Computer Graphics with Photoshop - 23" or larger LCD/CRT monitor

Author

23" or larger LCD/CRT monitor

Dorothy@EmeraldCity.com

2004-05-29, 12:14 pm

For Photoshop for print work and web work on a PC:

My 7 year old Sony GDM-W900 22.5 viewable monitor is dying and I need a
replacement. Sony has stopped making large monitors and has moved into
the LCD arena. So far, these are the two models for 23" or greater than
I have been considering:

HP LCD L2335, as seen here:
http://h18004.www1.hp.com/products/...2335_specs.html

and Sony SDM-P232W/B, as seen here:
http://displaysbysony.com/displayb2...561&pMenu=Specs

So far, I am leaning toward the HP as it seems more feature rich,
however, is has one major drawback. The color temperature is set at the
default and does not appear to be user changeable. This could be a real
problem. I have an email in to them to find out for sure if it can be
changed, and am waiting for an answer.

A minimum native resolution of 1920 x 1200 is important. I have learned
that the native resolution on LCDs is very important.

So my questions are:

Do any of you use LCDs over CRTs?

Are the days of different angles yielding different colors (as was the
case with notebooks) a thing of the past with these new LCDs?

Any suggestions or recommendations on these or other models with 23"
minimum size and the larger resolution?

I'm hoping to get my order/purchase in over the Memorial Day weekend to
take advantage of the sales and coupons.

Any input/help is appreciated!

Thanks,
Dorothy

email addy is munged

Rick

2004-05-29, 12:14 pm

<Dorothy@EmeraldCity.com> wrote in message news:KkYtc.189$iV4.39@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
> For Photoshop for print work and web work on a PC:
>
> My 7 year old Sony GDM-W900 22.5 viewable monitor is dying and I need a
> replacement. Sony has stopped making large monitors and has moved into
> the LCD arena. So far, these are the two models for 23" or greater than
> I have been considering:
>
> HP LCD L2335, as seen here:
> http://h18004.www1.hp.com/products/...2335_specs.html
>
> and Sony SDM-P232W/B, as seen here:
> http://displaysbysony.com/displayb2...561&pMenu=Specs
>
> So far, I am leaning toward the HP as it seems more feature rich,
> however, is has one major drawback. The color temperature is set at the
> default and does not appear to be user changeable. This could be a real
> problem. I have an email in to them to find out for sure if it can be
> changed, and am waiting for an answer.
>
> A minimum native resolution of 1920 x 1200 is important. I have learned
> that the native resolution on LCDs is very important.

Stay at least ten feet away from any current HP product. Their
management has been gutting the company for the last three years.

> So my questions are:
>
> Do any of you use LCDs over CRTs?

LCDs are great for text and non-critical graphics work, but they
still lack color gamut relative to higher-end CRTs. Working with
images with lots of near-blacks or near-whites is often an exercise
in futility. Also their backlights begin to fade within a year or two
and will eventually fail altogether, like all other backlights. Best
not to invest a large sum of money into that technology IMO.

> Are the days of different angles yielding different colors (as was the
> case with notebooks) a thing of the past with these new LCDs?

No. Some are much better than others, but the issue remains.

> Any suggestions or recommendations on these or other models with 23"
> minimum size and the larger resolution?

While it's only 22", Mitsubishi's 2070SB with their Diamondtron
tube is one of the brightest consumer CRTs made (= largest color
gamut), and can handle 1920x1200 without breaking a sweat.
This tube is used by LaCie and others in addition to Mitsubishi's
own models.

Rick

> I'm hoping to get my order/purchase in over the Memorial Day weekend to
> take advantage of the sales and coupons.
>
> Any input/help is appreciated!
>
> Thanks,
> Dorothy
>
> email addy is munged
>

Don

2004-05-29, 7:14 pm

I agree with all of this. I have a couple of things to add, however. The
first is you probably shouldn't compare a 23" CRT with a 23" LCD. The 23"
LCD will have a display size of 23" diagonal. The 23" CRT will have a
"viewing area" of closer to 21" - 21.5" diagonal, and by the time you adjust
the height and width to get a circle to display as truly round you will
probably be down another inch or so. I don't intend this as a plug for
LCDs, hoever, because they are not currently up to snuff for imagery. You
should take sizes into account, however.

The other point is that I believe Sony is still making and will continue to
make the Trinitron tube, which many other monitor and TV set manufacturers
use. I don't think it is quite as good as the Diamondtron when new, but it
does seem to maintain it's color performance longer.

