Re: AOC Monitors

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by JohnO, Sep 27, 2010.

  1. JohnO

    JohnO Guest

    On Sep 28, 7:02 am, "B Roberts" <> wrote:
    > I am going to replace my old LCD monitor with a newer one.
    > I noticed the AOC monitors are much cheaper than other makes.
    >
    > Has anyone had any experiences with these? Are they any good?


    A client of mine uses them - 22" 1600x1050 models. They are pixel
    error free and crisp and clear. However I don't like the back-lighting
    on them. It seems to give either poor contrast/low brightness, or of
    you turn it up, a harsh whiteness.

    Still a lot better than a CRT though!
     
    JohnO, Sep 27, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. JohnO

    Dave Doe Guest

    In article <1fe8149b-20da-4e56-9532-1bd391b45454
    @w15g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, says...
    >
    > On Sep 28, 7:02 am, "B Roberts" <> wrote:
    > > I am going to replace my old LCD monitor with a newer one.
    > > I noticed the AOC monitors are much cheaper than other makes.
    > >
    > > Has anyone had any experiences with these? Are they any good?

    >
    > A client of mine uses them - 22" 1600x1050 models. They are pixel
    > error free and crisp and clear. However I don't like the back-lighting
    > on them. It seems to give either poor contrast/low brightness, or of
    > you turn it up, a harsh whiteness.
    >
    > Still a lot better than a CRT though!


    No way is an LCD better, in terms of picture quality and fidelity, than
    a CRT.

    --
    Duncan.
     
    Dave Doe, Sep 28, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 13:43:50 +1300, Dave Doe <> wrote:

    >In article <1fe8149b-20da-4e56-9532-1bd391b45454
    >@w15g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, says...
    >>
    >> On Sep 28, 7:02 am, "B Roberts" <> wrote:
    >> > I am going to replace my old LCD monitor with a newer one.
    >> > I noticed the AOC monitors are much cheaper than other makes.
    >> >
    >> > Has anyone had any experiences with these? Are they any good?

    >>
    >> A client of mine uses them - 22" 1600x1050 models. They are pixel
    >> error free and crisp and clear. However I don't like the back-lighting
    >> on them. It seems to give either poor contrast/low brightness, or of
    >> you turn it up, a harsh whiteness.
    >>
    >> Still a lot better than a CRT though!

    >
    >No way is an LCD better, in terms of picture quality and fidelity, than
    >a CRT.



    Utter rubbish a IPS screens are far better and Led backlight TV's have
    better colours than any CRT..

    You are way way out of date

    Plus LCD's do not suffer from geometric distortion that CRT's suffer
    from.

    Time me thinks for you do some reading.
     
    William Brown, Sep 28, 2010
    #3
  4. JohnO

    Richard Guest

    On 28/09/2010 10:38 a.m., JohnO wrote:
    > On Sep 28, 7:02 am, "B Roberts"<> wrote:
    >> I am going to replace my old LCD monitor with a newer one.
    >> I noticed the AOC monitors are much cheaper than other makes.
    >>
    >> Has anyone had any experiences with these? Are they any good?

    >
    > A client of mine uses them - 22" 1600x1050 models. They are pixel
    > error free and crisp and clear. However I don't like the back-lighting
    > on them. It seems to give either poor contrast/low brightness, or of
    > you turn it up, a harsh whiteness.
    >
    > Still a lot better than a CRT though!


    Thats just the shit panel they use on them.

    The only LCD that comes close to competing with a CRT is a decent IPS
    panel, some of the others will give you a much greater gamut which is
    all they can bang on about, but that doesnt really matter when if you
    move 10° off axis it all changes like the cheap panels used in cheap
    monitors.
     
