Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

LCD Screen for Image Editing

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the true-enough dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Most image editors will tell you that the colour accuracy on an LCD monitor is still nowhere near as good as a high quality CRT. Although this is generally true, this new screen from NEC is definitely a big step forward for the LCD cause."

125 of 168 comments (clear)

  1. hmmm by sabernet · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If they can pull it off, all the better, but I'm still of firm belief that OLED or color-digital-ink will be the only thing to replace CRT in terms of color sharpness once they're actually useable.

    1. Re:hmmm by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 1

      I'm still of firm belief that OLED or color-digital-ink will be the only thing to replace CRT in terms of color sharpness once they're actually useable.

      I have a better idea, based on already existing technology: create an e-book that's so compelling that people will buy it en-masse (that is, not DRM-encumbered). Then everybody will quit reading dead tree books and will read their e-books' LCD instead, and so the colors will always be exactly like the author intended. Voilà!

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    2. Re:hmmm by IdleGod · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've heard about some new display out of Canada called the iFire. It uses thick-film dielectric electroluminescent (TDEL) technology. Has anyone else heard of it? And can anyone else comment on it if they have?

    3. Re:hmmm by sabernet · · Score: 2, Informative

      Their site...although it doesn't really show any tech in action so it might be vapo

  2. Still looks a little pricy. by Blapto · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You could probably get a much cheaper, nicer CRT. The market it is aimed at would probably not care about footprint anyway after all.

    1. Re:Still looks a little pricy. by tokul · · Score: 1
      You could probably get a much cheaper, nicer CRT. The market it is aimed at would probably not care about footprint anyway after all.
      Tell that to PHBs and office space designers.
    2. Re:Still looks a little pricy. by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

      What planet are you on? I have an LG L1710S LCD display [17" viewable, real viewable unlike CRTs which are usually -1" or so from that] and I can tell you that games look just fine in 4:3 resolutions.

      I typically play UT2k4 at 640x480 and it's just fine not all distorted as you're suggesting. Maybe that's because the difference from 960 and 1024 isn't really that much. It's a difference from 4:3 and 4:3.2

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    3. Re:Still looks a little pricy. by BlueArchon · · Score: 1

      At that resolution the distortion is not that bad, but try switching your desktop resolution to 800x600 and you'll see what he means.

    4. Re:Still looks a little pricy. by badasscat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      One problem with all the 1280x1024 LCD monitors are that they don't have square pixels. The display itself is 4:3, but the pixels are squat, unlike 1600x1200, 1280x960, 1024x768, 800x600 et cetera.

      This is completely, 100% false.

      1280x1024 LCD screens have a 5:4 aspect ratio. This is why the resolution can be 1280x1024, and the pixels remain square. 1280x1024 screens are the only screens with a 5:4 ratio. Don't ask me why this is, but it is. You can easily verify this by looking at the specs on any LCD with this native resolution.

      I would guess you're confusing what happens when you use 1280x1024 as a resolution on CRT's. This will give you non-square pixels, and you should not use 1280x1024 on a CRT for this reason (unless you have a 5:4 CRT, and I'd guess there are at least a few of them out there). You should use 1280x960 instead. But this does not apply to LCD's, all of which have one native resolution, and they're built specifically to support that native resolution.

      Now, as to this assertion in the original article post that "most image editors" think LCD's are "nowhere near as good" as CRT's... I think this is at the very least overly dramatic, if not outright false. First of all, what's an "image editor" to begin with? A retoucher? A photographer? A designer (and print or web)? All of the above?

      Up until a few months ago I worked in the web design department for a large corporation, and like most companies we worked pretty closely with the print designers as well. 95% of my company used LCD's because they wanted to use LCD's. If any designer wanted a CRT they could simply request it - very few did (maybe two or three at the entire company). I personally had an LCD as a primary monitor and a CRT as secondary, because when working for the web it's important to see how things are going to look on different setups (especially when working with compressed images).

      I'm also a photographer, and I don't have a CRT in my house. I have three LCD screens, and while not all of them are created equally (the oldest one does have a pretty narrow gamut), they're all at least adequate for photo processing, and my laptop screen is perfectly fine. I know plenty of other photographers who also do retouching on their laptops and don't feel they're missing anything.

      LCD's are different, but even with a narrower gamut they do some things better than CRT's. No CRT can approach an LCD's pixel-perfect sharpness, for example - it's impossible to judge a photograph's true sharpness when viewing it on a CRT. So there are tradeoffs in both directions.

      I think there's a difference between intellectually knowing that one thing may be technically better in certain areas than another thing, and actually using those things in real life. "Image editors" are people too, and they like the convenience and space savings of LCD screens as much as anybody else. And there are things that LCD's do better than CRT's, just as there are things CRT's do better than LCD's.

    5. Re:Still looks a little pricy. by Cowclops · · Score: 1

      To add a little more... first off, the pixels are the same height vs width on a 1280x1024 LCD as they are on ANY LCD, so 1280x1024 isn't 4:3 (1.33:1), its 1.25:1. If you played your game at 1280x1024 and it knows that its a non 1.33:1 ratio, then it will look fine. However, playing at a 4:3 resolution like 640x480 requires black bars on both sides or else it WILL look distorted. (The amount you can tolerate the distortion depends on your attention to detail. A lot of people can't be bothered with details, so it "looks fine" even though it isn't.) Just about as frequently, people get 4:3 crt monitors and run them at 1280x1024 when 1280x960 is the correct resolution.

  3. Will this be the rage in 6 months? by Darkn3ss · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In 2005 we are expected to have flat (just a little thicker than LCDs) CRT monitors. Since the makers are promising that these monitors will be cheaper than their LCD counterparts, wouldn't saavy buyers just wait until then and get a higher (or equal) quality monitor at the same price?

    1. Re:Will this be the rage in 6 months? by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Size isn't the only advantage that LCDs have. Most people also find them to be easier on the eyes, and they are cooler and more energy efficient.

      And anyway, I'll believe the stuff about thin CRTs in 2005 when I see them on the shelves.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    2. Re:Will this be the rage in 6 months? by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      Interestingly, LCDs give my wife migranes. Switching back to CRT (on the advice of the doctor, who'se seen the problem before) solved that.

      So not everyone finds them easier on the eyes :)

    3. Re:Will this be the rage in 6 months? by SmokeSerpent · · Score: 3, Informative

      LCD monitors are lit by a flourescent tube. Just as some people get migranes from flourescent lighting, the number of people having trouble with LCD displays will begin to escalate as more and more LCD displays surround us.

      A modern CRT monitor usually has a refresh rate faster than 60hz, and the fading out of the phosphors tend to even out the flicker even more.

      If your wife wants a flat panel display, she could try a plasma model. While plasma is also based on flourescent lighting technology, it is essentially made of thousands and thousands of individual flourescent lights, all turning on and off and varying their brightness individually, which might eliminate the migraine-inducing flicker.

