Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Displays

LCD Screen for Image Editing 168

Posted by CmdrTaco
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

LCD Screen for Image Editing

Comments Filter:
  • hmmm (Score:2, Interesting)

    by sabernet (751826)
    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.
    • 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!
    • Re:hmmm (Score:2, Interesting)

      by IdleGod (811284)
      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?
  • by Blapto (839626) on Sunday December 19, 2004 @11:18AM (#11130025)
    You could probably get a much cheaper, nicer CRT. The market it is aimed at would probably not care about footprint anyway after all.
    • Yeah... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by BJH (11355)
      ...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.
      • 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.
      • 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 ;-)
    • 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.
  • by Darkn3ss (812009) on Sunday December 19, 2004 @11:19AM (#11130032)
    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?
    • by aardvarkjoe (156801) on Sunday December 19, 2004 @11:29AM (#11130093)
      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.

      • 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.
        • by tschak (90399) on Sunday December 19, 2004 @12:08PM (#11130306)
          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.
          • 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.
        • 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.
      • Are CRTs really more energy-efficient than LCDs? My two ViewSonics use 65 watts of power when on with a moderately bright picture. My powerbook uses at most 35 watts when going full tilt gaming with the CPU and GPU maxed out. (18w when sitting idle, with LCD on full intensity)

        By this comparison at least, the LCD looks very much more efficient. The only efficiency issue I see is that the CRT draws less power (relative to itself) when displaying a dark image, whereas the LCD draws about the same power at
        • 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.
        • 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...)
      • 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 :)
        • by SmokeSerpent (106200) <benjaminNO@SPAMpsnw.com> on Sunday December 19, 2004 @03:03PM (#11131481) Homepage
          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.
          • 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.
            • 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 :)
          • Ouch. £2300 for the cheapest plasma I can find.

            Compared with £75 for a CRT I know which route I'll take :)
  • games (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    but are they good enough for gaming yet?

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

      • Re:games (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 wo
        • 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.
    • 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.)
  • hmm it's already slashdotted
  • by jmcmunn (307798) on Sunday December 19, 2004 @11:23AM (#11130055)

    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.
    • 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 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 larg
    • 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 (
      • 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?
    • 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
  • The apple 30 inch (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Whats the colour quality like on these
  • ... that the CRT is dead. So, most "image editors" don't use CRT:s. They use Apple Cinema Displays.
  • by Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) on Sunday December 19, 2004 @11:35AM (#11130126)
    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...
    • As an example, here's what the slashdot article looks like on a normal CRT [slashdot.org], and here it is on an LCD [slashdot.org] monitor. Notice how the LCD version makes your eyes bleed.

      • 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).
        • 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.
    • > 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
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 19, 2004 @11:39AM (#11130152)
    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.
    • If you're not willing to accept some defects, supply will drop to a trickle.
      • We're not willing to accept some defects, let supply drop to a trickle..
      • 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.
        • 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.

          • 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. ;)
    • 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 Cont
    • by Tablizer (95088) on Sunday December 19, 2004 @02:03PM (#11131053) Homepage Journal
      I think there is a much bigger problem with LCD than color accuracy - defective subpixels.

      '
      .

      Nah, you're exaggerating
      .
      • 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

    • 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

  • by mindstrm (20013) on Sunday December 19, 2004 @11:59AM (#11130247)
    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.
    • by Marovingian (679783) on Sunday December 19, 2004 @12:25PM (#11130430)
      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...
    • 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.
      • 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.
    • Yep, the're great (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 19, 2004 @01:17PM (#11130741)
      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 [apple.com]

      • 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 jet

  • by purduephotog (218304) <hirsch&inorbit,com> on Sunday December 19, 2004 @12:05PM (#11130287) Homepage Journal
    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...
  • 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?
    • 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...
    • 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
    • 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.
  • I find most LCDs in public libraries/net-cafes are just not good enough for porn, you just need a CRT and theres no way around it, its abit sad to see so many people switching and knowing they will never be able to enjoy a good porno again. Luckely CRTs are cheap and crappier (read: cheaper) net cafes still have them. But having said that, I did have a go on one of those flashy new Apple LCDs and the cleavage looked pretty good, that was until the rude security guard kicked me out of the shop.
  • misunderstandings (Score:3, Informative)

    by jeif1k (809151) on Sunday December 19, 2004 @12:13PM (#11130342)
    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).
    • 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...
  • 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
  • Wide Gamut LCDs (Score:5, Informative)

    by new500 (128819) on Sunday December 19, 2004 @12:24PM (#11130423)
    . . . .

    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
  • 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.

    • 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
  • 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 refu
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 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?

  • 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!
    • 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.)
      • 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.

If bankers can count, how come they have eight windows and only four tellers?

Working...