    Richard, Sep 28, 2010
    #4
  5. JohnO

    Squiggle Guest

    On 28/09/2010 10:15 p.m., Me threw some characters down the intarwebs:
    > On 28/09/2010 4:28 p.m., Richard wrote:
    >> On 28/09/2010 10:38 a.m., JohnO wrote:
    >>> On Sep 28, 7:02 am, "B Roberts"<> wrote:
    >>>> I am going to replace my old LCD monitor with a newer one.
    >>>> I noticed the AOC monitors are much cheaper than other makes.
    >>>>
    >>>> Has anyone had any experiences with these? Are they any good?
    >>>
    >>> A client of mine uses them - 22" 1600x1050 models. They are pixel
    >>> error free and crisp and clear. However I don't like the back-lighting
    >>> on them. It seems to give either poor contrast/low brightness, or of
    >>> you turn it up, a harsh whiteness.
    >>>
    >>> Still a lot better than a CRT though!

    >>
    >> Thats just the shit panel they use on them.
    >>
    >> The only LCD that comes close to competing with a CRT is a decent IPS
    >> panel, some of the others will give you a much greater gamut which is
    >> all they can bang on about, but that doesnt really matter when if you
    >> move 10° off axis it all changes like the cheap panels used in cheap
    >> monitors.

    > And VA panels aren't bad.
    > So how come you can get a 32" 1920x1080 TV with IPS panel (Panasonic,
    > probably LG and other brands) or VA panel (Samsung, Sony, and probably
    > other brands) for about $800, but a 24" IPS or VA computer display will
    > probably cost more?
    > Was looking at a small Sharp (19") TV the other day at Harvey Normans,
    > not full HD, but a really nice panel in it, for about $300. Not sure if
    > this was a panel made by Sharp (Aquos), but excellent off-angle colour
    > consistency, as many TVs that size use cheap TN panels.
    >
    >


    Short answer.. probably because they can get away with it.

    Other reasons that could be genuine:
    Smaller pixels require tighter tolerances....
    Lower volumes
    Zero defect policy on the IPs panels generally.
     
    Squiggle, Sep 28, 2010
    #5
  6. JohnO

    JohnO Guest

    On Sep 28, 1:43 pm, Dave Doe <> wrote:
    > In article <1fe8149b-20da-4e56-9532-1bd391b45454
    > @w15g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, says...
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Sep 28, 7:02 am, "B Roberts" <> wrote:
    > > > I am going to replace my old LCD monitor with a newer one.
    > > > I noticed the AOC monitors are much cheaper than other makes.

    >
    > > > Has anyone had any experiences with these? Are they any good?

    >
    > > A client of mine uses them - 22" 1600x1050 models. They are pixel
    > > error free and crisp and clear. However I don't like the back-lighting
    > > on them. It seems to give either poor contrast/low brightness, or of
    > > you turn it up, a harsh whiteness.

    >
    > > Still a lot better than a CRT though!

    >
    > No way is an LCD better, in terms of picture quality and fidelity, than
    > a CRT.


    Have to disagree. To me, even the expensive CRTs lack the crispness
    and stability of a good LCD, especially LED ones.
     
    JohnO, Sep 28, 2010
    #6
  7. JohnO

    Me Guest

    On 28/09/2010 10:29 p.m., Squiggle wrote:
    > On 28/09/2010 10:15 p.m., Me threw some characters down the intarwebs:
    >> On 28/09/2010 4:28 p.m., Richard wrote:
    >>> On 28/09/2010 10:38 a.m., JohnO wrote:
    >>>> On Sep 28, 7:02 am, "B Roberts"<> wrote:
    >>>>> I am going to replace my old LCD monitor with a newer one.
    >>>>> I noticed the AOC monitors are much cheaper than other makes.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Has anyone had any experiences with these? Are they any good?
    >>>>
    >>>> A client of mine uses them - 22" 1600x1050 models. They are pixel
    >>>> error free and crisp and clear. However I don't like the back-lighting
    >>>> on them. It seems to give either poor contrast/low brightness, or of
    >>>> you turn it up, a harsh whiteness.
    >>>>
    >>>> Still a lot better than a CRT though!
    >>>
    >>> Thats just the shit panel they use on them.
    >>>
    >>> The only LCD that comes close to competing with a CRT is a decent IPS
    >>> panel, some of the others will give you a much greater gamut which is
    >>> all they can bang on about, but that doesnt really matter when if you
    >>> move 10° off axis it all changes like the cheap panels used in cheap
    >>> monitors.