      --
      All kings is mostly rapscallions. -Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
    4. Re:Will this be the rage in 6 months? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I haven't seen a LCD myself that's lit by a flickering tube. Most (all?) of them convert whatever current they get into high voltage DC, which is what powers the tube. It's easy to confirm whether or not they flicker just by waving your hand in front of the screen in a dark room, which is what I just did for my LCD.

      People are more likely to get a headache from using the crappy VGA input on their expensive LCD rather than the DVI input, which is something I'll never understand.

    5. Re:Will this be the rage in 6 months? by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      Ouch. £2300 for the cheapest plasma I can find.

      Compared with £75 for a CRT I know which route I'll take :)

    6. Re:Will this be the rage in 6 months? by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      The monitor is (was) fed by DVI with a good graphics card. Using the VGA input will not affect the output of the display hardware, other than it'll be a little less well defined due to the transition through analogue... it certainly wouldn't cause headaches.

      The flickering issue makes sense. The other explanation I heard (that LCD displays too many colours and it confuses the eye) never made much sense to me - epecially given this article :)

  4. games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    but are they good enough for gaming yet?

    As for graphics, I wonder how LCD technology deals with logarithmic color spaces?

    1. Re:games by beakerMeep · · Score: 1
      define good enough?

      My Dell 18.1" has been good enough for my gaming and work (animation and web design) for almost 2 years now. I don't see ghosting and I see very vivid color - to me it much better than any expensive CRT I have ever seen (although I may not have seen the real cream of the crop). And for me there isn't a chance in hell I would ever switch back.

      Frankly, It surprises me that people still tote the CRT line as much as they do. I could see how a print designer who need very exactly color replication (say to get the coke branded red) or a video effects/compositor might need such color accuracy but I dont think CRTs are really needed for 90% of the people they used to be including gamers and graphics pros. In other words, the "I need such good color/response time that I need a CRT" crowd should be tiny niche of what it used to be.

      --
      meep
    2. Re:games by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 1

      Last night I played "Call of Duty: United Offensive" for three hours on my Apple 17" Studio Display. (One of the old square ones with the acrylic body, not one of the even-nicer new ones.) No complaints at all.

      (Except about that stupid chateau level. When the tanks started coming from all directions at once and the music came up and the P-47s took out the German armor, seriously, I got tears in my eyes. Wow.)

      --

      I write in my journal
    3. Re:games by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The need for color calibration in print production is way overstated. There are some areas in which having a color-calibrated workflow really helps, like catalog production for example. But for most print work, it's just not helpful. To use your example, Coca-Cola Red is a specially defined printing ink. It's not a process-color mix. That is, control over the color of Coca-Cola Red happens on the printing press, not in the computer.

      Like I said, there are people who really benefit from a color-calibrated workflow: camera to computer to printing plate. But for everybody else, it's just a big waste of time and money.

      --

      I write in my journal
    4. Re:games by beakerMeep · · Score: 1

      yeah but if you were desing a print ad with the "Coke red" wouldn't you want to be sure that the process color you chose for other areas of the ad matches the spot Pantone coke red? You may be right though, I am not a print designer but I have done a few nationally published magazine ads but I just used 100% process and it looked fine to the standard the company wanted but they were easy going about it and I assumed most are not as forgiving. Of course even to my eyes the color looked OK.

      --
      meep
    5. Re:games by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 1

      Well, not "matches," no. That'd look weird. But you'd want to get in the same neighborhood. To do that, you'd use the colorimeter built in to InDesign or whatever. See, you know the color value you're trying to hit --if Coca-Cola Red were a PMS color, there would be a published process equivalent; since it's a custom spot color, you use the color values that you read off of a sample with an actual colorimeter --so you just adjust your values until you get it there. No eyeballing is necessary, or even desired.

      --

      I write in my journal
    6. Re:games by MadHobbit · · Score: 1

      Yes. Look at the response time. Lower (i.e. faster) is better. My LCD (a Viewsonic VG700) has a 16ms response time, which gives no ghosting that I've ever noticed (and I've looked for it). Cheaper displays still have worse response time (25ms or higher), and on those you can start to see problems.

      Unlike CRTs, you should -not- pay much attention to refresh rate. I've never seen one that's not 60 Hz. This does not result in the nasty-bad flicker that a 60 Hz CRT has. The only possible negative to this is that the display can't show more than 60 fps...but if you set your video drivers to sync with your monitor, then you get a nice smooth 60 fps at all times, and it looks gorgeous.

    7. Re:games by MadHobbit · · Score: 1

      In the interest of accuracy, I'll correct myself and state that I have a VG710, not a VG700.

  5. /.ed by spac3manspiff · · Score: 1

    hmm it's already slashdotted

    1. Re:/.ed by G-Licious! · · Score: 1

      Google Cache

  6. Nice, 2 comments and already slashdotted by jmcmunn · · Score: 5, Insightful


    I will argue a point without seeing the article, since it is dead. This screen is still likely much more expensive than a CRT, so unless the desk space you save with the LCD is worth a couple hundred dollars, I am guessing this is not going to appeal to most people.

    The people who buy LCD's now do it because they are small, sexy, and save on desk space. The very SMALL minority will be buying an LCD just because it has good colors and refresh rates. Those people do exist (ie gamers and graphic designers and such) but most people are just looking for the slim, sexy design of the LCD, myself included. Code looks just fine on an LCD, I use one at work 9 hours a day, with no trouble at all.

    1. Re:Nice, 2 comments and already slashdotted by Zareste · · Score: 1

      Well, the article says graphic artists use CRT screens. I suppose whoever came up with that idea is using a 386, or perhaps couldn't read what he was typing on his gigantic dark display. What was the motive behind all that? Sometimes I wonder about those /. writers.

      --
      I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
    2. Re:Nice, 2 comments and already slashdotted by advance512 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I am a programmer with the Israeli army.

      My unit has serious problems with physical space (we are positioned in an old building, I think it was originally built by the British army circa 1940 - too damn small). We need all the space we can get. (Is this sounding like a radio commercial?)

      We used to work with 21" and 22" IBM CRTs. IBM CRTs are acknowledged as some of the best out there (like almost anything IBM does.. except, maybe, for the Java IDE ;]). The problem was that the CRTs are huge - taking large amount of space, and that using them for over 10-12 hours a day was simply painful for the eyes, whatever refresh-rate you use.

      Since then we've received a few of the latest IBM ThinkVision 19" LCD screens, and it's a great improvement. I can work for longer periods of time without physical inconvenience, text crispness is improved (using ClearType fonts) and I can actually see my desk.

      Also, in my opinion the color and crispness of the graphics has improved. Nothing like Laetitia Casta in true color :) This is only my personal opinion, though - some graphic designers might have a different opinion.

    3. Re:Nice, 2 comments and already slashdotted by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Well, style does count for something, I suppose. But the one thing that modern LCD displays don't do is display images well in anything but their native resolution. Yes, LCD controllers do interpolation and other tricks to make off-res images look halfway acceptable but it's not good enough from my perspective. The software I write has to look good across the entire spectrum of standard VGA resolutions and then some. My company hasn't seen fit to supply me with an LCD display on my development system yet (and until they're cheaper than LCDs they probably won't) but even if they do, I'd still want a good CRT around to test my displays properly.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    4. Re:Nice, 2 comments and already slashdotted by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

      Um not quite. I do appreciate that my LCD is smaller than my CRT [well actually the LCD has a larger viewing size despite their both '17" monitors'].

