Monitor - LCD or CRT?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Anonymous, Jan 18, 2005.

  1. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    What's the current thinking of LCD vs. traditional CRT for Photoshop use?

    Independent of price, which technology is better for high end digital
    photography editing?

    TIA......
    Anonymous, Jan 18, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Anonymous

    Tom Guest

    "Anonymous" <> wrote in message news:eek:n_Gd.9722$ru.2622@fed1read07...
    > What's the current thinking of LCD vs. traditional CRT for Photoshop use?
    >
    > Independent of price, which technology is better for high end digital
    > photography editing?


    Independent of price? LCDs. You'll just need to come up
    with $10,000 or more. And be prepared for another few
    thousand to replace the backlight after 3 or 4 years.

    For most mere mortals a $700 Mitsubishi Diamondtron is a
    much more practical option.
    Tom, Jan 18, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:20:03 -0800, "Anonymous" <>
    wrote:

    >What's the current thinking of LCD vs. traditional CRT for Photoshop use?
    >
    >Independent of price, which technology is better for high end digital
    >photography editing?



    You might check this article in the NY Times:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/13/technology/circuits/13basi.html
    on LCDs. (Note, registration is for free.)

    "Today, however, L.C.D.'s, mostly off-the-shelf models from Apple,
    have dislodged conventional cathode-ray-tube monitors for use in
    visual experiments at Munsell.

    "The flat-panel manufacturers have put a lot of effort into making
    L.C.D.'s outperform C.R.T.'s," Dr. Berns said. "Their image quality is
    better, they're brighter, they just appear more colorful.""

    On reason my next computer is a 20 inch G5 iMac.


    *************************************************************

    "Our lives shall not be sweated from birth until life closes.
    Hearts starve as well as bodies.
    Bread and roses! Bread and roses!"

    "Bread and Roses"
    James Oppenheim (1912)
    John A. Stovall, Jan 18, 2005
    #3
  4. "Anonymous" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:n_Gd.9722$ru.2622@fed1read07...
    > What's the current thinking of LCD vs. traditional CRT for Photoshop use?
    >
    > Independent of price, which technology is better for high end digital
    > photography editing?


    Cathode ray tubes are better, but not by that much nowadays. Check out the
    latest high-end LCDs by Samsung, Sony, etc.
    Charles Schuler, Jan 18, 2005
    #4
  5. On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:27:33 -0800, "Tom" <> wrote:

    >"Anonymous" <> wrote in message news:eek:n_Gd.9722$ru.2622@fed1read07...
    >> What's the current thinking of LCD vs. traditional CRT for Photoshop use?
    >>
    >> Independent of price, which technology is better for high end digital
    >> photography editing?

    >
    >Independent of price? LCDs. You'll just need to come up
    >with $10,000 or more. And be prepared for another few
    >thousand to replace the backlight after 3 or 4 years.
    >
    >For most mere mortals a $700 Mitsubishi Diamondtron is a
    >much more practical option.
    >


    Not really... See my post in this thread...


    *************************************************************

    "Our lives shall not be sweated from birth until life closes.
    Hearts starve as well as bodies.
    Bread and roses! Bread and roses!"

    "Bread and Roses"
    James Oppenheim (1912)
    John A. Stovall, Jan 18, 2005
    #5
  6. On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:32:32 -0500, "Charles Schuler"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"Anonymous" <> wrote in message
    >news:eek:n_Gd.9722$ru.2622@fed1read07...
    >> What's the current thinking of LCD vs. traditional CRT for Photoshop use?
    >>
    >> Independent of price, which technology is better for high end digital
    >> photography editing?

    >
    >Cathode ray tubes are better, but not by that much nowadays. Check out the
    >latest high-end LCDs by Samsung, Sony, etc.
    >


    I don't think this is the case any longer. The LCD's are better and
    will only get better.

    Check out in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop the thread "LCD monitor
    recommendations"

    Also Apple, Eizo, and Sony appear there to be the leaders in the
    LCD's for color work at the lower end of the market.
    *************************************************************

    "Our lives shall not be sweated from birth until life closes.
    Hearts starve as well as bodies.
    Bread and roses! Bread and roses!"