    >> And VA panels aren't bad.
    >> So how come you can get a 32" 1920x1080 TV with IPS panel (Panasonic,
    >> probably LG and other brands) or VA panel (Samsung, Sony, and probably
    >> other brands) for about $800, but a 24" IPS or VA computer display will
    >> probably cost more?
    >> Was looking at a small Sharp (19") TV the other day at Harvey Normans,
    >> not full HD, but a really nice panel in it, for about $300. Not sure if
    >> this was a panel made by Sharp (Aquos), but excellent off-angle colour
    >> consistency, as many TVs that size use cheap TN panels.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Short answer.. probably because they can get away with it.
    >

    I think that's it.
    > Other reasons that could be genuine:
    > Smaller pixels require tighter tolerances....
    > Lower volumes
    > Zero defect policy on the IPs panels generally.

    Backlights, and the layers of materials for diffusers and panels would
    be a significant part of the cost, and there's a lot more area as panel
    size increases. Some of the cheap IPS TVs are also sporting 10 bit d/a
    converters (not that most people have anything to use that with yet -
    hardware or software), yet many PC monitors and almost all laptop panels
    are still only 6 bit. The Ipad has an IPS panel, but not made by LG.
    IMO there's something a bit fishy with monitor prices, perhaps a minor
    cartel going after the panel makers got busted - mainly for the TV
    market, including plasma. LG makes many of the IPS panels, and they
    seem to hold back supply of their own brand monitors in some markets,
    their identical panels being used in the high-ish cost end of Apple,
    NEC, as well as Lacie and Eizo, with a few dribbling down to Dell, HP,
    and others.
     
    Me, Sep 28, 2010
    #7
  8. In article <-september.org>, Dave Doe <> wrote:
    >In article <1fe8149b-20da-4e56-9532-1bd391b45454
    >@w15g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, says...
    >>
    >> On Sep 28, 7:02 am, "B Roberts" <> wrote:
    >> > I am going to replace my old LCD monitor with a newer one.
    >> > I noticed the AOC monitors are much cheaper than other makes.
    >> >
    >> > Has anyone had any experiences with these? Are they any good?

    >>
    >> A client of mine uses them - 22" 1600x1050 models. They are pixel
    >> error free and crisp and clear. However I don't like the back-lighting
    >> on them. It seems to give either poor contrast/low brightness, or of
    >> you turn it up, a harsh whiteness.
    >>
    >> Still a lot better than a CRT though!

    >
    >No way is an LCD better, in terms of picture quality and fidelity, than
    >a CRT.


    I completely disagree. Contrast and 'ease of viewing' (or ease on the eyes
    if you like) is *way* better than a CRT IMO.
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Sep 28, 2010
    #8
  9. JohnO

    Dave Doe Guest

    In article <83d34d3c-baf7-433c-89ae-63da3b0b14a6
    @u4g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, says...
    >
    > On Sep 28, 1:43 pm, Dave Doe <> wrote:
    > > In article <1fe8149b-20da-4e56-9532-1bd391b45454
    > > @w15g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, says...
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > > On Sep 28, 7:02 am, "B Roberts" <> wrote:
    > > > > I am going to replace my old LCD monitor with a newer one.
    > > > > I noticed the AOC monitors are much cheaper than other makes.

    > >
    > > > > Has anyone had any experiences with these? Are they any good?