      What I REALLY appreciate is that the LCD makes less heat. My room isn't that large and the CRT could heat it up something awful. Specially during the winters when I'm cooped up inside. Well that and the LCD is easier on the eyes than the CRT.

      Though truth be told depending on prices my next monitor might not be an LCD. I paid $377 [cdn, plus taxes] for my 17" LG LCD. A 17" CRT around here costs $180-$200.

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    5. Re:Nice, 2 comments and already slashdotted by tepples · · Score: 1

      This screen is still likely much more expensive than a CRT, so unless the desk space you save with the LCD is worth a couple hundred dollars

      What about the reduced electric bill, or the reduced optometric bill? LCDs are known to drain less electric power and create less eye fatigue than CRTs.

    6. Re:Nice, 2 comments and already slashdotted by tepples · · Score: 1

      The software I write has to look good across the entire spectrum of standard VGA resolutions and then some.

      That's why you run it in a window. Drag the little resize box at the lower right corner from quarter-screen (640x480) to full-screen (1280x1024) and you can see exactly how it looks on different size PC monitors without ugly blurring.

    7. Re:Nice, 2 comments and already slashdotted by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      {sigh} I understand the concept of a window.

      But the display engine we have automatically rescales windows, toolbars, fonts, icons, indeed our entire user interface in order to present a consistent display regardless of the resolution in use. Consequently, it really is important to us to see how Windows renders the GUI in a specific resolution. We also have to account for operating system variations (largely in font handling, but there are other things that differ between the various Microsoft OSes.) Plus which, when you're scaling things on-the-fly you sometimes have to tweak stuff to make them look right in a particular resolution, and the fuzziness caused by LCD interpolation is just unacceptable.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    8. Re:Nice, 2 comments and already slashdotted by spectasaurus · · Score: 1

      So, I guess you've got a couple extra 5 Megapixel CRT's lying around for medical imaging use? Not everyone with an LCD does so for it's sexiness. Digital mammography systems REQUIRE a system with at least 4 Megapixels (2048x2048) to start, and preferably 16. Good luck finding a CRT with that resolution.

    9. Re:Nice, 2 comments and already slashdotted by Knetzar · · Score: 1

      Good LCD monitors can display almost any resolution really well. I had an IBM A21p with a native resolution of 1600x1200, and most of the time I ran it at 1024x768 and it looked great.

      Currently I have a ViewSonic LCD monitor, and whenever I play games the need to resize the scren (starcraft, etc...) the screen still looks great.

      I'm just curious, are you looking at the $200 POS screens at BestBuy? Or are you looking at nice professional quality LCDs?

    10. Re:Nice, 2 comments and already slashdotted by toddestan · · Score: 1

      My LCD has three modes it can use when you send it a non-native resolution signal. One of them is to not scale anything up. Of course, this means a 640x480 signal takes up something like 5" in the middle of a 20" display, but it sounds like it would work.

      The other two modes are a couple of different interpolation algorithms. One of them is quite good (imho) so I just leave it in that mode all the time.

  7. The apple 30 inch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Whats the colour quality like on these

  8. Steven P Jobs said... by liangzai · · Score: 1

    ... that the CRT is dead. So, most "image editors" don't use CRT:s. They use Apple Cinema Displays.

    1. Re:Steven P Jobs said... by AlphaJoe · · Score: 1

      Well said...

      --
      A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.
  9. Not just a problem of color by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 3, Funny

    the colour accuracy on an LCD monitor is still nowhere near as good as a high quality CRT.

    I don't know about color, but I've clicked on the link in the blurb and it still shows the /. page after 5 minutes. I'd say the refresh rate really sucks...

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:Not just a problem of color by BabyDave · · Score: 1

      As an example, here's what the slashdot article looks like on a normal CRT, and here it is on an LCD monitor. Notice how the LCD version makes your eyes bleed.

    2. Re:Not just a problem of color by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      If you enable that silly 'Cleartype' thing it'll make your eyes bleed certainly... Switch it off unless you want to be wearing glasses for the rest of your life (it makes the text slightly blurred so your eye works overtime trying to make it sharp again... not good at all).

    3. Re:Not just a problem of color by BlacKat · · Score: 1

      Wow, talk about FUD... :(

      Cleartype does not make the text slightly blurred, well unless you are using a CRT monitor I suppose, which it was NOT designed for. ;)

      The Cleartype system uses sub-pixel antialasing on LCD panels to increace the horizontal resolution threefold. This gives significantly *crisper* text when rendered onscreen. :)

      CRT montiors do not have the ability to properly address sub-pixels, which is why Cleartype will not look that great... try it on an LCD and you won't want to turn it off. ;)

      Also, by your same argument, you shouldn't even enable normal antialising as it also makes text fuzzy, when really it makes it much easier to read then non-aliased text. :)

      Note, sub-pixel rendering is not new, the Apple ][, Atari 8-Bits, C=64's and the like all used sub-pixel aliasing to generate extra "colours" in their highest resolution mode. ;)

    4. Re:Not just a problem of color by Woody77 · · Score: 1

      Tried that for a few minutes on my IBM T30... didn't go over so well. The sub-pixel rendering kept using non-grey colors, and as a result small fonts would appear in multiple colors at once, and when scrolling text, it would turn lots of different colors. Although from a little bit further away (say using a projector in a meeting room), it could look really good.

    5. Re:Not just a problem of color by BlacKat · · Score: 1

      Well, yes, it has to use non-grey colours as you are using sub-pixels. A sub-pixel can be red, green, or blue.

      Now, if you have really large pixels on your LCD monitor I guess there could be an issue. My SGI panel is around 110 dpi, so unless I look REALLY close I don't see the sub-pixels. :)

  10. Yeah... by BJH · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...but have you tried looking for a decent CRT these days? Nanao/Eizo, which used to be my favourite monitor manufacturer, has zero models available. Many other manufacturers have at best a limited range.

    It might be better there in the US, but here in Japan, it's getting hard to find anything but el-cheapo 15-inch CRTs (for people who can't afford/don't want to spend the money on an LCD) these days.

    1. Re:Yeah... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I have been buying used CRTs for more than the last ten years. I have yet to regret a purchase, and have yet to have one die on me, the last four being 21" CRTs. I did sell an old 15" to a relative who had a 14" monitor that died.

      I'm certain you could do a web search for new, old stock monitors if you don't like used.

    2. Re:Yeah... by Gherald · · Score: 1
      It might be better there in the US, but here in Japan, it's getting hard to find anything but el-cheapo 15-inch CRTs
      Japan is, shall we say, a bit spatially challenged. In the warehouse room alone saved by stocking LCDs instead of CRTs you folks can probably house something on the order of 50,000 people ;-)
      --
      The unofficial /. digest
  11. Obligatory... by aurb · · Score: 1

    hmm it's already slashdotted
    No no, you should have said oh my god, we slashdotted ...!, then someone would have said we bastards!.