Don

"Rick" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2hr4srFgdq36U1@uni-berlin.de...
> <Dorothy@EmeraldCity.com> wrote in message
news:KkYtc.189$iV4.39@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
http://displaysbysony.com/displayb2...561&pMenu=Specs[color=darkred]
>
> Stay at least ten feet away from any current HP product. Their
> management has been gutting the company for the last three years.
>
>
> LCDs are great for text and non-critical graphics work, but they
> still lack color gamut relative to higher-end CRTs. Working with
> images with lots of near-blacks or near-whites is often an exercise
> in futility. Also their backlights begin to fade within a year or two
> and will eventually fail altogether, like all other backlights. Best
> not to invest a large sum of money into that technology IMO.
>
>
> No. Some are much better than others, but the issue remains.
>
>
> While it's only 22", Mitsubishi's 2070SB with their Diamondtron
> tube is one of the brightest consumer CRTs made (= largest color
> gamut), and can handle 1920x1200 without breaking a sweat.
> This tube is used by LaCie and others in addition to Mitsubishi's
> own models.
>
> Rick
>
>
>

Dorothy@EmeraldCity.com

2004-05-29, 11:14 pm

Thanks, Don. For larger monitors, the 22.5 VIS (viewable) seems to be
the "standard". Rick also feels that LCDs are not yet there for graphic
work. That's two for two in my book.

What you said about color performance is the problem with my monitor.
It has lost its ability to properly display darks, and the white looks
like a soft blue. It's test pattern shows no difference between the
white and light blue.

Thanks again,
Dorothy

email addy is munged

Don, using only recycled electrons, took the time to scribe on the
lovely day called 5/29/2004 8:31 AM the following important message }:~)
> I agree with all of this. I have a couple of things to add, however. The
> first is you probably shouldn't compare a 23" CRT with a 23" LCD. The 23"
> LCD will have a display size of 23" diagonal. The 23" CRT will have a
> "viewing area" of closer to 21" - 21.5" diagonal, and by the time you adjust
> the height and width to get a circle to display as truly round you will
> probably be down another inch or so. I don't intend this as a plug for
> LCDs, hoever, because they are not currently up to snuff for imagery. You
> should take sizes into account, however.
>
> The other point is that I believe Sony is still making and will continue to
> make the Trinitron tube, which many other monitor and TV set manufacturers
> use. I don't think it is quite as good as the Diamondtron when new, but it
> does seem to maintain it's color performance longer.
>
> Don
>

Rick

2004-05-29, 11:14 pm

<Dorothy@EmeraldCity.com> wrote in message news:Ce8uc.74795$LB1.47167@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
> Thanks, Don. For larger monitors, the 22.5 VIS (viewable) seems to be
> the "standard". Rick also feels that LCDs are not yet there for graphic
> work. That's two for two in my book.
>
> What you said about color performance is the problem with my monitor.
> It has lost its ability to properly display darks, and the white looks
> like a soft blue. It's test pattern shows no difference between the
> white and light blue.

Check the color temperature on the monitor. It may have reverted
back to its factory default, which is likely 9300K. If this is the case,
set it to 6500K and see if it fixes the problem(s).

Rick

> Don, using only recycled electrons, took the time to scribe on the
> lovely day called 5/29/2004 8:31 AM the following important message }:~)
>

jjs

2004-05-29, 11:14 pm

In article <Ce8uc.74795$LB1.47167@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>,
Dorothy@EmeraldCity.com wrote:

> Thanks, Don. For larger monitors, the 22.5 VIS (viewable) seems to be
> the "standard". Rick also feels that LCDs are not yet there for graphic
> work. That's two for two in my book.

Dorothy: Have you had the opportunity to use a Mac G5 with the 23 inch
display? Put aside for the moment the wintel vs. mac issue and consider
just the monitor (and video board). It's just downright _beautiful_. Now
add the Mac/OS-X system color management and it's unbeatable. Sure, such
screens have shorter lives than "CRT"s, but IMHO, it's worth it. Live
cheap or live well? If you have a choice, it's a no brainer. Besides, just
how long do you think you will keep your next tube? Chances are - not long
enough to make a difference.

Don't shoot me. It's just my x0 bits worth.

Dorothy@EmeraldCity.com

2004-05-29, 11:14 pm

Rick, using only recycled electrons, took the time to scribe on the
lovely day called 5/29/2004 1:53 AM the following important message }:~)

> Stay at least ten feet away from any current HP product. Their
> management has been gutting the company for the last three years.

Only ten? <G>

>
>
> LCDs are great for text and non-critical graphics work, but they
> still lack color gamut relative to higher-end CRTs. Working with
> images with lots of near-blacks or near-whites is often an exercise
> in futility. Also their backlights begin to fade within a year or two
> and will eventually fail altogether, like all other backlights. Best
> not to invest a large sum of money into that technology IMO.

This is good to know. All of the reviews of these LCDs that I found
were geared towards the home consumer, which made it hard to be better
informed.

>
>
> No. Some are much better than others, but the issue remains.

Again, I guess this is because they are still geared towards the
consumer market. What the heck, if the colors do not look good, they
can just play around with the controls until they like what they look
like for that game <G>.