    > >
    > > > A client of mine uses them - 22" 1600x1050 models. They are pixel
    > > > error free and crisp and clear. However I don't like the back-lighting
    > > > on them. It seems to give either poor contrast/low brightness, or of
    > > > you turn it up, a harsh whiteness.

    > >
    > > > Still a lot better than a CRT though!

    > >
    > > No way is an LCD better, in terms of picture quality and fidelity, than
    > > a CRT.

    >
    > Have to disagree. To me, even the expensive CRTs lack the crispness
    > and stability of a good LCD, especially LED ones.


    Oh they have advantages - the contrast and better than real-life colours
    etc. (You can tweak a CRT to be about the same). But at the end of the
    day, the "dot" on a CRT is smaller than a "dot" on an LCD - an many a
    graphic artist has begrudged the move to LCD's. I guess this is partly
    outweighed these days by the size of the big LCD's.

    Not sure what you mean by your comment - *good* CRT's are stable and
    crisp.

    The better than real-life colours are great to look at - but
    dissapointing to print! - and I bet many a graphic artist has had to go
    through the calibration process, only to find that, oh... that's not so
    good to look at now.

    --
    Duncan.
     
    Dave Doe, Sep 29, 2010
    #9
  10. JohnO

    Dave Doe Guest

    In article <i7tpqo$k5n$-september.org>,
    z says...
    >
    > In article <-september.org>, Dave Doe <> wrote:
    > >In article <1fe8149b-20da-4e56-9532-1bd391b45454
    > >@w15g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, says...
    > >>
    > >> On Sep 28, 7:02 am, "B Roberts" <> wrote:
    > >> > I am going to replace my old LCD monitor with a newer one.
    > >> > I noticed the AOC monitors are much cheaper than other makes.
    > >> >
    > >> > Has anyone had any experiences with these? Are they any good?
    > >>
    > >> A client of mine uses them - 22" 1600x1050 models. They are pixel
    > >> error free and crisp and clear. However I don't like the back-lighting
    > >> on them. It seems to give either poor contrast/low brightness, or of
    > >> you turn it up, a harsh whiteness.
    > >>
    > >> Still a lot better than a CRT though!

    > >
    > >No way is an LCD better, in terms of picture quality and fidelity, than
    > >a CRT.

    >
    > I completely disagree. Contrast and 'ease of viewing' (or ease on the eyes
    > if you like) is *way* better than a CRT IMO.


    Agreed, true for your average user - see my other comment to JohnO.

    --
    Duncan.
     
    Dave Doe, Sep 29, 2010
    #10
  11. In article <-september.org>, Dave Doe <> wrote:
    (snip)
    >
    >The better than real-life colours are great to look at - but
    >dissapointing to print! - and I bet many a graphic artist has had to go
    >through the calibration process, only to find that, oh... that's not so
    >good to look at now.


    Ah ... but printing colours and screen colours are, by their very nature,
    quite different. Much aggravation has been caused over many years in that
    area. :)

    Yes, I'm sure some matches are close ... but there are no "exact" ones. :)
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Sep 29, 2010
    #11
  12. JohnO

    Dave Doe Guest

    In article <i7ttis$3cb$-september.org>,
    z says...
    >
    > In article <-september.org>, Dave Doe <> wrote:
    > (snip)
    > >
    > >The better than real-life colours are great to look at - but
    > >dissapointing to print! - and I bet many a graphic artist has had to go
    > >through the calibration process, only to find that, oh... that's not so
    > >good to look at now.

    >
    > Ah ... but printing colours and screen colours are, by their very nature,
    > quite different. Much aggravation has been caused over many years in that
    > area. :)
    >
    > Yes, I'm sure some matches are close ... but there are no "exact" ones. :)


    Ever noticed how you walk into Harvey Normans or whatever, and their new
    flatscreens have pretty much all got animated films playing (you don't
    see 'em with TV1 one very often do you). :)

    --
    Duncan.
     
