Wanted: advice on monitor for photo editing.

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by iwoggy64@yahoo.com, Sep 19, 2005.

  1. Guest

    I'm in dire need of a new faster computer for digital photo work.
    I was planning on getting a PowerMac G5 ( but now I'm hearing
    rumors of new systems coming out soon, so I may wait a month or so ).
    I'm not so concerned about the computer itself, but of the monitor.
    I'd like to get a large LCD about 23" or so. I've seen the Apple
    monitor at the Apple store and it looks much nicer that my current CRT.
    I'm a bit concerned about the price. Also I would save about $370
    in sales tax ( for the complete system ) if I mail order, but I am
    worried about bad pixels on the display. Are there other users of this
    display that can comment on bad pixels? Dell has some interesting
    options. Their 2405FPW is about $500 less and it's about an inch
    bigger. Can anyone with first hand experience with this display
    comment on it? I would like to skip CRTs because of space
    requirements. What other displays do others recommend? Any advice
    would be appreciated. Thanks.


    Woggy
     
    , Sep 19, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. C Wright Guest

    On 9/19/05 12:47 PM, in article
    , ""
    <> wrote:

    > I'm in dire need of a new faster computer for digital photo work.
    > I was planning on getting a PowerMac G5 ( but now I'm hearing
    > rumors of new systems coming out soon, so I may wait a month or so ).
    > I'm not so concerned about the computer itself, but of the monitor.
    > I'd like to get a large LCD about 23" or so. I've seen the Apple
    > monitor at the Apple store and it looks much nicer that my current CRT.
    > I'm a bit concerned about the price. Also I would save about $370
    > in sales tax ( for the complete system ) if I mail order, but I am
    > worried about bad pixels on the display. Are there other users of this
    > display that can comment on bad pixels? Dell has some interesting
    > options. Their 2405FPW is about $500 less and it's about an inch
    > bigger. Can anyone with first hand experience with this display
    > comment on it? I would like to skip CRTs because of space
    > requirements. What other displays do others recommend? Any advice
    > would be appreciated. Thanks.
    >
    >
    > Woggy
    >


    I have an Apple 23 in. HD LCD display and it has zero bad pixels that I have
    observed. Of course that is one display and is no guarantee of the quality
    of a display that you might purchase. I would recommend you purchase from a
    dealer with a good return policy so that you can return any display with
    which you are dissatisfied. As far as Apple warrantee policy is concerned
    they will not replace monitors with just a few bad pixels. That is why I
    say (specially if you are fussy) that a purchase from a dealer with a great
    return policy is a good idea. I am not sure exactly what the policy of
    Apple's stores is, that is if they will take back a monitor that you are
    dissatisfied with or if they use the same rules as Apple's warrantee.
    Chuck
     
    C Wright, Sep 19, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Peter Guest

    <> wrote in message news:...
    > I'm in dire need of a new faster computer for digital photo work.
    > I was planning on getting a PowerMac G5 ( but now I'm hearing
    > rumors of new systems coming out soon, so I may wait a month or so ).
    > I'm not so concerned about the computer itself, but of the monitor.
    > I'd like to get a large LCD about 23" or so. I've seen the Apple
    > monitor at the Apple store and it looks much nicer that my current CRT.
    > I'm a bit concerned about the price. Also I would save about $370
    > in sales tax ( for the complete system ) if I mail order, but I am
    > worried about bad pixels on the display. Are there other users of this
    > display that can comment on bad pixels? Dell has some interesting
    > options. Their 2405FPW is about $500 less and it's about an inch
    > bigger. Can anyone with first hand experience with this display
    > comment on it? I would like to skip CRTs because of space
    > requirements. What other displays do others recommend? Any advice
    > would be appreciated. Thanks.


    If cost is a concern at all, an LCD monitor is the last thing you
    should buy. You'll get 2, maybe 3 years tops before the
    backlight has faded to a point where it's essentially useless for
    graphic editing.