  12. Quality of LCD panels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think there is a much bigger problem with LCD than color accuracy - defective subpixels. In a recent month I had to return three over $1K LCDs (for those who are interetsted: two LaCie Phonot20Vision II and one NEC/Mitsubishi LCD2080UX+). And it doesn't seem even a single manufacturer (not even Apple) is trying to change this; all of them agreed (they even cooked up an ISO standard for this) that some small number of defects is acceptable. Until this nonsense stops LCD will be staying where they are now - consumer electronics.

    1. Re:Quality of LCD panels by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      If you're not willing to accept some defects, supply will drop to a trickle.

    2. Re:Quality of LCD panels by t_allardyce · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We're not willing to accept some defects, let supply drop to a trickle..

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    3. Re:Quality of LCD panels by lachlan76 · · Score: 3, Informative

      AFAIK, some manufacturers offer a zero-defect screen.

      The supply of such screens is already at a trickle.

    4. Re:Quality of LCD panels by wwwillem · · Score: 1
      I fully agree. I really hate it when even a single pixel is black or brigth. Last week I bought a new 17" LCD, Samsung, and through IMHO clever purchasing and probably a lot of luck, I got one with all pixels OK. The clever purchasing consisted of not buying Samsung's cheapest model, but paying 30 bucks more for their mid-range one. They have three models all in the same series. According to Samsung, the model I choose has better specs, but my guess is that they just make one model, and then at Quality Control they decide which ones become the low-end, which mid and which the high-end models. So I would also expect that the ones with pixel defects end up in the low-end bin. Probably the same is true for notebooks.

      It would be much nicer if they would take out the "lottery" element. Just tell the customer: "this one 400 bucks, 4 pixels dead", "that one 440, 1 pixel dead" and "that one $470, all pixels OK".

      --
      Browsers shouldn't have a back button!! It's all about going forward...
    5. Re:Quality of LCD panels by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      But for each $15 TFT panel, how many don't pass QC?

      Also, your eyes tend to even things out, and most of the time, a bad subpixel isn't catastrophic. A CPU that can't execute MOV however is for all intents and purposes, dead.

    6. Re:Quality of LCD panels by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      In part, it depends on the defect. As far as I'm concerned, a stuck pixel is cause for return because it sticks out on a black screen. A dead pixel is more tolerable but to be honest, I expect better from a monitor that costs a week's wages.

      Maybe if the retailers and manufacturers were up-front about it and didn't hide it in the warranty info or in a paper tucked in the package, I wouldn't be concerned about it.

    7. Re:Quality of LCD panels by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      When was the last time you heard of a retailer emphasising a fault in their product?

      It depends on what you do with your screen though - your average windoze xp play school colour scheme user won't notice much.

      I probably would, because I spend ~90% of the time in a terminal. But I have a CRT.

    8. Re:Quality of LCD panels by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think there is a much bigger problem with LCD than color accuracy - defective subpixels.

      '
      .

      Nah, you're exaggerating
      .

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    9. Re:Quality of LCD panels by ebrandsberg · · Score: 1

      I don't know if I'm just lucky, but I've NEVER had an LCD with a dead pixel, from my laptops to my standalone LCD's, they have all had good displays. I'm not sure what the overall % rate is of bad pixels for the industry, it seems the cheaper brands must have a LOT more than the IBM's and Sony's of the world.

    10. Re:Quality of LCD panels by Magic5Ball · · Score: 1

      Yes, much like enumerating the CHS of all the faulty sectors in a backing store.

      --
      There are 1.1... kinds of people.
    11. Re:Quality of LCD panels by ComputerSlicer23 · · Score: 1
      You are a real bastard... I was scrolling down the page, and stopped on your post. Before reading it, I started cleaning off my screen, knowing that I didn't have that big pixel problem. It wasn't until I scrolled and the defects moved that I realized that I'd been had.

      Kirby

    12. Re:Quality of LCD panels by Admiral+Burrito · · Score: 1

      Some small number of defects is acceptable.

      I have a good Samsung LCD. It has one dead subpixel. It was days before I even noticed it. If I go looking for it, I can find it on white backgrounds (/.), where it appears light blue. But I have to clean the screen off first, because it looks the same as a fleck of dust.

      If the pixel were always red, then it would be a problem. As is, it's fine. And the display is far easier on the eyes than any CRT can be: zero flicker, no matter what the refresh rate. That's worth a few dead subpixels to me (and I'm happy that there's only one).

    13. Re:Quality of LCD panels by Lost+Race · · Score: 1
      Same here. The only screen I've ever had with "stuck" or "dead" pixels was a CRT!

      My big problem with LCDs is their fragility. I bumped into an LCD screen and it tipped over, right onto a power brick that happened to be facing plug-side-up -- big gouge, ruined screen. CRTs sure don't tip over that easily.

    14. Re:Quality of LCD panels by BlacKat · · Score: 1

      My SGI 1600SW is pretty hard to tip over, but as a safety measure I simply used a bracket to secure the cable to the wall...

      So, if anyone (or the cat) bumps the monitor it is pretty much impossible for it to fall and get damaged.

      Also, as I mentioned in another previous post I have travelled trans-atlantic three times, and 2000 miles on a bus with this monitor as carry on... with no damage whatsoever, try that with a 19" CRT. ;)

    15. Re:Quality of LCD panels by Lost+Race · · Score: 1
      Nope, it was a brand new CTX monitor, and it had one pixel that was always the wrong color. Like maybe stuck on blue, as if the red and green phosphors were missing for that pixel. I don't remember the details, as it was 10 years ago, and I returned the monitor the same day I got it. Definitely not a frame buffer problem as other monitors worked fine connected to the same video card.

      I guess "pixel" doesn't really mean anything for a variable-scan CRT; I should probably say "very small area of the screen" instead. It only ever manifested as a single pixel at whatever resolutions I was using.

    16. Re:Quality of LCD panels by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Every element on my thinkpad's display works, and it's 15" 1600x1200. The whole laptop wasn't $2500 new. Nice try though, coward.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  13. Google seems to have this in it's cache already by rzei · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:Xn01EiS_IAcJ: www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx%3Fart%3D919+&h l=en

  14. always six months, isn't it? by poptones · · Score: 1

    I remember reading about these wonderful new thin CRTs that used arrays of tiny electron guns and all sorts of gee whiz stuff. Let's see that was... about three years ago? They were just a few months away then...

    LCDs are ok, but pretty much useless for graphics apps due to low contrast and washed out color. I'd love to have a thin CRT, but I'll believe it when I see it.

    1. Re:always six months, isn't it? by tschak · · Score: 5, Informative

      LCDs are ok, but pretty much useless for graphics apps due to low contrast and washed out color

      Yeah and CRTs tend to have over-saturated color that drifts over time. I'm a prepress tech, and I have to do a lot of color correcting for my job and the general rule is that the screen is wrong. period.