    "Bread and Roses"
    James Oppenheim (1912)
    John A. Stovall, Jan 18, 2005
    #6
  7. Anonymous

    bob Guest

    John A. Stovall <> wrote in
    news::

    > I don't think this is the case any longer. The LCD's are better and
    > will only get better.
    >


    Do they have reasonable refresh rates yet? We have one in the office that's
    a couple years old and the flicker is horrid.

    Bob

    --
    Delete the inverse SPAM to reply
    bob, Jan 18, 2005
    #7

  8. > I don't think this is the case any longer. The LCD's are better and
    > will only get better.


    I both agree and disagree. The best of the CRT displays still have a place
    but the LCDs are going to surpass them (very soon). It's a transition point
    and right now you will get votes on both sides as each individual has
    different priorities. In my case, I'd never go back to a CRT but at the
    same time respect that others still value them and suppose that they can
    make a valid case to support their viewpoint. It's like film versus
    digital!

    I sometimes talk with professionals (last time was this past Saturday at an
    art show with 5 photographers represented) who use 4x5 slide film and
    scanners (200+ MB per shot) and they claimed that they cannot get the
    results they want with LCD monitors? Yes, they all used PhotoShop. Just my
    report ... I'll suppose that the pros will eventually switch to another
    display technology. By the way, their prints were stunning and made with
    LED printing technology.
    Charles Schuler, Jan 18, 2005
    #8
  9. Anonymous

    Tom Guest

    "Charles Schuler" <> wrote in message news:...
    > I sometimes talk with professionals (last time was this past Saturday at an
    > art show with 5 photographers represented) who use 4x5 slide film and
    > scanners (200+ MB per shot) and they claimed that they cannot get the
    > results they want with LCD monitors


    There's the bottom line. The John Stovalls of the world will
    be more than happy color correcting images of grandma's
    birthday party on their LCDs. For pro use one has to spend
    10x as much to get equivalent or superior color gamut, not
    to mention refresh rate and resolution flexibility which aren't
    available on any LCD at any price.
    Tom, Jan 18, 2005
    #9
  10. On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:18:42 -0600, bob <> wrote:
    > John A. Stovall <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    >> I don't think this is the case any longer. The LCD's are better and
    >> will only get better.
    >>

    >
    > Do they have reasonable refresh rates yet? We have one in the office that's
    > a couple years old and the flicker is horrid.


    Huh? LCDs have no flicker (unless the fluorescent tube is wearing out).
    They do not have phosphors that fade out every refresh like a CRT. The
    colors on an LCD stay on steady until the image is supposed to change to
    something else.

    The fastest progressive video (HDTV) is 60 fps and any LCD with 16 ms
    response time should be able to handle that (1/60 = 0.0167 = 16.7ms). In
    fact I do not notice any ghosting playing games at 60 fps on my 25 ms LCD.
    LCDs can do faster refresh than 60 Hz, but that would be out of sync for
    30 or 60 fps video.

    The screen on my January 2000 laptop still works fine (used as wireless
    terminal for my headless PCs). The light in recent LCDs should last
    50,000 hrs.
    David Efflandt, Jan 18, 2005
    #10
  11. Anonymous

    rafe bustin Guest

    On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 20:12:42 -0800, "Tom" <> wrote:

    >"Charles Schuler" <> wrote in message news:...
    >> I sometimes talk with professionals (last time was this past Saturday at an
    >> art show with 5 photographers represented) who use 4x5 slide film and
    >> scanners (200+ MB per shot) and they claimed that they cannot get the
    >> results they want with LCD monitors

    >
    >There's the bottom line. The John Stovalls of the world will
    >be more than happy color correcting images of grandma's
    >birthday party on their LCDs. For pro use one has to spend
    >10x as much to get equivalent or superior color gamut, not
    >to mention refresh rate and resolution flexibility which aren't
    >available on any LCD at any price.