    Unless you have the budget to replace them every few years,
    the only thing dumber than buying an LCD is buying an
    expensive LCD.

    22" CRTs are going for dirt cheap these days and you'll get
    at least 4-5 years out of them, probably more.
     
    Peter, Sep 19, 2005
    #3
  4. Gnarlodious Guest

    Entity Peter spoke thus:

    >> I am
    >> worried about bad pixels on the display. Are there other users of this
    >> display that can comment on bad pixels?

    I have had the ADC flat panel for 5 years and abused it unbelievably and it
    has never had a bad pixel.

    >> Dell has some interesting
    >> options. Their 2405FPW is about $500 less and it's about an inch
    >> bigger. Can anyone with first hand experience with this display
    >> comment on it?

    You're not going to have software control over the display with a Dell LCD.
    By that I mean brightness control, resolution, color profiles, etc.

    >> What other displays do others recommend? Any advice
    >> would be appreciated. Thanks.

    The Sony X-Brite SDM-HS95P is pretty unusual, it has amazing brightness for
    an LCD and an antiglare surface. Still, it's only a VGA interface.

    > If cost is a concern at all, an LCD monitor is the last thing you
    > should buy. You'll get 2, maybe 3 years tops before the
    > backlight has faded to a point where it's essentially useless for
    > graphic editing.

    What? I am using the very first LCD Apple sold and it is as bright as the
    day I bought it after 5 years.

    > Unless you have the budget to replace them every few years,
    > the only thing dumber than buying an LCD is buying an
    > expensive LCD.

    What kind of advice is this? There is nothing "dumb" about buying a good
    LCD.

    > 22" CRTs are going for dirt cheap these days and you'll get
    > at least 4-5 years out of them, probably more.

    That may be true initially, but then you have huge power consumption, heat
    radiation, lack of software control, eye fatigue from electron bombardment,
    a huge footprint and other limitation's I'm tired of mentioning.

    -- Gnarlie
     
    Gnarlodious, Sep 20, 2005
    #4
  5. Peter Guest

    "Gnarlodious" <> wrote in message news:BF549F0D.132EF%...
    > Entity Peter spoke thus:
    > > If cost is a concern at all, an LCD monitor is the last thing you
    > > should buy. You'll get 2, maybe 3 years tops before the
    > > backlight has faded to a point where it's essentially useless for
    > > graphic editing.

    > What? I am using the very first LCD Apple sold and it is as bright as the
    > day I bought it after 5 years.


    No it isn't. That's a physical impossibility. No one has yet
    developed a fluorescent bulb that maintains the same brightness
    for 2 years, let alone 5. Fluorescent bulbs lose 50% of their
    brightness within the first 3 years, and if you try and color
    correct an image with lots of near blacks you'll see this for
    yourself.

    > > Unless you have the budget to replace them every few years,
    > > the only thing dumber than buying an LCD is buying an
    > > expensive LCD.

    > What kind of advice is this? There is nothing "dumb" about buying a good
    > LCD.


    Until LED technology is ready for prime time, yeah it is dumb.
    LCDs are great for text work, or for non-critical image editing.

    > > 22" CRTs are going for dirt cheap these days and you'll get
    > > at least 4-5 years out of them, probably more.

    > That may be true initially, but then you have huge power consumption, heat
    > radiation, lack of software control, eye fatigue from electron bombardment,
    > a huge footprint and other limitation's I'm tired of mentioning.


    Lack of software control? Get real. A CRT supports any
    number of resolutions, refresh rates etc, not to mention their
    wider color gamut (at least on decent models).
     
    Peter, Sep 20, 2005
    #5
  6. Gnarlodious <> wrote:
    > Entity Peter spoke thus:
    >
    > > 22" CRTs are going for dirt cheap these days and you'll get
    > > at least 4-5 years out of them, probably more.

    > That may be true initially, but then you have huge power consumption, heat
    > radiation, lack of software control, eye fatigue from electron bombardment,
    > a huge footprint and other limitation's I'm tired of mentioning.


