic P95F (18 in) for $249 and I love it.





    --
    Al Dykes
    -----------
    adykes at p a n i x . c o m
     
    Al Dykes, Aug 24, 2004
    #11
  12. Nostrobino

    Nostrobino Guest

    "Drifter" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.


    Changing the aspect ratio HAS TO change the shape of the pixels. The
    problem is that on a 1280x1024 monitor the pixels will be non-square--so
    images will be slightly squashed vertically, a circle will be not quite a
    circle etc.

    I realize that (unlike a CRT monitor) an LCD monitor has its pixels
    "physically locked by the design" as you say, and therefore gives its best
    performance at its maximum resolution. We are talking about different pixels
    here. If you have, say, a 5-megapixel photo, which is typically 2560x1920
    pixels, that has to be fitted into whatever the maximum monitor resolution
    is. That 2560x1920 is a 4:3 aspect ratio, the standard for most digital
    cameras. Obviously it cannot be delivered pixel-for-pixel to a monitor that
    does not also have 2560x1920 resolution (which I doubt any generally
    marketed monitor does). The PHOTO IMAGE pixels have to be translated somehow
    into the available MONITOR pixels.

    If this is done on a conventional CRT monitor, there is no problem with
    distortion as long as the screen resolution is also 4:3, which almost all
    standard resolutions are; 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768 and 1600x1200 are all
    4:3, and some popular if non-standard resolutions like 1152x864 as well.
    However the translation is done, the pixels remain square and there is no
    distortion. The only standard resolution which is different is 1280x1024,
    which is 5:4, and this does produce distortion (non-square pixels) at least
    on a CRT monitor.

    >
    > 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.


    Well, no. If you did THAT, then the problem would be solved and you would
    AVOID distortion.

    All standard computer monitors have a 4:3 aspect ratio display. If you have
    a 4:3 image from the camera (as is the usual case), and show that on a
    monitor which also has 4:3 resolution (e.g. 1280x960), then you have an
    undistorted image on the display.


    >
    > 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.


    But that DOES distort the image. You're taking a 4:3 aspect ratio image and
    displaying it squeezed vertically (else you would not be getting that
    letterboxing at the top and bottom). The SHAPE of the monitor is still 4:3
    like any other monitor, but you're compressing the image vertically in order
    to fit 1280x1024 pixels into it while the image only has 1280x960.


    >
    > >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).


    If it's letterboxed then it is NOT the correct aspect ratio. A 1280x960
    image has an aspect ratio of 4:3, and so does your monitor. If the image is
    filling your monitor horizontally but not vertically then it's being
    distorted.


    N.
     
    Nostrobino, Aug 24, 2004
    #12
  13. Nostrobino

    Nostrobino Guest

    "Bob" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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!


    Yes, I think you're right. I already have a good 19" flat-screen CRT and
    it's fine. I've been tempted by LCDs since the prices have come way down,
    and (according to the specs at least) contrast ratios have been much
    improved, and I really like the idea of light weight and space savings. This
    19" CRT is a beast to move around, not that I really do that much.


    >
    >
    > >So my questions are:
    > >
    > >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'.


    Yep. I guess I'll stay with CRTs at least for the time being. Maybe I'll get
    a 15" LCD for my "small form factor" Biostar. Most 15" LCDs have 1024x768,
    which avoids the non-square-pixel problem.

    N.
     
    Nostrobino, Aug 24, 2004
    #13
  14. Nostrobino

    Nostrobino Guest

    "Rick" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Nostrobino" <> wrote in message

    news:AJvWc.6958$...
    > > 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 are:
    > >
    > > 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.


    You're probably right. My experience with LCDs is very limited. My Toshiba
    laptop has the only LCD monitor I've used to any real extent, and that has
    very obvious limitations compared to a CRT. Though I presume a good desktop
    LCD monitor would be far better, I don't really know this of course.

    N.
     
    Nostrobino, Aug 24, 2004
    #14
  15. Nostrobino

    Nostrobino Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Kibo informs me that "Nostrobino" <> stated that:
    >
    > [aspect ratio problems]
    >
    > >So my questions are:
    > >
    > >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.


    For that and the other reasons discussed, I guess I will stick with CRTs for
    the most part.

    To all who have replied, thanks for your help.

    N.
     
    Nostrobino, Aug 24, 2004
    #15
  16. Nostrobino

    ERich10983 Guest

    When I bought my Sony 19" LCD monitor, I went into Best Buy early on a Monday
    morning with my laptop. I plugged it into each monitor I was interested in to
    compare how MY photos looked. I think I tried about 5 different kinds before
    making a choice. I'm still happy with the Sony.

    My needs are a little different than most since 3 months of the year I'm in a
    5th wheel camper and appreciate the weight and thickness difference. I also use
    this when I teach digital photography since the displayed image can be facing
    the audience while the laptop computer screen is also on and facing me. I would
    really like a projection unit for doing this, but the cost is a bit much still.

