LCD monitors: crisp but sterile looking

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by J. Tyler, Oct 11, 2003.

  1. J. Tyler

    Tom Guest


    Your life must be a living hell then.

    Tom
     
    Tom, Oct 11, 2003
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. J. Tyler

    Paul H. Guest

    No, I was having a bit of fun and am sorry if it sounded like a personal
    attack--that wasn't my intention at all. And no, I wasn't implying LCD's
    are better because they're new, I was rejecting the notion that just because
    they're new doesn't mean they are worse, an important distinction
    encapsulated by the declaration, "If it was good enough for Grandpa, then
    it's good enough for me!" That's a position often taken by the
    film-is-always-better-regardless crowd on this newsgroup, but I certainly
    don't want to inappropriately class you with that crowd, so I apologize if
    my remarks offended.

    I do believe (for reasons I outlined in an earlier response) that LCD's are
    superior to CRT's for photo-editing tasks. To me, the extra sharpness
    serves as a yardstick by which I can guage the efficacy of my blurring,
    anti-aliasing, and other editing efforts without having to wonder if it's
    the CRT's inherent low-pass filtering masking some of my work. I should
    mention I'm talking about LCD's used at their native resolutions: resizing
    images, e.g., having your video card set to 800x600 while your LCD monitor
    enlarges the picture to 1024x768 (or higher) to make them full-screen,
    results in the addition of a subtantial amount of noise and screen artifacts
    to the display. I do find this unpleasant and it's admittedly not a problem
    not seem in CRT-based monitors.

    Now this isn't meant to be a frivolous suggestion, but if you find the
    sharpness of the LCD unpleasant, why not put a fine-mesh glare-screen in
    front of it? It will scatter the light coming from the display, smoothing
    out the image somewhat while being easy to remove if you ever need or want
    the sharpness back.
     
    Paul H., Oct 11, 2003
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. You fix that by using several tweaks. In Windows XP, you set the display DPI
    to 120 instead of the default 96 (Display control panel, Settings tab,
    Advanced button), and you turn on ClearType (Appearance tab, Effects
    button).

    Then, for evil websites that use fixed pixel size fonts, you switch from
    Internet Explorer to Mozilla Firebird, which lets you both specify a minimum
    font size and lets you override the font size of any site by using
    Ctrl+Plus.

    This setup really takes advantage of the high-resolution LCD and makes text
    beautifully readable. With ClearType on a high-resolution LCD, the Georgia
    serif font is especially nice.

    -Mike
     
    Michael Geary, Oct 11, 2003
    #23
  4. Very easy. High resolution can give you *better* text, not worse. You simply
    need to make the appropriate adjustments as I mentioned in the other message
    I just posted. On my ThinkPad with a 15" 1600x1200 display using ClearType,
    I use the Georgia (serif) font for most editing, and Lucida Console
    (monospaced) font for program editing. These TrueType fonts really take
    advantage of the high-resolution display.

    -Mike
     
    Michael Geary, Oct 11, 2003
    #24
  5. J. Tyler

    Ron Hunter Guest

    I believe IBM has a 200 dpi LCD, but you need government help to buy one.
     
    Ron Hunter, Oct 11, 2003
    #25
  6. J. Tyler

    Paul H. Guest

    Here's an interesting anecdote: One of my LCD monitors is a Sharp 15" model
    with built-in TV tuner that develops a stuck cyan pixel EVERY time I take it
    someplace. However, if I massage the screen *very* gently with a Q-tip in a
    spiral around the stuck pixel, I eventually hit a "sweet spot" which causes
    the pixel to return to normal operation until the next time it's
    transported. Obviously, something is loose internally, but it's kind of
    interesting the defect can be healed. Makes me feel like a TV evangelist
    must when I do my "laying on of Q-tip." Sometimes I have to perform my
    healing ritual several times before the healing becomes semi-permanent.

    And no, it's not that my massaging just turns off the pixel somehow--I've
    examined it under a magnifying glass and when it's not "hot cyan" it
    actually behaves as a normal pixel should.

    P.S.-I can't take credit for the discovery, as I read about the procedure
    years ago on a laptop discussion board.
     
    Paul H., Oct 11, 2003
    #26
  7. J. Tyler

    Eric Gisin Guest

    Bullshit. LCDs don't have dot pitch. They simply have pixels of 0.25mm
    square or more.