    And yet that is my recommendation too: get a pair of CRTs.

    I have two black Samsung SyncMaster 1100DFs.

    The resolution is higher than the Apple LCD screens, and it is a
    crapshoot regarding LCD pixel anomalies.

    Last I looked, Apple added an industry spec for pixel anomalies to
    its listing of its CRTs, but that spec also says Apple is supposed
    to state the exact pixel bummer acceptability details, yet Apple
    doesn't. Nor will Apple talk to you about it in email.

    That's how I ended up with CRTs instead of Apple LCDs, and I'm
    glad I did.
     
    Troubled Tony, Sep 20, 2005
    #6
  7. nospam Guest

    In article <4FHXe.1000$>, Peter
    <> wrote:

    > > What? I am using the very first LCD Apple sold and it is as bright as the
    > > day I bought it after 5 years.


    > No it isn't. That's a physical impossibility. No one has yet
    > developed a fluorescent bulb that maintains the same brightness
    > for 2 years, let alone 5. Fluorescent bulbs lose 50% of their
    > brightness within the first 3 years, and if you try and color
    > correct an image with lots of near blacks you'll see this for
    > yourself.


    nobody has made a monitor that doesn't fade either. after a couple of
    years, monitors are no longer suitable for critical color work. in
    many cases, they become impossible to calibrate because the monitor
    cannot be adjusted to compensate for the changes. monitors also drift
    during normal operation which is why it is recommended to let a monitor
    'warm up' for an hour or so before attempting to do a calibration.

    > Until LED technology is ready for prime time, yeah it is dumb.
    > LCDs are great for text work, or for non-critical image editing.


    totally false.

    > Lack of software control? Get real. A CRT supports any
    > number of resolutions, refresh rates etc, not to mention their
    > wider color gamut (at least on decent models).


    why would one want a lower resolution than the maximum? might as well
    buy a lower resolution monitor and save money. in any event, current
    professional lcd monitors are excellent and your claims that lcds are
    less capable are representative of older and/or budget lcds.
     
    nospam, Sep 20, 2005
    #7
  8. Peter Guest

    "nospam" <> wrote in message news:190920051641592138%...
    > In article <4FHXe.1000$>, Peter
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > > > What? I am using the very first LCD Apple sold and it is as bright as the
    > > > day I bought it after 5 years.

    >
    > > No it isn't. That's a physical impossibility. No one has yet
    > > developed a fluorescent bulb that maintains the same brightness
    > > for 2 years, let alone 5. Fluorescent bulbs lose 50% of their
    > > brightness within the first 3 years, and if you try and color
    > > correct an image with lots of near blacks you'll see this for
    > > yourself.

    >
    > nobody has made a monitor that doesn't fade either. after a couple of
    > years, monitors are no longer suitable for critical color work.


    That last part is absolute nonsense. I routinely see 6, 7 and 8
    year-old Diamondtrons and Trinitrons whicht are still perfectly
    calibrated and still have perfectly usable gamut range. Tubes do
    fade, but the curve is much, much less pronounced than LCD
    backlights.

    > in
    > many cases, they become impossible to calibrate because the monitor
    > cannot be adjusted to compensate for the changes. monitors also drift
    > during normal operation which is why it is recommended to let a monitor
    > 'warm up' for an hour or so before attempting to do a calibration.


    True for low-end CRTs, not for decent CRTs.

    > > Until LED technology is ready for prime time, yeah it is dumb.
    > > LCDs are great for text work, or for non-critical image editing.

    >
    > totally false.
    >
    > > Lack of software control? Get real. A CRT supports any
    > > number of resolutions, refresh rates etc, not to mention their
    > > wider color gamut (at least on decent models).

    >
    > why would one want a lower resolution than the maximum?


    Huh? When you can put your LCD into 2048x1536 mode to
    properly preview page layouts, or reduce it to 800x600 to
    maximize DVD playback screens, or any one of 1000 other
    cases where resolution changes are useful, please let us know.