      A CRT or LCD will never be able to represent colors in RGB that exists in CMYK, or even some of the wildly bright color in the Pantone system. How can a monitor reproduce fluorescent orange or silver metallic ink? It can't. Once your good, you can mentally map what a color should look like compared to what it looks like on screen. Most of the people in my field who complain about how LCD aren't color accurate are just looking for an excuse when they can't remap their own color perception lookup table in their head.

      And, if you complain about how a LCD has crappy contrast or under-saturated colors and a poor refresh rate, maybe you should buy a nice LCD instead of a cheap piece of crap from Walmart.

      --
      -tschak
    2. Re:always six months, isn't it? by juiceCake · · Score: 1

      LCDs are ok, but pretty much useless for graphics apps due to low contrast and washed out color.

      How so? I'd say LCDs have superior colour (if you get a true 24bit display rather than 18). Nothing is washed out and it is extremely sharp. Use it all the time for graphics work in both print and screen (video and internet). Would never go back. The colour in particular is brilliant.

    3. Re:always six months, isn't it? by haruchai · · Score: 1

      What brand and model do you use?

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    4. Re:always six months, isn't it? by jpatters · · Score: 1

      The problem with LCD for color accuracy is twofold: the backlight is not consistant across the entire display; and the viewer's perception of the color of a pixel depends on the angle that they are viewing from. The first problem is solvable with higher quality backlights, the second is more fundimental but has been mitigated somewhat with technology refinements.

      --
      "Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
    5. Re:always six months, isn't it? by l0b0 · · Score: 1
      How can a monitor reproduce fluorescent orange or silver metallic ink? It can't.
      Then I just have to ask: How can we do it? I'll take a wild guess that materials whose fluorescence or reflectance can be regulated with electricity are well known, and that including such materials could well be the next step for creating amazing displays. Who's up for it?
    6. Re:always six months, isn't it? by Trepalium · · Score: 1
      Backlights have improved substancially in the past two or three years. On my 2yr old laptop (Toshiba Satellite), I can see obvious bright patches at the corners of the screen when looking at a black screen. On my 1yr old LCD (NEC LCD1760NX) for my desktop PC, I can't percieve any backlight inconsistancies. One problem with LCDs you didn't mention is that most LCD panels are still unable to properly display more than 262144 colours (e.g. 18bpp), and the ones that advertise more than this are typically using a form of dithering to achieve it (although this too will become less and less of an issue as the LCD panels get faster and faster or better and better).

      To be honest, I think too many people make too big of a deal over this. Unless you are in the market for a high end CRT, the fact that an LCD may have inaccurate colour output will not affect you. Low end CRTs can be just as bad, as well as being blury and flickery. 16ms LCDs are fast enough for games and motion video (unless 60fps isn't enough for you), and the colour output should be good enough for anyone who isn't trying to do color matching with a printer. When deciding between a cheap LCD and a cheap CRT, I'd get the LCD every time (as long as it was 20ms or better).

      --
      I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
    7. Re:always six months, isn't it? by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 1
      Yeah and CRTs tend to have over-saturated color that drifts over time.

      If the monitor produces colour that is too intense then I would think you can set the colour profile to produce less saturated colour. If the colour changes over time then I would think the profile can be adjusted to change it back. If the monitor is unable to produce the most intense colour (as with an LCD) then I would think the problem is unsolvable. It seems like the CRT is the most versatile monitor type.

      Even so, I've been able to get along fine with my laptop's LCD screen. However, every time I look at the video and graphics on my CRT, they look better. But I am no graphics expert. If somebody can direct me to a good reference for colour matching, that would be appreciated.

    8. Re:always six months, isn't it? by UranusReallyHertz · · Score: 1

      The Samsung 710t is a fantastic monitor with 24bpp color and a 16ms response time. In just about all respects its a perfect replacement for CRTs.

      --
      Smoking is an expensive, slow, and unreliable method of suicide.
    9. Re:always six months, isn't it? by RevDobbs · · Score: 1

      Except for the price... I just went over to PriceGrabber, and you can find Samsung 21" CRTs cheaper than that 17" LCD.

      Personally, I'll trade real desktop for computer desktop any day: you can hang the ass-end of a CRT off of your desk, but you can't extend a spreadsheet pass the edge of your monitor :-)

    10. Re:always six months, isn't it? by juiceCake · · Score: 1

      I got a Dell 2001FP which uses the LG.Philips LCD LM201U04 for the LCD. A pre-production review can be found http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1918.

      Of particular interest is this quote from the second page of the review:

      "The screen itself is a very nice LG.Philips LCD LM201U04. This is perhaps the first true 16ms 24-bit LCD panel commercially produced and doesn't rely on over-inflated contrast ratio and brightness numbers to draw attention to itself. We will go into more detail about the panel later on."

      This link:

      http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=1918&p=5

      Talks about true 24-bit colour rather than 18-bit colour.

      Finally, though the review points out a startlingly unacceptable 5 dead pixels it was a preproduction unit. I have none thus far, but that is always a concern with LCDs of course.

      Another excellent LCD may be the Sony SDM-P232W/B for those with a larger budget. Review:

      http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/articles/viewar ticle.jsp?id=20358

    11. Re:always six months, isn't it? by jeif1k · · Score: 1

      eInk and Gyricon are up for reflective electronic displays and are already producing them in limited quantities. However, they are far from "amazing" yet; it's a hard problem getting them to work well. And such displays will never be able to reproduce the entire Pantone system; that's a physical impossibility.

    12. Re:always six months, isn't it? by UranusReallyHertz · · Score: 1

      Well as a college student who has to move frequently an LCD monitor is REAL nice alternative to CRTs.

      --
      Smoking is an expensive, slow, and unreliable method of suicide.
  15. Here's what I wonder. by mindstrm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Apple Cinema displays.

    Apple is loved by artists all over the place, yet apple doesn't have a CRT anymore, only LCDs.

    Are Apple LCDs somehow far far better for color calibration? If not, it seems odd that they would drop CRTs from the menu.

    1. Re:Here's what I wonder. by Marovingian · · Score: 4, Informative

      Apple Cinema Displays have great contrast, wide viewing angles, and [when properly calibrated with professional hardware/software] great color accuracy. I worked in prepress for 6 years and we had no problem moving to ACD's for all of our color critical work.

      And Apple [unfortunately] still makes a CRT- the eMac, not that you would catch a color professional using one...

      --
      Cursing in the French language is like wiping your ass with silk.
  16. *sigh* so what if it's 'improving' by purduephotog · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Delta E calculations are made on displays where I work such that 1 delta E is the limit of acceptable colour change on a monitor. More than that over the range of Code values and the monitor fails.

    The BEST LCDs have about a 10 delta E. If you figure 1 Delta E calc is equivelent to 50% of the population seeing a change and 50% of the other 50% guessing (therefore 75% say "Yes, there's a change") then that means LCDs ... suck.