    CRTs generally have a dot pitch of 0.25 or 1/100 inch. That is a screen
    property. They also have a electron beam about 0.25, but it always
    spills over to other dots. LCDs don't.
     
    Eric Gisin, Oct 11, 2003
    #27
  8. J. Tyler

    Rick Guest

    Of course they do. On LCDs the distance between pixel centers
    is equivalent to dot pitch on a CRT. Since there are the same
    number of pixels at a given resolution on an LCD, the larger the
    monitor, the bigger each pixel is and the more jaggy the image.
    CRTs don't suffer from these limitations.
    CRTs "generally" don't have any specific dot pitch. Cheaper
    ones are still in the .28 range, midrange are ~.25 and better
    monitors are .22 and less.

    Rick
     
    Rick, Oct 11, 2003
    #28
  9. J. Tyler

    Vance Green Guest

    Actually, guys, perhaps there is an alternative explanation of the
    "jaggies look worse on a LCD" issue...

    Might it not be that since the "elements" of a LCD
    display (setting aside the dot pitch vs. pixel argument
    here), being perfectly square/rectangular and NOT slightly
    overlapping each other (as CRT's do and hence performing
    a kind of averaging effect) allow for the better display of straight
    edges thus enhancing the jaggies? This of course assumes
    you're running a LCD at it's native resolution, and not something less,
    at which point adjacent pixels begin to be averaged/interpolated/whatever
    again.

    Just a thought-based more on the geometry of this situation
    rather than the electronics...
     
    Vance Green, Oct 11, 2003
    #29
  10. J. Tyler

    J. Tyler Guest

    I didn't take it as a personal attack, just not a reading of my
    pro-CRT arguments! Absolute precision aside, don't you think CRT
    images look more like actual photos with fine gradations? Or would I
    need to actually buy an LCD and take it home rather than assuming what
    I see in a store is optimal? The black level/contrast thing seems
    universally acknowledged as being a weak point though.
    I assume they don't actually make a screen for that purpose, but there
    ought to be a way to retain LCD sharpness without seeing individual
    pixels so distinctly. Some sort of border zone that merges neighboring
    colors.

    Keep in mind that I don't like a lot of big screen TVs for the same
    reasons I don't like the LCD look. Scanlines and pixels make me notice
    the technology on top of the image itself, when I'd rather the
    technology be transparent.

    By coincidence there's another discussion just like this one I didn't
    take it as a personal attack, just not a reading of my pro-CRT
    arguments! Absolute precision aside, don't you think CRT images look
    more like actual photos with fine gradations? Or would I need to
    actually buy an LCD and take it home rather than assuming what I see
    in a store is optimal? The black level/contrast thing seems
    universally acknowledged as being a weak point though.
    I assume they don't actually make a screen for that purpose, but there
    ought to be a way to retain LCD sharpness without seeing individual
    pixels so distinctly. Some sort of border zone that merges neighboring
    colors in a subtle way.

    Keep in mind that I don't like a lot of big screen TVs for the same
    reasons I'm not keen on the LCD look. Obvious scan-lines and pixels
    make me notice the technology on top of the image, and I'd rather the
    technology be transparent.

    JT
     
    J. Tyler, Oct 11, 2003
    #30
  11. J. Tyler

    Junque Guest

    Of course they have a dot pitch, as you have stated one every 0.25mm; if
    that is not a dot pitch what do you think it is?
    True(ish).
     
    Junque, Oct 11, 2003
    #31
  12. IBM build a *300 DPI* LCD display. I saw it. It looks amazing. I just
    couldn't see individual pixels without the aid of magnification. It was
    twice HDTV resolution (3840x2160).

    It was not fast to load images into. The LCD was actually configured as
    four separate 960x2160 displays, each driven by a separate DVI digital
    video cable, connected to a Matrox board operating in 4-monitor
    configuration. But the graphics hardware side could be fixed if there's
    a market.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Oct 11, 2003
    #32
  13. good info. Thanks, Michael.

    dave

     
    Bay Area Dave, Oct 12, 2003
    #33
  14. bullpucky to your "bs". LCD monitors DO have dot pitch ratings.
    Perhaps you don't agree with their methodology? But it's a spec, anyway.

    dave
     
    Bay Area Dave, Oct 12, 2003
    #34
  15. RE/
    100%.

    I used to lust after a couple of LCD monitors until they replaced the entire
    trading floor's monitors at a site where I work with LCD. The increase in open
    space was astonishing - never expected it.