    > might as well
    > buy a lower resolution monitor and save money. in any event, current
    > professional lcd monitors are excellent and your claims that lcds are
    > less capable are representative of older and/or budget lcds.


    Nope. You'll need to spend 3-4x as much to get equivalent
    performance out of the box as a good $700 Diamondtron CRT.
    And that's not even taking into account the backlight fading over
    time.
     
    Peter, Sep 20, 2005
    #8
  9. C Wright Guest

    On 9/19/05 7:12 PM, in article
    4uIXe.1037$, "Peter"
    <> wrote:


    >> might as well
    >> buy a lower resolution monitor and save money. in any event, current
    >> professional lcd monitors are excellent and your claims that lcds are
    >> less capable are representative of older and/or budget lcds.

    >
    > Nope. You'll need to spend 3-4x as much to get equivalent
    > performance out of the box as a good $700 Diamondtron CRT.
    > And that's not even taking into account the backlight fading over
    > time.
    >
    >

    And the debate rages on . . .!! If one reads the archives of some of the
    graphics/photography/Photoshop groups, where some folks make a living doing
    critical photo work, you will find continuing arguments regarding CRT's vs.
    LCD's. However, most (and I emphasize most - not all) believe that the high
    end LCD's are now every bit the match for CRT's. Cheap LCD's are another
    matter!
     
    C Wright, Sep 20, 2005
    #9
  10. G.T. Guest

    "C Wright" <wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com> wrote in message
    news:BF54C9D7.3C743%wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com...
    > On 9/19/05 7:12 PM, in article
    > 4uIXe.1037$, "Peter"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    > >> might as well
    > >> buy a lower resolution monitor and save money. in any event, current
    > >> professional lcd monitors are excellent and your claims that lcds are
    > >> less capable are representative of older and/or budget lcds.

    > >
    > > Nope. You'll need to spend 3-4x as much to get equivalent
    > > performance out of the box as a good $700 Diamondtron CRT.
    > > And that's not even taking into account the backlight fading over
    > > time.
    > >
    > >

    > And the debate rages on . . .!! If one reads the archives of some of the
    > graphics/photography/Photoshop groups, where some folks make a living

    doing
    > critical photo work, you will find continuing arguments regarding CRT's

    vs.
    > LCD's. However, most (and I emphasize most - not all) believe that the

    high
    > end LCD's are now every bit the match for CRT's.


    Except for this part of Peter's last post:

    "Huh? When you can put your LCD into 2048x1536 mode to
    properly preview page layouts, or reduce it to 800x600 to
    maximize DVD playback screens, or any one of 1000 other
    cases where resolution changes are useful, please let us know."

    Greg
     
    G.T., Sep 20, 2005
    #10
  11. nospam Guest

    In article <4uIXe.1037$>, Peter
    <> wrote:

    > > nobody has made a monitor that doesn't fade either. after a couple of
    > > years, monitors are no longer suitable for critical color work.

    >
    > That last part is absolute nonsense. I routinely see 6, 7 and 8
    > year-old Diamondtrons and Trinitrons whicht are still perfectly
    > calibrated and still have perfectly usable gamut range.


    how are you measuring this 'perfectly usable gamut range' ? and how
    often do you calibrate these monitors and with what device?

    > Tubes do
    > fade, but the curve is much, much less pronounced than LCD
    > backlights.


    cite a source.

    > > in
    > > many cases, they become impossible to calibrate because the monitor
    > > cannot be adjusted to compensate for the changes. monitors also drift
    > > during normal operation which is why it is recommended to let a monitor
    > > 'warm up' for an hour or so before attempting to do a calibration.

    >
    > True for low-end CRTs, not for decent CRTs.


    all crts require a warm up period. this is a difference that can be
    measured. for color critical work, it is vital.

    > > why would one want a lower resolution than the maximum?

    >
    > Huh? When you can put your LCD into 2048x1536 mode to
    > properly preview page layouts, or reduce it to 800x600 to
    > maximize DVD playback screens, or any one of 1000 other
    > cases where resolution changes are useful, please let us know.


    dvd playback can utilize full screen regardless of monitor resolution
    so there is no need to switch resolutions. what are the other 999
    cases?