    You haven't worked on a current high end LCD monitor.

    Find yourself (for example) a Samsung 213T, for
    around $900 street. It's 1600 x 1200, 21.3"
    diagonal, 25ms refresh.

    I've just started using one of these after several
    years with a high end Viewsonic pro series
    aperture grille CRT. No regrets, no looking back.

    It profiles beautifully with a Gretag Eye-One.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
    rafe bustin, Jan 18, 2005
    #11
  12. Anonymous

    FoulDragon Guest

    >playing games at 60 fps on my 25 ms LCD.
    >LCDs can do faster refresh than 60 Hz, but that would be out of sync for
    >30 or 60 fps video.


    Refresh doesn't make sense in the context of a monitor that doesn't redraw
    every pixel every cycle. The 60Hz refresh rate most LCDs are set at merely
    indicates data rate to the screen.

    However, the time to change a pixel (the 16, 25, or 40ms quoted) is important
    for games and video. I'd consider it the new analogue for refresh rate.

    --
    Marada Shra'drakaii
    FoulDragon, Jan 18, 2005
    #12
  13. Anonymous

    Tom Guest

    "rafe bustin" <> wrote in message news:eek:...
    > On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 20:12:42 -0800, "Tom" <> wrote:
    >
    > >"Charles Schuler" <> wrote in message news:...
    > >> I sometimes talk with professionals (last time was this past Saturday at an
    > >> art show with 5 photographers represented) who use 4x5 slide film and
    > >> scanners (200+ MB per shot) and they claimed that they cannot get the
    > >> results they want with LCD monitors

    > >
    > >There's the bottom line. The John Stovalls of the world will
    > >be more than happy color correcting images of grandma's
    > >birthday party on their LCDs. For pro use one has to spend
    > >10x as much to get equivalent or superior color gamut, not
    > >to mention refresh rate and resolution flexibility which aren't
    > >available on any LCD at any price.

    >
    >
    >
    > You haven't worked on a current high end LCD monitor.


    From your response it's clear you don't know what a high-end
    monitor is, LCD or otherwise.

    > Find yourself (for example) a Samsung 213T, for
    > around $900 street. It's 1600 x 1200, 21.3"
    > diagonal, 25ms refresh.


    Oh please. It's garbage for any kind of serious color correction.

    > I've just started using one of these after several
    > years with a high end Viewsonic pro series


    'Nuff said.
    Tom, Jan 18, 2005
    #13
  14. On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 00:58:04 -0500, rafe bustin
    <> wrote:

    >On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 20:12:42 -0800, "Tom" <> wrote:
    >
    >>"Charles Schuler" <> wrote in message news:...
    >>> I sometimes talk with professionals (last time was this past Saturday at an
    >>> art show with 5 photographers represented) who use 4x5 slide film and
    >>> scanners (200+ MB per shot) and they claimed that they cannot get the
    >>> results they want with LCD monitors

    >>
    >>There's the bottom line. The John Stovalls of the world will
    >>be more than happy color correcting images of grandma's
    >>birthday party on their LCDs. For pro use one has to spend
    >>10x as much to get equivalent or superior color gamut, not
    >>to mention refresh rate and resolution flexibility which aren't
    >>available on any LCD at any price.

    >
    >
    >
    >You haven't worked on a current high end LCD monitor.
    >
    >Find yourself (for example) a Samsung 213T, for
    >around $900 street. It's 1600 x 1200, 21.3"
    >diagonal, 25ms refresh.
    >
    >I've just started using one of these after several
    >years with a high end Viewsonic pro series
    >aperture grille CRT. No regrets, no looking back.
    >
    >It profiles beautifully with a Gretag Eye-One.
    >
    >
    >rafe b.
    >http://www.terrapinphoto.com


    Oh, yes.

    Monitor advise sought.

    My 21" ViewSonic P815 has been troubling me for quite awhile.

    Purchased approx 1997. Big bucks at Cdn$2,100.00+. Computer was left
    on 24/7 for years thinking expensive parts like SCSI hard disks would
    last longer.