    Dave Doe, Sep 29, 2010
    #12
  13. JohnO

    victor Guest

    On 29/09/2010 12:15 p.m., Dave Doe wrote:
    > In article<83d34d3c-baf7-433c-89ae-63da3b0b14a6
    > @u4g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, says...
    >>
    >> On Sep 28, 1:43 pm, Dave Doe<> wrote:
    >>> In article<1fe8149b-20da-4e56-9532-1bd391b45454
    >>> @w15g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, says...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> On Sep 28, 7:02 am, "B Roberts"<> wrote:
    >>>>> I am going to replace my old LCD monitor with a newer one.
    >>>>> I noticed the AOC monitors are much cheaper than other makes.
    >>>
    >>>>> Has anyone had any experiences with these? Are they any good?
    >>>
    >>>> A client of mine uses them - 22" 1600x1050 models. They are pixel
    >>>> error free and crisp and clear. However I don't like the back-lighting
    >>>> on them. It seems to give either poor contrast/low brightness, or of
    >>>> you turn it up, a harsh whiteness.
    >>>
    >>>> Still a lot better than a CRT though!
    >>>
    >>> No way is an LCD better, in terms of picture quality and fidelity, than
    >>> a CRT.

    >>
    >> Have to disagree. To me, even the expensive CRTs lack the crispness
    >> and stability of a good LCD, especially LED ones.

    >
    > Oh they have advantages - the contrast and better than real-life colours
    > etc. (You can tweak a CRT to be about the same). But at the end of the
    > day, the "dot" on a CRT is smaller than a "dot" on an LCD - an many a
    > graphic artist has begrudged the move to LCD's. I guess this is partly
    > outweighed these days by the size of the big LCD's.
    >
    > Not sure what you mean by your comment - *good* CRT's are stable and
    > crisp.
    >
    > The better than real-life colours are great to look at - but
    > dissapointing to print! - and I bet many a graphic artist has had to go
    > through the calibration process, only to find that, oh... that's not so
    > good to look at now.
    >

    These days if you are a graphic artist it is most likely that your
    output is going to be viewed on an LCD screen, hardly anyone is going to
    see it on a CRT screen and neither is more representative of a printing
    or projection process.

    --
    "I'm completely operational, and all my circuits are functioning perfectly."
     
    victor, Sep 29, 2010
    #13
  14. JohnO

    Me Guest

    On 29/09/2010 12:52 p.m., victor wrote:
    > On 29/09/2010 12:15 p.m., Dave Doe wrote:
    >> In article<83d34d3c-baf7-433c-89ae-63da3b0b14a6
    >> @u4g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, says...
    >>>
    >>> On Sep 28, 1:43 pm, Dave Doe<> wrote:
    >>>> In article<1fe8149b-20da-4e56-9532-1bd391b45454
    >>>> @w15g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, says...
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Sep 28, 7:02 am, "B Roberts"<> wrote:
    >>>>>> I am going to replace my old LCD monitor with a newer one.
    >>>>>> I noticed the AOC monitors are much cheaper than other makes.
    >>>>
    >>>>>> Has anyone had any experiences with these? Are they any good?
    >>>>
    >>>>> A client of mine uses them - 22" 1600x1050 models. They are pixel
    >>>>> error free and crisp and clear. However I don't like the back-lighting
    >>>>> on them. It seems to give either poor contrast/low brightness, or of
    >>>>> you turn it up, a harsh whiteness.
    >>>>
    >>>>> Still a lot better than a CRT though!
    >>>>
    >>>> No way is an LCD better, in terms of picture quality and fidelity, than
    >>>> a CRT.
    >>>
    >>> Have to disagree. To me, even the expensive CRTs lack the crispness
    >>> and stability of a good LCD, especially LED ones.