    > > might as well
    > > buy a lower resolution monitor and save money. in any event, current
    > > professional lcd monitors are excellent and your claims that lcds are
    > > less capable are representative of older and/or budget lcds.

    >
    > Nope. You'll need to spend 3-4x as much to get equivalent
    > performance out of the box as a good $700 Diamondtron CRT.
    > And that's not even taking into account the backlight fading over
    > time.


    lcds do cost more than a monitor of the same resolution but offer other
    benefits such as smaller physical space, brighter image, less heat,
    lower power consumption and longer life. for a lot of people, that is
    worth it.
     
    nospam, Sep 20, 2005
    #11
  12. Mark² Guest

    Peter wrote:
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> I'm in dire need of a new faster computer for digital photo work.
    >> I was planning on getting a PowerMac G5 ( but now I'm hearing
    >> rumors of new systems coming out soon, so I may wait a month or so ).
    >> I'm not so concerned about the computer itself, but of the monitor.
    >> I'd like to get a large LCD about 23" or so. I've seen the Apple
    >> monitor at the Apple store and it looks much nicer that my current
    >> CRT. I'm a bit concerned about the price. Also I would save about
    >> $370
    >> in sales tax ( for the complete system ) if I mail order, but I am
    >> worried about bad pixels on the display. Are there other users of
    >> this display that can comment on bad pixels? Dell has some
    >> interesting options. Their 2405FPW is about $500 less and it's about
    >> an inch bigger. Can anyone with first hand experience with this
    >> display comment on it? I would like to skip CRTs because of space
    >> requirements. What other displays do others recommend? Any advice
    >> would be appreciated. Thanks.

    >
    > If cost is a concern at all, an LCD monitor is the last thing you
    > should buy. You'll get 2, maybe 3 years tops before the
    > backlight has faded to a point where it's essentially useless for
    > graphic editing.


    Bull.
    Even my laptop screen has lasted longer than that... It went through a
    period of two full years in constant use (as in...NEVER being turned off!).
    The screen was active the ENTIRE time. It looks fantastic, and this laptop
    is about 4 or 5 years old (high-res display--1600x1200 Dell).

    > Unless you have the budget to replace them every few years,
    > the only thing dumber than buying an LCD is buying an
    > expensive LCD.


    More bull.
    Buying a bit better LCD usually means you can drive it via software, and
    make fine adjustments including profiling, etc.

    > 22" CRTs are going for dirt cheap these days and you'll get
    > at least 4-5 years out of them, probably more.


    They will change their diplay constantly, and fade at a rate which will
    require frequent re-profiling, color-matching. My 22" Sony lasted a mere 20
    months before it faded to utter crap.

    Your advice here is misleading...at best.
     
    Mark², Sep 20, 2005
    #12
  13. Mark² Guest

    nospam wrote:
    > In article <4uIXe.1037$>, Peter
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>> nobody has made a monitor that doesn't fade either. after a couple
    >>> of years, monitors are no longer suitable for critical color work.

    >>
    >> That last part is absolute nonsense. I routinely see 6, 7 and 8
    >> year-old Diamondtrons and Trinitrons whicht are still perfectly
    >> calibrated and still have perfectly usable gamut range.

    >
    > how are you measuring this 'perfectly usable gamut range' ? and how
    > often do you calibrate these monitors and with what device?
    >
    >> Tubes do
    >> fade, but the curve is much, much less pronounced than LCD
    >> backlights.

    >
    > cite a source.
    >
    >>> in
    >>> many cases, they become impossible to calibrate because the monitor
    >>> cannot be adjusted to compensate for the changes. monitors also
    >>> drift during normal operation which is why it is recommended to let
    >>> a monitor 'warm up' for an hour or so before attempting to do a
    >>> calibration.

    >>
    >> True for low-end CRTs, not for decent CRTs.