    But the quality of the images turns me off. These are quality screens but for
    my money they don't even begin to match the ViewSonic PF815 that I use at home.

    Maybe it's a personal prejudice - or maybe it's something about running the LCDs
    at other than native rez...but it sure did cure me of my desire for LCD.
     
    (Pete Cresswell), Oct 12, 2003
    #35
  16. J. Tyler

    matthews Guest

    I have to agree with Michael on this. For text, the choice
    is not a matter of taste. LCD's map pixel to pixel, and so
    display text just as the font designer intended.

    If you prefer the blurred text of CRT's you might wish
    to look at smoothed and anti-aliased font options that
    some operating systems offer.

    I, too, prefer CRT's for image and video editing,
    but there can be no disputing that LCD panels offer
    sharper text.

    I can think of a couple of things that may explain
    your experience:

    1. LCD panels work well at only one resolution. At other
    resolutions, the pixels are interpolated, resulting in
    pretty bad viewing. Perhaps you did not use any
    of the LCD's at their native resolution.
    2. Perhaps you are using a laptop with the ATI 7500 chipset.
    Some of their subsystems with this chipset have overshoot
    on sharp transitions that tend to show up more on LCD
    panels than on typical CRT's.

    Rick
    --
    Rick Matthews
    Department of Physics http://www.wfu.edu/~matthews
    Wake Forest University 336-758-5340 (Voice)
    Winston-Salem, NC 27109-7507 336-758-6142 (FAX)
    USA
     
    matthews, Oct 12, 2003
    #36
  17. J. Tyler

    Eric Gisin Guest

    LCDs don't have dots like a CRT mask does. LCDs have pixels, and CRTs
    don't. The CRT beam never lines up with the mask holes, which is why
    CRTs are "fuzzy" compared to LCDs.

    It is incorrect to carry CRT terminology over to LCDs. It's like calling
    a 2x DVD 16X because it is 16X faster than CD.
     
    Eric Gisin, Oct 12, 2003
    #37
  18. Whenever I look at a Toshiba laptop, I'm always impressed...at first.
    But upon further scrutiny of various types of images I find that I
    prefer a quality CRT. Not that an LCD isn't snappy and attention
    grabbing, but I don't like the pixelated look, even at native
    resolution, which is the only one I can tolerate anyway. Different
    strokes for different folks, but until they find a way to eliminate that
    artifact, I'll stick to CRT.

    BTW, I have a Sony camcorder than has a B/W viewfinder as well as a 3
    1/2" LCD. I purchased that particular model PRECISELY because it didn't
    have a color viewfinder. Camcorder color viewfinders are so grainy
    there is almost no hope of verifying critical focus. I DO enjoy the
    large exterior LCD screen though. Seems most of the newer cameras have
    smaller screens. Money saving or weight savings--I don't know which,
    but I'd hate to give up that 3 1/2" display.

    dave
     
    Bay Area Dave, Oct 12, 2003
    #38
  19. J. Tyler

    ahj Guest

    LCDs are not really suitable for critical photo-editing.
    I know lots of graphics-arts people work on LCD-displays,
    but for 'photo-editing' and other apps where you must
    be able to see very smooth color gradations, LCDs aren't
    quite there yet.

    I bought an NEC 17" LCD1760NX a few months ago. At the time,
    it was one of the only 16ms LCD-panels on the market (the
    1760NX's LCD-glass is actually made by AU Optronics.) That
    panel has a physical color-depth of 6bits per channel (instead
    of the standard 8bits per channel.)

    For photo-editing, it makes this display totally unsuitable.
    The display 'simulates' 8bits per channel by a combination of
    spatial and temporal dithering. For web-browsing, the color
    is fine. But for photo-editing, the panel cannot resolve any
    kind of smooth color gradation. Side by side with my old
    Viewsonic 19" CRT, the LCD is a big step backward. As a matter
    of fact, you can 'simulate' what I see on my LCD, by going
    to your Windows Display Properties, and changing your
    desktop resolution from 'true-color (24bpp/32bpp)' to 'high-color
    (16bpp.)'

    CRTs have their drawbacks, too, but IMHO are better suited
    for photo-editing.
     
    ahj, Oct 12, 2003
    #39
  20. don't tell me; tell the monitor industry! They are the ones that refer
    to dot pitch in advertising LCD monitors.

    dave
     
    Bay Area Dave, Oct 12, 2003
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.