    >>
    >> Oh they have advantages - the contrast and better than real-life colours
    >> etc. (You can tweak a CRT to be about the same). But at the end of the
    >> day, the "dot" on a CRT is smaller than a "dot" on an LCD - an many a
    >> graphic artist has begrudged the move to LCD's. I guess this is partly
    >> outweighed these days by the size of the big LCD's.
    >>
    >> Not sure what you mean by your comment - *good* CRT's are stable and
    >> crisp.
    >>
    >> The better than real-life colours are great to look at - but
    >> dissapointing to print! - and I bet many a graphic artist has had to go
    >> through the calibration process, only to find that, oh... that's not so
    >> good to look at now.
    >>

    > These days if you are a graphic artist it is most likely that your
    > output is going to be viewed on an LCD screen, hardly anyone is going to
    > see it on a CRT screen and neither is more representative of a printing
    > or projection process.
    >

    There's certainly a load of potential issues with "wide gamut" displays,
    colourspace across editors/viewers, lossy colourspace conversion, and
    (more) limited gamut of other output devices.
    But if your monitor is sRGB (or able to be set so) and calibrated
    correctly, your printer capable of printing most of sRGB colourspace,
    and you use Photoshop gamut warning, soft proof, including "simulate -
    paper white", you can get pretty good print:screen matches without too
    much trouble.
    Beyond that, a can of worms begins to unravel, not helped by some very
    spurious marketing claims.
     
    Me, Sep 29, 2010
    #14
  15. On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 12:50:49 +1300, Dave Doe <> wrote:

    >In article <i7ttis$3cb$-september.org>,
    > says...
    >>
    >> In article <-september.org>, Dave Doe <> wrote:
    >> (snip)
    >> >
    >> >The better than real-life colours are great to look at - but
    >> >dissapointing to print! - and I bet many a graphic artist has had to go
    >> >through the calibration process, only to find that, oh... that's not so
    >> >good to look at now.

    >>
    >> Ah ... but printing colours and screen colours are, by their very nature,
    >> quite different. Much aggravation has been caused over many years in that
    >> area. :)
    >>
    >> Yes, I'm sure some matches are close ... but there are no "exact" ones. :)

    >
    >Ever noticed how you walk into Harvey Normans or whatever, and their new
    >flatscreens have pretty much all got animated films playing (you don't
    >see 'em with TV1 one very often do you). :)




    Yes dead simple thy are using Full HD, TV1 is only HD..
     
    William Brown, Sep 29, 2010
    #15
  16. On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 12:52:00 +1300, victor <> wrote:

    >On 29/09/2010 12:15 p.m., Dave Doe wrote:
    >> In article<83d34d3c-baf7-433c-89ae-63da3b0b14a6
    >> @u4g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, says...
    >>>
    >>> On Sep 28, 1:43 pm, Dave Doe<> wrote:
    >>>> In article<1fe8149b-20da-4e56-9532-1bd391b45454
    >>>> @w15g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, says...
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Sep 28, 7:02 am, "B Roberts"<> wrote:
    >>>>>> I am going to replace my old LCD monitor with a newer one.
    >>>>>> I noticed the AOC monitors are much cheaper than other makes.
    >>>>
    >>>>>> Has anyone had any experiences with these? Are they any good?
    >>>>
    >>>>> A client of mine uses them - 22" 1600x1050 models. They are pixel
    >>>>> error free and crisp and clear. However I don't like the back-lighting
    >>>>> on them. It seems to give either poor contrast/low brightness, or of
    >>>>> you turn it up, a harsh whiteness.
    >>>>
    >>>>> Still a lot better than a CRT though!
    >>>>
    >>>> No way is an LCD better, in terms of picture quality and fidelity, than
    >>>> a CRT.
    >>>
    >>> Have to disagree. To me, even the expensive CRTs lack the crispness
    >>> and stability of a good LCD, especially LED ones.