    >
    > all crts require a warm up period. this is a difference that can be
    > measured. for color critical work, it is vital.
    >
    >>> why would one want a lower resolution than the maximum?

    >>
    >> Huh? When you can put your LCD into 2048x1536 mode to
    >> properly preview page layouts, or reduce it to 800x600 to
    >> maximize DVD playback screens, or any one of 1000 other
    >> cases where resolution changes are useful, please let us know.

    >
    > dvd playback can utilize full screen regardless of monitor resolution
    > so there is no need to switch resolutions. what are the other 999
    > cases?
    >
    >>> might as well
    >>> buy a lower resolution monitor and save money. in any event,
    >>> current professional lcd monitors are excellent and your claims
    >>> that lcds are less capable are representative of older and/or
    >>> budget lcds.

    >>
    >> Nope. You'll need to spend 3-4x as much to get equivalent
    >> performance out of the box as a good $700 Diamondtron CRT.
    >> And that's not even taking into account the backlight fading over
    >> time.

    >
    > lcds do cost more than a monitor of the same resolution but offer
    > other benefits such as smaller physical space, brighter image, less
    > heat, lower power consumption and longer life. for a lot of people,
    > that is worth it.


    -Not to mention the complete lack of eye-straining flicker on an LCD...and
    sharpness that doesn't vary--accross the entire screen. CRTs flicker and
    tend to have sharpness sweet-spots...along with fuzzy corners.

    If a person really needs a lower resolution for some odd reason (like lowly
    DVD playback previews??????), it costs about $60 to have a second brand new
    smaller CRT for a dual monitor display...or...just get a second lower-res
    LCD. This makes for a nice system, since you don't need high res for
    palettes, e-mail, web, etc.
     
    Mark², Sep 20, 2005
    #13
  14. "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >
    >-Not to mention the complete lack of eye-straining flicker on an LCD...and
    >sharpness that doesn't vary--accross the entire screen. CRTs flicker and
    >tend to have sharpness sweet-spots...along with fuzzy corners.
    >
    >If a person really needs a lower resolution for some odd reason (like lowly
    >DVD playback previews??????), it costs about $60 to have a second brand new
    >smaller CRT for a dual monitor display...or...just get a second lower-res
    >LCD. This makes for a nice system, since you don't need high res for
    >palettes, e-mail, web, etc.


    I wouldn't touch another CRT if possible...

    A pair of 19" LCD's on a dual monitor system is a delight!

    --
    FloydL. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd Davidson, Sep 20, 2005
    #14
  15. HvdV Guest

    Peter wrote:
    >
    >
    > If cost is a concern at all, an LCD monitor is the last thing you
    > should buy. You'll get 2, maybe 3 years tops before the
    > backlight has faded to a point where it's essentially useless for
    > graphic editing.
    >

    Bad news!
    What factors influence this aging? Are the 3 years for 'average' office hours
    usage? What about using the LCD at lower brightness?

    -- Hans
     
    HvdV, Sep 20, 2005
    #15
  16. Mark² Guest

    HvdV wrote:
    > Peter wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> If cost is a concern at all, an LCD monitor is the last thing you
    >> should buy. You'll get 2, maybe 3 years tops before the
    >> backlight has faded to a point where it's essentially useless for
    >> graphic editing.
    >>

    > Bad news!
    > What factors influence this aging? Are the 3 years for 'average'
    > office hours usage? What about using the LCD at lower brightness?
    >
    > -- Hans


    Take heart.
    He is mostly full of doo-doo in this discussion.
     
    Mark², Sep 20, 2005
    #16
  17. Peter Guest

    "HvdV" <> wrote in message news:c2df7$432fb73f$3e3aaa83$...
    > Peter wrote:
    > >
    > > If cost is a concern at all, an LCD monitor is the last thing you
    > > should buy. You'll get 2, maybe 3 years tops before the
    > > backlight has faded to a point where it's essentially useless for
    > > graphic editing.
    > >

    > Bad news!
    > What factors influence this aging? Are the 3 years for 'average' office hours
    > usage? What about using the LCD at lower brightness?