    Not anymore. IDE hard disks are now cheap compared to today's cost of
    hydro.

    I think I ruined my ViewSonic. Three [3] examples up at:

    http://web.newsguy.com/zomby_woof/temp/index.htm

    PNG format. May need to be saved for best viewing.

    Note: top 1½" horiz across monitor is faded / lighter / off colour +
    other smudges here and there. Very frustrating editing images.

    I was told it may be electron guns out of alignment caused by
    mishandling during moving to small town Canada. Was told DO NOT even
    think of a home hacker repair—major electrical shock
    hazard—understood.

    Thinking of an LCD replacement. Saving money.

    Any comments would be greatly appreciated.

    Hap [aka Al Jackson, Toronto Fire Dept., retired]
    Hap Shaughnessy, Jan 18, 2005
    #14
  15. On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 03:27:16 -0500, Hap Shaughnessy
    <> wrote:

    >On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 00:58:04 -0500, rafe bustin
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 20:12:42 -0800, "Tom" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>"Charles Schuler" <> wrote in message news:...
    >>>> I sometimes talk with professionals (last time was this past Saturday at an
    >>>> art show with 5 photographers represented) who use 4x5 slide film and
    >>>> scanners (200+ MB per shot) and they claimed that they cannot get the
    >>>> results they want with LCD monitors
    >>>
    >>>There's the bottom line. The John Stovalls of the world will
    >>>be more than happy color correcting images of grandma's
    >>>birthday party on their LCDs. For pro use one has to spend
    >>>10x as much to get equivalent or superior color gamut, not
    >>>to mention refresh rate and resolution flexibility which aren't
    >>>available on any LCD at any price.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>You haven't worked on a current high end LCD monitor.
    >>
    >>Find yourself (for example) a Samsung 213T, for
    >>around $900 street. It's 1600 x 1200, 21.3"
    >>diagonal, 25ms refresh.
    >>
    >>I've just started using one of these after several
    >>years with a high end Viewsonic pro series
    >>aperture grille CRT. No regrets, no looking back.
    >>
    >>It profiles beautifully with a Gretag Eye-One.
    >>
    >>
    >>rafe b.
    >>http://www.terrapinphoto.com

    >
    >Oh, yes.
    >
    >Monitor advise sought.
    >
    >My 21" ViewSonic P815 has been troubling me for quite awhile.
    >
    >Purchased approx 1997. Big bucks at Cdn$2,100.00+. Computer was left
    >on 24/7 for years thinking expensive parts like SCSI hard disks would
    >last longer.
    >
    >Not anymore. IDE hard disks are now cheap compared to today's cost of
    >hydro.
    >
    >I think I ruined my ViewSonic. Three [3] examples up at:
    >
    >http://web.newsguy.com/zomby_woof/temp/index.htm
    >
    >PNG format. May need to be saved for best viewing.
    >
    >Note: top 1½" horiz across monitor is faded / lighter / off colour +
    >other smudges here and there. Very frustrating editing images.
    >
    >I was told it may be electron guns out of alignment caused by
    >mishandling during moving to small town Canada. Was told DO NOT even
    >think of a home hacker repair—major electrical shock
    >hazard—understood.
    >
    >Thinking of an LCD replacement. Saving money.
    >
    >Any comments would be greatly appreciated.
    >
    >Hap [aka Al Jackson, Toronto Fire Dept., retired]



    Oh, my.

    Forget all of the above.

    Scrolling my 1152x864 screen shots vertically in MSIE F11 full screen
    I noticed that the images appeared clean but the discolouration may be
    a dirty CRT tube. Unknown if there is a protective glass cover over
    it. Will do a google and may rip it apart for cleaning.

    I must apologise for my stupidity and sorry for wasting your time.

    Hap <ouch>
    Hap Shaughnessy, Jan 18, 2005
    #15
  16. Anonymous

    [BnH] Guest

    For now ... CRT is still the way to go.
    I NEVER see any LCD that's capable of displaying this test file
    http://www.photoking.com/calibrate.htm perfectly .