    >>
    >> Oh they have advantages - the contrast and better than real-life colours
    >> etc. (You can tweak a CRT to be about the same). But at the end of the
    >> day, the "dot" on a CRT is smaller than a "dot" on an LCD - an many a
    >> graphic artist has begrudged the move to LCD's. I guess this is partly
    >> outweighed these days by the size of the big LCD's.
    >>
    >> Not sure what you mean by your comment - *good* CRT's are stable and
    >> crisp.
    >>
    >> The better than real-life colours are great to look at - but
    >> dissapointing to print! - and I bet many a graphic artist has had to go
    >> through the calibration process, only to find that, oh... that's not so
    >> good to look at now.
    >>

    >These days if you are a graphic artist it is most likely that your
    >output is going to be viewed on an LCD screen, hardly anyone is going to
    >see it on a CRT screen and neither is more representative of a printing
    >or projection process.




    Yes they manly use Apple, I don't see any CRT's there..
     
    William Brown, Sep 29, 2010
    #16
  17. In article <-september.org>, Dave Doe <> wrote:
    >In article <i7ttis$3cb$-september.org>,
    > says...
    >> In article <-september.org>, Dave Doe

    > <> wrote:
    >> (snip)
    >> >
    >> >The better than real-life colours are great to look at - but
    >> >dissapointing to print! - and I bet many a graphic artist has had to go
    >> >through the calibration process, only to find that, oh... that's not so
    >> >good to look at now.

    >>
    >> Ah ... but printing colours and screen colours are, by their very nature,
    >> quite different. Much aggravation has been caused over many years in that
    >> area. :)
    >> Yes, I'm sure some matches are close ... but there are no "exact" ones. :)

    >
    >Ever noticed how you walk into Harvey Normans or whatever, and their new
    >flatscreens have pretty much all got animated films playing (you don't
    >see 'em with TV1 one very often do you). :)


    No indeed - in fact, never IIRC. :) Reminds me of my grandparent's new
    colour TV <mumble> years ago. They had it before colour was being broadcast
    ... and grandfather had turned the 'colour' knob full up. :) :)
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Sep 29, 2010
    #17
  18. In article <i7u10c$gah$>, Me <> wrote:
    >On 29/09/2010 12:52 p.m., victor wrote:
    >> On 29/09/2010 12:15 p.m., Dave Doe wrote:

    (snip)
    >> These days if you are a graphic artist it is most likely that your
    >> output is going to be viewed on an LCD screen, hardly anyone is going to
    >> see it on a CRT screen and neither is more representative of a printing
    >> or projection process.
    >>

    >There's certainly a load of potential issues with "wide gamut" displays,
    >colourspace across editors/viewers, lossy colourspace conversion, and
    >(more) limited gamut of other output devices.
    >But if your monitor is sRGB (or able to be set so) and calibrated
    >correctly, your printer capable of printing most of sRGB colourspace,
    >and you use Photoshop gamut warning, soft proof, including "simulate -
    >paper white", you can get pretty good print:screen matches without too
    >much trouble.
    >Beyond that, a can of worms begins to unravel, not helped by some very
    >spurious marketing claims.


    But most screens are RGB aren't they ? ... and most printers cmy(k) ? ...
    best of luck transposing between those spaces. :)

    <thinks --- was there *ever* an RGB printer ? I suspect yes ... but my
    memory is not good enough to remember it/them. :) --->
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Sep 29, 2010
    #18
  19. JohnO

    Me Guest

    On 29/09/2010 4:58 p.m., Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    > In article<i7u10c$gah$>, Me<> wrote:
    >> On 29/09/2010 12:52 p.m., victor wrote:
    >>> On 29/09/2010 12:15 p.m., Dave Doe wrote:

    > (snip)
    >>> These days if you are a graphic artist it is most likely that your
    >>> output is going to be viewed on an LCD screen, hardly anyone is going to
    >>> see it on a CRT screen and neither is more representative of a printing
    >>> or projection process.
    >>>

    >> There's certainly a load of potential issues with "wide gamut" displays,
    >> colourspace across editors/viewers, lossy colourspace conversion, and
    >> (more) limited gamut of other output devices.
    >> But if your monitor is sRGB (or able to be set so) and calibrated
    >> correctly, your printer capable of printing most of sRGB colourspace,
    >> and you use Photoshop gamut warning, soft proof, including "simulate -
    >> paper white", you can get pretty good print:screen matches without too
    >> much trouble.
    >> Beyond that, a can of worms begins to unravel, not helped by some very
    >> spurious marketing claims.