    The ratings are based on POH (power-on hours). Most
    consumer LCD backlights are rated for 10,000 hours,
    which works out to about 14 months of use. There's not
    much you can do to extend this usable lifespan.

    BTW this Mark person is utterly clueless. I'm not going to
    waste any effort answering his drivel. Suffice it to say
    there's a definite reason (actually reasons) why most LCDs
    have one-year warranties while decent CRTs have
    three-year warranties.
     
    Peter, Sep 20, 2005
    #17
  18. John Ortt Guest


    > I wouldn't touch another CRT if possible...
    >
    > A pair of 19" LCD's on a dual monitor system is a delight!


    What is the max res you can get on an LCD these days...the Apple 23" for
    example?
     
    John Ortt, Sep 20, 2005
    #18
  19. John Ortt Guest

    >> 22" CRTs are going for dirt cheap these days and you'll get
    >> at least 4-5 years out of them, probably more.

    >
    > They will change their diplay constantly, and fade at a rate which will
    > require frequent re-profiling, color-matching. My 22" Sony lasted a mere
    > 20 months before it faded to utter crap.
    >
    > Your advice here is misleading...at best.


    As is yours!

    I quote: "They WILL change their diplay constantly".......no they won't

    I too have a 21" Sony which has been excellent for four years now.
    Sure there has probrably been some loss of brightness but I certainly can't
    detect it (and I am a fussy owner).


    In short the two camps can be summed up as follows:

    CRT
    PROs - Established technology with 50+ years of development, progress has
    pretty much plateaued. Cheap as chips....
    CONS - Big footprint and very Heavy, Fundamental technology uses a scan
    approach to refresh the picture which can iritate some users

    LCD
    PROs - Very Small footprint and lightweight
    CONS - Extremely expensive compared to equivalent CRT, Technology is
    relatively new and still developing rapidly.

    The facts above are exactly that - FACTS!

    Notice I have said nothing about the picture quality as it is a highly
    contensious area where there is no right or wrong answer.
    Both give excellent picture quality and should last a considderable time
    provided you invest sensibly and treat them well.

    One thing I will say is that LCD have not had anywhere near the level of
    in-life testing that CRT's have, and as such I would be more inclined to
    back a CRT monitor for reliability and longevity than I would an LCD one.
    That being said I would swop my 21" CRT for an equivalent 21" LCD in the
    blink of an eye if anybody was stupid enough to want to :)

    I went for CRT because it was cheap and I knew it would perform well. If
    you are short on desk space and have the money to spare by all means go for
    an LCD.
     
    John Ortt, Sep 20, 2005
    #19
  20. Gnarlodious Guest

    Entity Peter spoke thus:

    > The ratings are based on POH (power-on hours). Most
    > consumer LCD backlights are rated for 10,000 hours,
    > which works out to about 14 months of use. There's not
    > much you can do to extend this usable lifespan.

    Utter nonsense. The OP posted to an Apple newsgroup, if you expect 14 months
    from your Windows LCD maybe you should consider Apple products so you can
    get your money's worth and stop buying landfill material.

    -- Gnarlie's Applescript page:
    http://Gnarlodious.com/Apple/AppleScript/
     
    Gnarlodious, Sep 20, 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. Monitor for photo editing

    , Jan 2, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    3,124
    Flycaster
    Jan 8, 2004
  2. Jean

    Need new monitor for photo scan editing

    Jean, Feb 23, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    481
    Flycaster
    Feb 23, 2004
  3. Editor  www.nutritionsoftware.org

    What color temperature to use for LCD monitor for photo editing?

    Editor www.nutritionsoftware.org, Jul 7, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    7,765
    Roland Karlsson
    Jul 7, 2004
  4. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,518
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  5. Mason

    Suggestions wanted: PC for photo & video editing

    Mason, Aug 6, 2010, in forum: General Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    983
    Mason
    Aug 6, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page