LCD monitors: crisp but sterile looking

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

  1. J. Tyler

    Guest Guest

    It seems that CRTs (because of their lesser precision) blend the pixel
    IMHO this is the key part of your messeage. I am sure that an LCD display
    looks crisper or sharper, but there is little benefit to this from a
    photography perspective.

    What you want is to have your monitor match as closely as possible your
    target output. If this is print, then even a cheap ($100) CRT will do a
    better job than most LCD (I said most because I dont have experience with
    really expensive LCDs). If your target output is for viewing on the web etc,
    then your CRT still does a better job because most other people still have
    CRTs, so they will be seeing close to what you were seing when preparing the
    image.
     
    Guest, Oct 13, 2003
    #61
    1. Advertisements

  2. So size DOES matter?? :)

    dave

    Charlie D wrote:
    snip
     
    Bay Area Dave, Oct 13, 2003
    #62
    1. Advertisements

  3. J. Tyler

    Markeau Guest

    Markeau, Oct 13, 2003
    #63
  4. J. Tyler

    ThomasH Guest

    Nowadays probably we all use computers to make photography, but
    we lack any newsgroup devoted specifically to computer displays
    suitable to make photography.

    Let me thus post here a pointer to a study performed recently by
    Munsell Color Science Laboratory, which unveiled severe problems
    with longevity of life in some contemporary LCD screens.

    http://www.avvideo.com/2003/04_apr/features/long_live_dlp.htm

    The web page of the laboratory is:

    http://www.cis.rit.edu/mcsl/

    Critics or skeptics of the above LCD longevity study like to
    remind that it was contracted and distributed by a competitor
    of the LCD technology, who would like to promote its own DLP
    technology for displays and large projection screens. Thus as
    always, exercise your own judgment.

    DLP is being very nicely presented on http://www.dlp.com/ and is
    being promoted by TI (Texas Instruments.) In real life, these
    displays perform indeed splendid, thus I am sure that we will hear
    more of them in the future. Maybe this is even *the technology*
    which will replace slide projectors? Since this technology allows
    to use high quality white light lamps, best color filters money
    can buy, they might have long term advantage over any LCD
    technology in terms of color fidelity and color gamut. They can
    clearly outgun LCD in terms of luminance and of course, they
    do not have any problem with view angle.


    If the Munsell study has real founding, be careful with that
    investment in a contemporary megabucks LCD screen...

    Thomas
     
    ThomasH, Oct 13, 2003
    #64
  5. There's a movement on to make an organic based LCD
    verses the current types which involve a great deal of
    hand intensive labor. The new screens which will be
    much like what your begining to see in Nokia cell phone
    displays are similar to the glow produced by bio luminescing
    species. The new screens it is proposed will consist of plastic
    that is automatically sprayed with the glow compound. The life span
    will be somewhat shorter compared to present, however the screens
    will be much much cheaper, and replaceable.
     
    Gregory W. Blank, Oct 14, 2003
    #65
  6. J. Tyler

    J. Tyler Guest

    On my 17" .24 dot pitch CRT at 1024x768, ClearType makes text look
    both bolder and fuzzier. It gives it a semi-transparent edge effect
    for a slightly ghosted look.

    Apparently ClearType is wasted on CRTs because they already blend text
    boundaries. I'd like to know how it works if it's not merely
    anti-aliasing.

    JT
     
    J. Tyler, Oct 16, 2003
    #66
  7. ClearType is subpixel rendering. Each "pixel" on an LCD display is made up
    of three rectangular subpixels, each one being one third the width of the
    pixel. Unlike conventional anti-aliasing, which treats each pixel as a
    whole, ClearType uses each individual subpixel directly.

    Here is a screen shot of some text rendered by ClearType, magnified with two
    different programs:

    http://www.geary.com/images/xptext.png

    The top image shows the text magnified pixel-by-pixel. The bottom image
    shows the individual subpixels (that's why it has red, green, and blue
    stripes where you'd expect to see white). If you blur your vision a bit, you
    can see in the bottom image how ClearType smooths out the diagonal lines in
    the "W" by performing anti-aliasing at the subpixel level. The top image is
    closer to how a CRT would display the ClearType text.

    Steve Gibson has a more thorough description of subpixel rendering on his
    site at:

    http://www.grc.com/cleartype.htm

    His site is badly broken right now (it's throwing an extra "www." on the
    beginning of every URL!) but try later and you may be able to get to it.

    -Mike
     
    Michael Geary, Oct 16, 2003
    #67
  8. J. Tyler

    Markeau Guest

  9. I understand what you are saying, and I can understand why
    some people prefer not to see sharp pixels. Indeed, the
    font smoothing algorithms to some extent are applying a not
    totally dissimilar strategy.

    However, it is better not to call this pixelated look an
    artifact. Digital images and computer screens *are*
    pixelated by design. It is the blurring of pixels on CRT's
    that is an artifact, not the clear rendering of these pixels
    on LCD panels.

    The ultimate solution is using displays with sharp pixels, but
    with so many of them that the individual pixels are not resolvable.
    Currently, that is beyond the means of most of us.

    Rick
     
    Rick Matthews, Oct 17, 2003
    #69
  10. J. Tyler

    Ed Bigelow Guest

    IMHO the advantage LCDs have over CRT is with those LCDs which have full
    digital controls, with each color, contrast, brightness, etc. that can be
    set to a fixed repeatable number...
    Ed
     
    Ed Bigelow, Oct 20, 2003
    #70
  11. J. Tyler

    Louise Guest

    I LOVE my 21" Sony CRT. Before I purchased it, I got a
    15" Sony LCD and immediately returned it.

    I agree with the use of the word "sterile" - I find it
    looks that way because there is no way adjust the color
    temperature. Every LCD I've tried reproduces VERY cold and
    I find that makes graphics un-natural looking and text,
    glaring.

    As for sharpness of fonts, you are correct that they are
    sharper on an LCD - if your eyes are good enough to read
    them at the preferred resolution.

    With a CRT, using Windows XP, one can turn on Microsoft's
    Clear Type which I found makes a truly noticeable
    difference in the sharpness of text.
     
    Louise, Oct 28, 2003
    #71
  12. J. Tyler

    Steve B Guest

    I can adjust the white balance to what I like on my Sharp 15", there's also a
    black level control and it comes with a very effective monitor icm profile that
    gives more natural colours than my Viewsonic CRT when using profile aware
    software. Are Sony falling behind?
     
    Steve B, Oct 28, 2003
    #72
  13. J. Tyler

    Rick Guest

    It's all about gamut, not "natural colors". Your Sharp has a color
    gamut roughly half that of a midrange CRT. Try editing an image
    with lots of near-blacks or near-whites on your monitor and then
    on a CRT and you'll see the obvious difference.

    Rick
     
    Rick, Oct 28, 2003
    #73
  14. J. Tyler

    Louise Guest

    You can also avoid the fixed font sizes using IE by going
    to tools/accessibility and checking the box that says
    ignore font size specified on web page
     
    Louise, Oct 31, 2003
    #74
  15. J. Tyler

    Louise Guest

    How do you easily switch back and forth to test it? I
    would like to check it out more fully on my 21" Sony CRT.
     
    Louise, Oct 31, 2003
    #75
  16. J. Tyler

    Pood Guest

    No problems anymore with angle of view, thank goodness. Brightness,
    clarity, sharp to the corners and no flicker whatever. I'd have to
    agree with you on the grayscale situation, however (grays tend toward
    bownishness in the midrange). But you can't have everything, and all
    factors considered, I'm very happy with a ViewSonic VX2000.
     
    Pood, Dec 13, 2003
    #76
    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.