    Earle Rich
    Mont Vernon, NH
     
    ERich10983, Aug 24, 2004
    #16
  17. In article <AJvWc.6958$>,
    says...
    > 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 are:
    >
    > 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?
    >

    There will NOT be any distortion of the image on a 17" LCD at
    1280x1024, because these LCDs are a different shape to CRTs.
    All CRTs are built to a 4:3 ratio, and therefore will squash
    the image vertically if used at 1280x1024. All LCDs with a
    native resolution of 1280x1024 are built to a 5:4 ratio, and
    therefore the pixels are square and there is no distortion. In
    fact if you use such an LCD at 1280x960, or 1024x768, images
    will be stretched vertically.
     
    Graeme Cogger, Aug 24, 2004
    #17
  18. Nostrobino

    nospam Guest

    In article <wZIWc.7162$>, Nostrobino
    <> wrote:

    > Changing the aspect ratio HAS TO change the shape of the pixels. The
    > problem is that on a 1280x1024 monitor the pixels will be non-square--so
    > images will be slightly squashed vertically, a circle will be not quite a
    > circle etc.


    if the aspect ratio of the image doesn't match the screen, it can
    either be squeezed/stretched to fit or left as-is and the sides or
    top/bottom of the screen are blackened. this is the same for crt or
    lcd.

    also, most video cards that support widescreen lcds also have standard
    4x3 aspect ratio modes and simply blacken the edges of the display.

    > If it's letterboxed then it is NOT the correct aspect ratio. A 1280x960
    > image has an aspect ratio of 4:3, and so does your monitor. If the image is
    > filling your monitor horizontally but not vertically then it's being
    > distorted.


    not all monitors are 4x3, particularly lcds (many are 'widescreen') but
    crts too (portrait monitors, for instance).
     
    nospam, Aug 24, 2004
    #18
  19. "Nostrobino" <> writes:

    > "Drifter" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> 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.

    >
    > Changing the aspect ratio HAS TO change the shape of the pixels. The
    > problem is that on a 1280x1024 monitor the pixels will be non-square--so
    > images will be slightly squashed vertically, a circle will be not quite a
    > circle etc.


    This is nonsense. You're making some sort of background assumption (I
    can't tell what from your question) that's simply false-to-fact.

    > I realize that (unlike a CRT monitor) an LCD monitor has its pixels
    > "physically locked by the design" as you say, and therefore gives its best
    > performance at its maximum resolution. We are talking about different pixels
    > here. If you have, say, a 5-megapixel photo, which is typically 2560x1920
    > pixels, that has to be fitted into whatever the maximum monitor resolution
    > is. That 2560x1920 is a 4:3 aspect ratio, the standard for most digital
    > cameras. Obviously it cannot be delivered pixel-for-pixel to a monitor that
    > does not also have 2560x1920 resolution (which I doubt any generally
    > marketed monitor does). The PHOTO IMAGE pixels have to be translated somehow
    > into the available MONITOR pixels.


    This focus on displaying a photo image 1:1 full-screen on a monitor
    has nothing to do with anything that's ordinarily done on a computer
    with digital photos.

    You're right that something happens to prepare the image for display
    on the monitor.

    What really happens is that you configure your video card for the
    maximum resolution supported by your monitor (often 1280x1024; that's
    what my 17" is configured for right now), then start photoshop, and
    load the image file. Photoshop then picks a size within the photoshop
    window that the image will fit in, and produces a resampled version of
    the photo to pass to the video driver to fill that sub-window. Note
    that the monitor resolution and the pixel shape never entered into
    this; that's handled internally by the video driver and by photoshop.
    If you then tell photoshop to zoom in in the same window size, it
    produces a newly resampled image of the appropriate portion of the
    imgage file and tells the video driver to display *that* in the
    sub-window. The aspect ratio is preserved through all this -- the
    proportions of things in the photo will look right as displayed on
    your screen.

    (None of that is actually specific to photoshop; PaintShop, Picture
    Window, Corel Photo Paint, and Irfan View all do exactly the same
    things.)
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Aug 24, 2004
    #19
  20. Nostrobino

    Pete Guest

    On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 00:34:43 -0700, Rick wrote:

    > 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.


    Not just the gamut problem, but the significant changes in brightness,
    contrast and colors as you change your viewing angle.

    I don't think my CRT will be retiring before I do!
     
    Pete, Aug 24, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Boomer
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    495
    Keyser Soze
    Dec 17, 2003
  2. drvnguy

    LCD monitors

    drvnguy, Dec 26, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    601
    M Mullen
    Dec 27, 2003
  3. Flat Panel LCD Monitors

    , Feb 14, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    750
  4. NEC LCD monitors any good?

    , Jun 7, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    699
  5. Martin

    Re: Are LCD Monitors Brigter than CRT Monitors

    Martin, Sep 8, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    583
    Martin
    Sep 8, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page