    WHEN they make an LCD that acts as a lambertian light source they will see a change for the better. Until they do this NEC monitor (Don't know if we've tested it yet, to be honest, but I had heard we had some NECs in that were pretty good- and that meant 9 Delta E's compared to the 20 before) is a nice word processor doc, but never ever ever will it be certified for imaging...

  17. just a thought on notebook LCDs & photographie by Nuttyrave · · Score: 1

    I quite like using LCDs and avoid CRTs (even good ones although I wouldn't know) when I can. Now I know that I have recently seen amazing LCDs on notebook computers recently (TOSHIBAs and VAIOs more specifically, but probably not limited to) - they look SHINY. On a parallel with development of photograhies - it seems quite similar to the shiny/mat preferences although in my case I prefer mat photos / shiny LCDs. Any comments?

  18. Re:Article text. by raventh1 · · Score: 1

    Thanks

  19. misunderstandings by jeif1k · · Score: 2, Informative

    The article has the usual misunderstandings about color calibration.

    Now, how to do this properly has been a long-running and continuing debate that started ever since colour film and colour displays were brought to market. How is colour perceived? Does an output device produce a comparable image to the input device? Does the software accurately handle colour? Does the final image look like the original scene?

    Well, I'm sure photographers, Photoshop jockeys, and consumers like to debate such things over and over again. However, the answers to those questions are well known.

    If I tell you the number of times I've been asked the question, "Why do my prints look nothing like the images on my monitor", then you'll understand why I believe monitor calibration to be such an important task.

    In general, you cannot make prints look like images on the monitor: they have a different gamut and their appearance depends on illumination and many other factors. Making prints look correct requires a lot of skill and experience and monitor calibration is not sufficient (it's not even necessary, actually, if you know what you are doing).

    1. Re:misunderstandings by cybrthng · · Score: 1

      not to mention 99.99999 percent of "consumer" printers are wildly off calibration so you would never or should never calibrate your monitor according to what comes out of your printer...

  20. Re:just a thought on notebook LCDs & photograp by adeydas · · Score: 1

    well i guess it depends from user to user and the type of work they do. if your just into writing your thesis, then LCD is fine but a graphic designer would not be very happy with it, even the newer ones...

  21. Color accuracy? by Britz · · Score: 1

    I don't know about graphic design all that much. I have 3 friends (that don't know each other) that all work in this field. I have never heard any one of them complain/talk about this topic.

    For work a graphic designer has to have the printer in mind. Every printer/printing machine works different and therefore has a slightly different output to the same intput as far as I know. So one has to adjust to the machine e.g. be able to adjust colors on the monitor. So this would be more about being able to adjust colors.

    Also this might be about viewing angle since lcds change colors (every slashdot user that has access to a laptop can check this) depending on the viewing angle. This is being worked on. So I imagine this new machine to have more stable colors as the viewing angle changes.

  22. someone already posted the article text here on /. by raventh1 · · Score: 1

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=133290&thresho ld=1&commentsort=3&tid=196&tid=1&mode=thread&cid=1 1130281

  23. Wide Gamut LCDs by new500 · · Score: 4, Informative

    . . . .

    Hmm, the screen reviewed is quite reasonably priced, IMO. Below is a edited and amended copy of a posting i wrote elsewhere.

    CRTs require lots more calibration. Geometry just complicates things. Guns get out of alignment quickly. They lack luminance, which means that even a *poor* LCD _can appear_ to out-perform a top CRT. Apple wag on about this for their "cinema" displays, which honestly aren't in the same ballpark as a Eizo CG21. So _any_ LCD will *appear* to show a wider gamut than a CRT. But you *just don't* get to replicate that luminance on a print.

    CRT is EOL everywhere (save for the Mitsubishi WG CRT), so over a few years, expect problems with support, parts and gun alignment. Yeah, sure, serious CRTs allow you to align the guns and all sorts through firmware, but they're comparably priced to the CG21 I currently use.

    The article references Wide Gamut LCD's .. .

    OK, I have been in contact with all the relevant product managers over the past six months regards ordering these for my company.
    Some pretty solid facts I have learned :

    1. Expect NO availability of WG monitors until H2/05. Both Eizo with the CG210 and Mitsu' are sorting out pre- production and *will not* release a half- assed product to beat time - to - market.

    2. Forget the WG Mitsu' CRT. Same price almost as LCDs in pre-production now, and is supported in Asia - Pacific only. Correct that, Mitsu' will support you, but it won't be convenient.

    3. WG LCDs almost require 10bpp DVI-D input. I am not aware of a graphics card which supports this right now. I sense that Matrox will support this with a new PCI-E Parhelia next year.

    4. Cost. Cost. Cost. You need a real justification for the Wide Gamut monitors. Intro prices will be quite a bit >5K$.

    5. Barco appear to have chickened out on this market. So says the grapevine anyway.

    6. Mitsu' appear to me at least to have some better technology for WG monitors. Possibly also for normal calibrated LCDs, but I am very happy meanwhile using a Eizo CG21 . .

    7. You probably don't need one of these unless you are planning to One Time Only scan - to - archive - digital of loads of Kodachromes,, or need to soft proof for Aniva or 4+ ink presses.

    8. LaCie is not IMO in the same game. LaCie filled the Radius gap in Mac pre-press environments. They DO NOT manufacture their own components, as do Eizo, Mitsu'. I've not been impressed at all by any of their products. For that matter, for my uses, I wasn't impressed by Apple's cinema displays . .

    9. Whatever you do, if you're editing photos or critical color ; Get a monitor hood. Think like lens shades. Control flare. It's much worse on a LCD, IME.

    10. Viewing a CRT properly requires a darkened environment. See above.

    Component burnout is a fact of life. All the new calibrated Mitsu' / Eizo LCDs are very thouroughly tested and heavily guaranteed / supported. But they will likely wear out in a few years or so. To combat this both Mitsu' and Eizo run luminance below max levels.

    Also, if I get my facts right, the only reason Mistu' released the WG CRT is because Japanese printers actually do use the current abilities of their presses properly. Just like DOF scales, SWOP and EuroScale are so outdated people just waste the capabilities of their output media.

    Some annoyances with the article :

    "as a rule, a DeltaE value of one is considered a perfect calibration i.e. there is no difference between the CIE L*a*b* colour space and the colours reproduced by the monitor."

    No, not a perfect calibration, just delta 1.0 is about the threshold of your capacity to distinguish tones.

    There will definitely be a variation between what you see and the L*A*B co-ordinates, notwithstanding the delta value as the L*A*B space is theoretical.

    "In addition, it's worth noting th

  24. Re: energy efficient? by lxs · · Score: 1

    Well, with my old CRT I hardly ever needed to heat the room my computer is in. Since I switched to TFT the room is considerably cooler. It would be a fun exercise to estimate the power saved for say, the US, which must have at least 50 million active CRTs (If you start counting TVs this number would rise enormously) You probably could shut down many power stations if all CRTs were replaced by TFTs. Just something to think about in these times of high oil prices.