    >
    > But most screens are RGB aren't they ? ... and most printers cmy(k) ? ...
    > best of luck transposing between those spaces. :)


    They're RGB in terms of using red green and blue pixels, but there are
    some displays which also add yellow pixels (whether it's more than a
    marketing gimmick, I don't know)
    "s"RGB and "Adobe"RGB are colour spaces, defined here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_color_spaces_and_their_uses
    Digital image files can be mapped in different colour-space, usually
    tagged (metadata) so that "colour space aware" applications can render
    them correctly, but the default is sRGB (colour aware applications
    should default to sRGB encoding if the image file is untagged). Some
    web browsers are colour-space aware, Safari (enabled by default?),
    Firefox (disabled by default), possibly others. But it's a bad idea in
    general to use other than sRGB for the web, as the way images on your
    pages are rendered is going to be different depending on which web
    browser people use. AdobeRGB images look unsaturated and flat when
    viewed in an application that's not colour aware and "assumes" sRGB.
    >
    > <thinks --- was there *ever* an RGB printer ? I suspect yes ... but my
    > memory is not good enough to remember it/them. :) --->
    >

    I doubt there was. With "subtractive" colour blending using R,G, &B,
    the most obvious problem is yellow - with "additive" colour blending,
    that's red and green mixed, but if you mix red and green paint, the
    result is brown. Full saturation intermediate colours aren't achievable
    with "subtractive" blending, the blends are "dirty".
    To increase gamut and get around this a bit, some printing processes use
    more than CMY(&K), sometimes adding intermediate primary colours, red
    ("yellower" than magenta) orange ("redder" than yellow),
    green("yellower" than cyan) or blue ("redder" than cyan) etc.
    If you make a colour chart image of all 16 million or so RGB colours,
    rendered in adobe RGB, then view the chart in Photoshop with "Gamut
    Warning" toggled on, and an ICC printer profile loaded for any standard
    printer, then it's apparent that quite a large area of the chart cannot
    be printed accurately for colour. You can also usually see peaks where
    saturated colours can be reproduced corresponding the the primary
    colours of the inks. But the other side to this is that in nature,
    apart from flowers, most of what we see usually falls within sRGB - it's
    pretty good - sRGB is fine for photography (IMO - but many will not
    agree with me on that) But for graphic artists who want to use the full
    and widest colour spectrum, it's not enough, so we now can get wide
    gamut displays, can view wide gamut colourspace on screen, and the
    marketing boys have found a new "feature" to sell stuff to the average
    punter who doesn't know that it's a can of worms.
     
    Me, Sep 29, 2010
    #19
  20. JohnO

    John Little Guest

    On Sep 30, 10:29 am, Me <> wrote:

    .... an interesting explanation...

    Thank you.
     
    John Little, Sep 29, 2010
    #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. ~misfit~

    AOC monitor question

    ~misfit~, Aug 18, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    801
  2. samg

    AOC monitors

    samg, Nov 5, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    58
    Views:
    1,715
  3. Evil Bastard

    LCD monitor - AOC LM-720 1280x1024

    Evil Bastard, Nov 10, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    448
    Gregory Parker
    Nov 10, 2003
  4. Dane

    19" monitors- Mag or AOC?

    Dane, Nov 23, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    395
    Gregory Parker
    Nov 23, 2003
  5. Daniel

    Cheap 17" LCD Monitors (AOC. CMV etc.)

    Daniel, Nov 11, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    480
    Daniel
    Nov 11, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page