    The shadow details is just not there in any LCD i've tested [ Viewsonic VP,
    VG, VX serie, Samsung high ends , and EIZO ]

    =bob=




    "Anonymous" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:n_Gd.9722$ru.2622@fed1read07...
    > What's the current thinking of LCD vs. traditional CRT for Photoshop use?
    >
    > Independent of price, which technology is better for high end digital
    > photography editing?
    >
    > TIA......
    >
    >
    [BnH], Jan 18, 2005
    #16
  17. Anonymous

    bob Guest

    (David Efflandt) wrote in
    news::

    > Huh? LCDs have no flicker (unless the fluorescent tube is wearing
    > out). They do not have phosphors that fade out every refresh like a
    > CRT. The colors on an LCD stay on steady until the image is supposed
    > to change to something else.
    >


    Maybe the ones I looked at had cheap flourescents driven off AC then, or
    something, because they did flicker (new, out of the box), and it gave me
    headaches.

    Bob

    --
    Delete the inverse SPAM to reply
    bob, Jan 18, 2005
    #17
  18. Anonymous

    rafe bustin Guest

    On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 23:11:27 +1100, "[BnH]" <b18[at]ii[dot]net> wrote:

    >For now ... CRT is still the way to go.
    >I NEVER see any LCD that's capable of displaying this test file
    >http://www.photoking.com/calibrate.htm perfectly .
    >
    >The shadow details is just not there in any LCD i've tested [ Viewsonic VP,
    >VG, VX serie, Samsung high ends , and EIZO ]



    Tested how? I've tested mine according to
    the procedure described in "Real World Color
    Management", Chapter 9 (Evaluating and Editing
    Profiles) and it came through with flying
    colors as it were.

    That is to say, I can see the difference
    between output level 0 and 2, and the
    difference between output level 255 and 253.

    (With my Viewsonic CRT, I could see a one-
    point difference at either end.)


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
    rafe bustin, Jan 18, 2005
    #18
  19. Anonymous

    rafe bustin Guest

    On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:27:39 -0600, bob <>
    wrote:

    > (David Efflandt) wrote in
    >news::
    >
    >> Huh? LCDs have no flicker (unless the fluorescent tube is wearing
    >> out). They do not have phosphors that fade out every refresh like a
    >> CRT. The colors on an LCD stay on steady until the image is supposed
    >> to change to something else.
    >>

    >
    >Maybe the ones I looked at had cheap flourescents driven off AC then, or
    >something, because they did flicker (new, out of the box), and it gave me
    >headaches.



    Odd, but I know at least one person who's
    switched from CRT to LCD precisely because
    of this issue (headaches.)


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
    rafe bustin, Jan 18, 2005
    #19
  20. "bob" <
    > (David Efflandt) wrote in
    > news::
    >
    > > Huh? LCDs have no flicker (unless the fluorescent tube is wearing
    > > out). They do not have phosphors that fade out every refresh like a
    > > CRT. The colors on an LCD stay on steady until the image is supposed
    > > to change to something else.
    > >

    >
    > Maybe the ones I looked at had cheap flourescents driven off AC then, or
    > something, because they did flicker (new, out of the box), and it gave me
    > headaches.



    Maybe they weren't set up properly?
    Fletis Humplebacker, Jan 18, 2005
    #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. Weapons of Mass Destruction

    Switched to LCD monitor from CRT - my eyes hurt

    Weapons of Mass Destruction, Aug 14, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    14,106
    WASSJA
    Oct 1, 2010
  2. Tommy

    Monitor LCD or CRT

    Tommy, Jun 6, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    939
    Kenny
    Jun 6, 2004
  3. lbbss

    LCD vs CRT MONITORS 4 AUTOCAD, Recommended?

    lbbss, Feb 1, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,927
    lbbss
    Feb 1, 2005
  4. John
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    661
  5. Martin

    Re: Are LCD Monitors Brigter than CRT Monitors

    Martin, Sep 8, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    523
    Martin
    Sep 8, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page