  25. Re: energy efficient? by cnettel · · Score: 1

    The parent wrote that LCDs are more energy efficient, not the other way round.

    I am not sure, but is there really any big difference when the CRT is firing or not? I was under the impression that the real killer is the magnets directing the electron beam, and those will surely be just as active even if the beam is almost gone.

    (But maybe the magnets are responsible for adapting the amplitude of electrons reaching the surface, but I wouldn't think so? Too lazy to Google...)

  26. Urban Myth... LCDs are great for design by Cycline3 · · Score: 1
    I think this is one of those things that can be called an urban myth. The early LCDs were very poor comapared to todays models - especially high end ones that come in Apple Cinema displays and similiar.

    Personally, I do design for a living and I LOVE LCD as I get no headaches like CRT used to give me. Staring at an LCD all day everyday is just easier on the eyes. Add to that 23" of flat widescreen real estate and it's a no brainer. I switched a long time back and would never, ever consider going back to CRT.

    1. Re:Urban Myth... LCDs are great for design by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1

      Amen.

      What's the point of a properly calibrated monitor that uncalibrates your eyes?

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
    2. Re:Urban Myth... LCDs are great for design by BlacKat · · Score: 1

      I bought my SGI 1600SW (1600x1024 Native) around 5 years ago when living in the UK and I have not looked back since. :)

      Not only that, but this is one heck of a robust monitor, having survived three trans-atlantic flights and one 2,000 mile bus ride in a carry-on bag! :D

      I will never, ever, own another CRT monitor again, and since I my next computer system will be an Apple, I am looking forward to their 23" LCD with glee. ;)

      Actually, the 30" looks really, really nice, but I don't think I'd enjoy having to look left and right to see everything... but for a wall-mount display it would be fantastic I think! :)

  27. Marketting ;) by purduephotog · · Score: 1

    I saw that and honestly shrugged- that may be true for a midtone, but I honestly (and I really mean honestly) doubt thats true thru the entire range.

    I've seen some very good monitors with Delta E's, for one patch, of 1. The whites and blacks tho were shot- one had a colour temperature range from 6300K to 8000K ....

  28. Dell 2005FPW = same monitor at 1/2 price by realitybath1 · · Score: 1

    don't know about your question, but i've been looking at lcd's lately and will buy the above one. It uses the same panel as the apple's (its the exact same panel as in the g5 iMac 20") and is half the price of the similar cinema displays. Never bought anything dell before, and never expected too. The 2005FPW looks nice and MUCH more reasonably priced.

    1. Re:Dell 2005FPW = same monitor at 1/2 price by eMartin · · Score: 1

      Dell's manufacturing standards and quality control are much worse than Apple's though.

      Go to any of the popular hardware site forums, and read the threads about the 2005, and how people are getting theirs with extremely uneven backlights, uneven color saturation, delayed ghosting, and of course, lots of bad pixels.

      I'm on my second one now, and still not happy. It's far from perfect. This is a case of "you get what you pay for" except that even at $600, it's still pathetic to see these kinds of problems.

    2. Re:Dell 2005FPW = same monitor at 1/2 price by sxtxixtxcxh · · Score: 1

      realize that apple isn't using the same lcd's in the g5 imacs as they are in the apple cinema displays.

      --
      for a minute there, i lost myself...
  29. Yep, the're great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative
    The're classic Apple products: the're great beyond what you normally find; at the special Apple price.

    The have a great viewing angle AND they are SWOP certified, so no need to doubt the color accuracy

    "Certified systems are capable of producing proofs visually identical to the SWOP Certified Press Proof as defined in ANSI CGATS TR 001,"

    So the (calibrated) screen is good enough; no need to do a special color print to know what it looks like.

    http://www.apple.com/displays/technology.html

    1. Re:Yep, the're great by Johnathon_Dough · · Score: 1
      So the (calibrated) screen is good enough; no need to do a special color print to know what it looks like.

      I would also like to sell you a bridge I have available.

      Our shop has had a few "color experts" come in and calibrate our monitors. none of them ever managed to match each other, nor match the proof, nor stay the same for more than a week. When consistancy and accuracy are paramount screen viewing is just not there yet. SWOP standard proofing is the only method reliable enough. There are certain ink jets that are close (Epson 7600/9600 series is one that comes to mind). Even those have flaws in comparison to a film/laminate proof.

      --
      If you are one in a million, then there are six thousand people who are just like you.
  30. A Cliche that is True. by Raffaello · · Score: 1

    It is a cliche because it is true. Real estate is an order of magnitude more precious in Japan than in the United States - simply divide the total population by the total land area of the country:

    Japan: 130 million / 395,000 km2 = ~ 340 persons/km2

    U.S: 291 million / 9 million km2 =~ 32 persons/km2

    See: Japan Statistics and U.S. Statistics for the exact figures.

    1. Re:A Cliche that is True. by Nexx · · Score: 1

      You also have to take into consideration that at least 1/2 of Japan's land mass are mountainous areas considered inhabitable. This only exasperates the problem, though.

  31. All bark, no bite: where's the ICC profile? by Morgaine · · Score: 1

    > the colour accuracy on an LCD monitor is still nowhere near as good as a high quality CRT.

    I don't know about color, but I've clicked on the link in the blurb and it still shows the /. page after 5 minutes.

    I got to the article without any problem, but it was hardly worth reading. The key element was missing, namely a link to the ICC profile for the monitor.

    That's the key element in any discussion about monitors for professional (or even serious amateur) color work. First of all, the mere fact that the generic ICC profile for the model is provided would say a lot about both the product and the reviewer, and secondly, if the profile is linked then interested readers can plug it in to color gamut viewers and other analysis tools for themselves and see whether the monitor is good for their application.

    You didn't miss much. The article was quite reasonable at a shallow consumer level, but did not hit the mark for the color professional.

    --
    "The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
  32. Re:No it's not by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    or get yourself a braille display,

    Feel sorry for the blind when they feel goatse for the first time. In fact, goatse is probably how they GOT blind.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  33. And what about power consumption? by Vroem · · Score: 1
    unless the desk space you save with the LCD is worth a couple hundred dollars, I am guessing this is not going to appeal to most people.
    I replaced my 15" CRT that costs me € 52 on electricity bills by a 19" TFT that 'consumes' € 21 per year.

    I figured it was worth the money on the long term.
  34. The truth about LCD by GuyFawkes · · Score: 1

    It's actually pretty simple.

    The very best top of the range INDUSTRIAL GRADE tft (which by definition excludes all the consumer stuff, remember tft are rated post production much like cpu cores) are absolutely spectacular, especially when paired with first class backlighting and first class video conversion circuitry, but you're looking at 2000 dollars per screen.

    Consumer grade TFT is just muck, plain and simple, doesn't matter a damn what rebranding label is on it, even if the label is Apple.

    Factory refurbished CRT is as cheap or cheaper than consumer grade TFT, I'm looking at this page on a Sony F520 that cost me about 400 bucks (but in Uk money) as a good as new factory refurb direct from the sony workshop here, it rocks.

