Monitors slowly evolving
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Superzoom P&S's may have long "effective" focal lengths, but....
Next: What is the point of having 16 bit colour if a computer monitor can only display 8 bit colour? How do you edit 16 bit colour when you can only see 8 bit?
From: Bruce on 12 Jul 2010 12:18 On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:45:13 +0100, "R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclayton(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >Last year I bought an LG M227WD. It cost under �200 and is currently in use >as a telly in the kitchen, however the image at 1920x1080 when tested as a >monitor is better than the Iiyamas. Define "better". It may be "better" for web browsing, email etc., but inexpensive LCD monitors just don't cut it for serious post-processing of high quality images. The very best monitors, from manufacturers such as Apple, Eizo and LaCie, are only now approaching the quality levels of the better CRT monitors. One day, there will be a flat screen LCD (or some other technology) monitor which will surpass the image quality of the best CRTs, but we are not there yet. Of course there is no shortage of manufacturers who claim we are already there, and end users who claim that the cheap LCD screen they just bought is better than any CRT screen they ever used - but it was always thus, and these people should be ignored.
From: nospam on 12 Jul 2010 12:24 In article <5dfm365fhlvh04eu3dn4ddgovsvqjc8v9o(a)4ax.com>, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: > It may be "better" for web browsing, email etc., but inexpensive LCD > monitors just don't cut it for serious post-processing of high quality > images. neither do inexpensive crts. you get what you pay for. > The very best monitors, from manufacturers such as Apple, > Eizo and LaCie, are only now approaching the quality levels of the > better CRT monitors. actually they've surpassed it for years. > One day, there will be a flat screen LCD (or some other technology) > monitor which will surpass the image quality of the best CRTs, but we > are not there yet. we were there years ago. which crt has a 10 bit lut or an adobe rgb gamut? lcd displays also don't need a warmup period nor do they fade after a few years. > Of course there is no shortage of manufacturers > who claim we are already there, and end users who claim that the cheap > LCD screen they just bought is better than any CRT screen they ever > used - but it was always thus, and these people should be ignored. only those who claim cheapo lcds are better than crts should be ignored. quality lcd displays, particularly eizo, are much better than crts.
From: Me on 12 Jul 2010 17:03 On 13/07/2010 4:18 a.m., Bruce wrote: > On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:45:13 +0100, "R. Mark Clayton" > <nospamclayton(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > but inexpensive LCD > monitors just don't cut it for serious post-processing of high quality > images. The very best monitors, from manufacturers such as Apple, > Eizo and LaCie, are only now approaching the quality levels of the > better CRT monitors. > The evolution of LCDs hasn't been generally driven by the needs of photographers. Better panel technology was available (for photographers etc), but panel response time was very poor (no good for gamers), production volume small, and cost subsequently high (Eizo etc). Light transmission of the better panels is also lower, so for laptops, the cheaper TN panels are still used to extend battery life (less backlight power needed) Sometimes - perhaps "overun" in production for premium monitor makers, high quality panels found their way in to consumer monitors from Dell etc - though also sometimes a lottery which panel would arrive. Things are changing. In my opinion it's still not driven by what photographers need - it's coming down from large volume TV panel production (mainly VA and IPS panel), and possibly up from small touch-screen devices (iPad) which necessitate good viewing angle, with the bonus that colour reproduction is good (iPad sceen is IPS, and really not bad). It's a little crazy IMO that at the moment you can buy an IPS or VA panel full HDTV of 40 or 42", for similar or less price than a 24-27" IPS or VA panel computer monitor.
From: Rich on 12 Jul 2010 17:49 "R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclayton(a)btinternet.com> wrote in news:0tidnSUM6dgUpabRnZ2dnUVZ8mqdnZ2d(a)bt.com: > > "RichA" <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:393a8582-fd3e-41bf-a4c2-ac960a8e4447(a)t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com. > .. On Jul 11, 7:15 am, "R. Mark Clayton" > <nospamclay...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >> "RichA" <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:2f86bcbe-1145-4e89-a69a-bb6a5d4f9bf7(a)u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com. >> .. >> >> >http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/10bit.shtml >> >> More colours than the human eye can discern? >> >> Why pay for that? > >:How can you not understand LCD's tonal range is hugely crippled? > > How can increasing the DtoA resolution to ten bits improve the range? > Sure a three colour system is always going to struggle to reproduce > the full gamut the eye can see (Sharp have a four colour one, but how > this helps with a three colour broadcast system and yellow being the > centre of the gamut I don't know) > >: You probably believe the LCD hawkers who claim 1 million to 1 >: contrast > ratios too. > > No > > > I have two large Iiyama screens. The newer one claims 2048x1536, but > can't really do it, but is rock solid at 1600x1200 at 85Hz, the older > does 1600x1200 at 60Hz and is a little tired now. I sometimes run the > desktop out over both screens. > > The first cost ~�1k in 1996/7 and the second ~�500 in 2004/5. > > Last year I bought an LG M227WD. It cost under �200 and is currently > in use as a telly in the kitchen, however the image at 1920x1080 when > tested as a monitor is better than the Iiyamas. > > It has been inescapable for some years now - CRT's have had their day. > > You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. You won't see ANY banding on even the cheapest CRT, but you will see it on nearly EVERY LCD except units in the high four figure price range. LCD's are going to die before they ever get fixed.
From: nospam on 12 Jul 2010 17:55
In article <HP-dnQaZO6ttEKbRnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Rich <none(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > > It has been inescapable for some years now - CRT's have had their day. > > You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. You won't see ANY banding on > even the cheapest CRT, but you will see it on nearly EVERY LCD except > units in the high four figure price range. LCD's are going to die before > they ever get fixed. pure nonsense. |