    If you're really short of money smaller / cheaper CRT are the way to go.

    There is however ONE AREA ALONE where CRT can never compete with TFT, and that is power consumption / heat rejection.

    If your application requires 4 or 6 stacked screens then TFT is the only game in town, think stock traders or other financials.

    There is also one are where TFT cannot compete with CRT, and that is physical resolution and refresh rates, if your application requires equal sharpness in differing resolutions and high refresh rates then CRT is the only game in town, think 3d animation or video mastering or gaming or other scientific visualisation.

    For everyone else it's just go faster stripes and penis envy and as valid an argument as Apple vs PC

    --
    http://slashdot.org/~GuyFawkes/journal
  35. one solution to rule them all... by shyfabian · · Score: 1

    If you're really serious about color accuracy the one tool that's more important than whatever screen your using is simply the info palette. I've heard stories of prepress techs using monitors with totally overblown contast settings because they're not looking at an image the way a designer is but rather the way the offset press will try to recreate it as--Strictly going by the math/color values to determine how well the image will print color/contast etc...

    That said, as a designer there's still a bunch of junk you have to do before you send your design to press... worrying about your monitor shouldn't be one of them.

  36. This is the subject by mrmeval · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure who does trustedreviews website but it's obnoxious even with Mozilla. After adblocking all the scripts and pictures it was better. Won't be shopping there though.

    --
    I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
  37. Re:just a thought on notebook LCDs & photograp by thegrassyknowl · · Score: 1

    I have an Acer Aspire 2010 notebook sitting in front of me. The colour accuracy isn't that great. I would never use the builtin screen for serious photo editing.

    That said, I would never use a CRT for anything other than serious photo editing again. The LCD in this thing is crisp, sharp, always in focus and doesn't have any of the horrible flicker problems associated with CRTs, even good CRTs.

    I have almost permanently relegated my (faster) desktop PC to doing nothing becuase I find the laptop screen so much easier on the eyes than the 19" CRT I have.

    For almost all of the masses LCD screens have more advantages than disadvantages. Nearly everyone just browses the web, reads email and composes the occasional document, spreadsheet, etc. Why do they need perfect photo quality editing on their PC?

    Better to save power and heat loading (which saves power in summer anyway; less work for the air con to do) and use a nice efficient LCD. It's too bad that good large LCDs that have a decent resolution are so damned expensive still. I call decent anything more than 1024x768. A 17" panel with that res is affordable, but if you want to go to 1280x960 or above then you're going to start breaking the bank.

    --
    I drink to make other people interesting!
  38. Since when is RGB subtractive? by Rares+Marian · · Score: 1

    CMYK is the one that lacks in color resolution.

    --
    The message on the other side of this sig is false.
  39. Re:just a thought on notebook LCDs & photograp by toddestan · · Score: 1

    I have seen some LCDs where they just stick a piece of clear plastic over the panel. I don't know why anyone would want that (the glare has to be absolutely terrible), unless they were in some kind of harsh environment and it was for protection.

  40. This *should* be irrelevent by Bones3D_mac · · Score: 1

    Anyone working on output intended for other machines should never depend on their working machine as a true representative of the end result.

    This is why people who work in the print industry have the pantone color system. A color doesn't need to look the same on the screen as it does when printed. It only needs to share the same numeric color values as its pantone equivalent.

    As for output to non-print mediums, it will always be a best guess issue outside of matching RGB values. You cannot count on the end viewer to have a system calibrated identically to your own.

    --


    8==8 Bones 8==8
  41. Re:LCDs and porn (TROLL??) by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1


    Do U guys really think a troll could sit in front of a CRT or LCD screen jerking off on porn?

    nah, the guards kicked 'm out because this is a: LCDs and porn (Score:0, Troll)

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  42. Apple Cinema Display? by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

    Or they will tell you that the Apple HD Cinema Display is the best monitor for the job. I use one in graphic design, and with 2 adjustments to my printer settings get almost perfect screen -> print comparisons. I can't think of a better monitor for graphic design than a 23" Apple HD LCD, and thats on a PC. Not to mention, good luck finding a 23" CRT with adequate refresh rates at that size and smaller dot pitch, higher contrast ratio and widescreen for less than 2k. LCDs are fighting and winning a good portion of the market for good reason.

  43. Re:LCDs and porn (TROLL??) by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

    Yeah I would have given him a +1 Funny, even if he is serious.

  44. the LCD cause? by briancnorton · · Score: 1
    a big step forward for the LCD cause

    I'm sorry, what's the LCD cause?

    Is there some sort of health hazzard or environmental issue that makes LCDs a moral imperative, or is this just the "other" slashdot effect whereby any stupid trivial thing becomes a "cause."

    LCD monitors aren't a cause, they are a consumer option. There are plusses and minuses. It is not someting to go picketting CRT makers over nor signing petitions, or whatever people do.

    is it really so hard to keep things in proportion?

    --

    People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.

    1. Re:the LCD cause? by DSP_Geek · · Score: 1

      1) CRTs have significant quantities of lead in the picture tube. Discarded CRTs are the second largest source of lead in waste streams, at 28% vs 65% for lead-acid batteries.

      2) CRT power consumption lies between 65 to 100 watts, vs 25 to 45 watts for an LCD. Assuming a delta of 50 watts, and 100 million monitors in the USA, you're talking 5 Gigawatts difference if all CRTs are replaced with LCDs. In other words, you save 5 nuclear plants by running LCDs exclusively,
      not to mention saving that again in reduced air conditioning costs during the summer.

      I'd say there's an environmental effect.

  45. Re: energy efficient? by Stephen+H-B · · Score: 1

    One of the great things about electromagnets and electric plates (the things used to direct the electron beam in a CRT) is that you only have to supply power when you want them to work. A CRT with a power saving mode that actually deactivates the electron gun can save power by turning off the directing machinery but as long as the beam is running it msut be scanned over the screen or it will burn a hole where it naturally comes to rest (similar to the 'burn in' effect that old monitors can experience). I don't know if the magnets are the main power drain in a CRT, the actual electron gun would suck some serious amps as well.

    --
    Sick of WoW? Try the thinking man's MMORPG: EVE Online
  46. I desparately need something like this by Builder · · Score: 1

    There is a weird problem in my house where my computer monitor gets lines scrolling across it. I've tried different monitors, plugging monitor into a disconnected UPS instead of the mains, the works. The only thing that works for me is an LCD, but that doesn't give good colour.

    I really hope this is as good as the review makes it out to be!

    1. Re:I desparately need something like this by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

      I would say you need to either relocate your equipment to another room or get a real UPS, one that filters the AC signal and gives you a clean sine wave. (As in, a server-grade UPS with line conditioning.)

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
  47. Problem exists off AC by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    He said it had the problem "plugging monitor into a disconnected UPS instead of the mains", so there can't be any noise in the AC signal.

    Sounds more like intereference - like you said, moving the machine (unless he lives under high tension lines or something).

    Speaking of which, that kind of interference can't be therapeutic.

    Oh, and a crap VGA cable will give similar results.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)