>
>
> While it's only 22", Mitsubishi's 2070SB with their Diamondtron
> tube is one of the brightest consumer CRTs made (= largest color
> gamut), and can handle 1920x1200 without breaking a sweat.
> This tube is used by LaCie and others in addition to Mitsubishi's
> own models.
>
> Rick
>

Unfortunately, this model is "only" a 20" VIS. Coming from a 22.5" VIS,
for me, it would be like trading in a Ferrari for a Yugo (well, okay,
maybe not a Yugo, but you get the point). I actually tried masking off
my monitor to replicate this smaller size. After a few hours, I had to
rip it off, as it was really bothering me not having all the real estate
I had grown used to.

I am going to do some searches for this tube and see if I can find it in
a larger model. At least now I know I will stay away from the LCDs.

Thanks for your help,

Dorothy

email addy is munged

Dorothy

2004-05-29, 11:14 pm

It was at 9300K, which is where it has been for a while now. When I set
it back to 6500K, well, the whites turn creamy and muddled and the darks
are still extremely dark.

Over the 7 years I have had this monitor, I have mislaid the color
calibration unit. But I do not really think this is the problem. I
have played around with the brightness/contrast to no end in the last
couple of days to no avail.

Have a look at this photo:
http://home.netcom.com/~slepcevc/dv...ll%20Grotto.jpg

On my monitor, below the waterfall and the left hand branch, it is black
until you reach the stream where you can see a small area of green above
it. There is the color green on the right hand side below the stream.
As for detail - what detail. You cannot see any. Now, if I look at it
on my notebook, I can almost see the detail of each leaf.

What do you see?

Dorothy

Rick, using only recycled electrons, took the time to scribe on the
lovely day called 5/29/2004 2:39 PM the following important message }:~)
> <Dorothy@EmeraldCity.com> wrote in message news:Ce8uc.74795$LB1.47167@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>
> Check the color temperature on the monitor. It may have reverted
> back to its factory default, which is likely 9300K. If this is the case,
> set it to 6500K and see if it fixes the problem(s).
>
> Rick
>
>

Dorothy

2004-05-29, 11:14 pm

I have never had the opportunity to use a Mac. I've just looked at them
from afar <G>.

I've had this monitor for 7 years now. You could even say I am really,
really tired of looking at it! So aside from the obvious problems and
difficulties in its recent performance, you could say I am not too sad
to see it go and get a new one. This one has lost its brilliance.

Either that, or my eyes are getting old <G>.

But serious again, the Mac 23" LCD, as the others, only has 16.7M
colors. CRTs offer 64M.

Dorothy

jjs, using only recycled electrons, took the time to scribe on the
lovely day called 5/29/2004 2:50 PM the following important message }:~)
> In article <Ce8uc.74795$LB1.47167@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>,
> Dorothy@EmeraldCity.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Dorothy: Have you had the opportunity to use a Mac G5 with the 23 inch
> display? Put aside for the moment the wintel vs. mac issue and consider
> just the monitor (and video board). It's just downright _beautiful_. Now
> add the Mac/OS-X system color management and it's unbeatable. Sure, such
> screens have shorter lives than "CRT"s, but IMHO, it's worth it. Live
> cheap or live well? If you have a choice, it's a no brainer. Besides, just
> how long do you think you will keep your next tube? Chances are - not long
> enough to make a difference.
>
> Don't shoot me. It's just my x0 bits worth.

jjs

2004-05-29, 11:14 pm

In article <lBauc.59917$gO6.15561@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>, Dorothy
<Dorothy@EmeraldCity.com> wrote:

> But serious again, the Mac 23" LCD, as the others, only has 16.7M
> colors. CRTs offer 64M.

I don't mean to bait the self-aggrandizing but, of what use is more than
16.8M colors in print production in particular and anything else in
general?

Rick

2004-05-30, 4:14 am

"Dorothy" <Dorothy@EmeraldCity.com> wrote in message news:vnauc.59914$6I6.54600@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
> It was at 9300K, which is where it has been for a while now. When I set
> it back to 6500K, well, the whites turn creamy and muddled and the darks
> are still extremely dark.

Yes, you'd need to adjust both brightness and contrast to
compensate. Manufacturers ship monitors at 9300K because
it looks "crisper", at the expense of color fidelity.

> Over the 7 years I have had this monitor, I have mislaid the color
> calibration unit. But I do not really think this is the problem. I
> have played around with the brightness/contrast to no end in the last
> couple of days to no avail.

7 years is a reasonable lifespan for a CRT. It sounds like
yours is at least dying gracefully.

> Have a look at this photo:
> http://home.netcom.com/~slepcevc/dv...ll%20Grotto.jpg
>
> On my monitor, below the waterfall and the left hand branch, it is black
> until you reach the stream where you can see a small area of green above
> it. There is the color green on the right hand side below the stream.
> As for detail - what detail. You cannot see any. Now, if I look at it
> on my notebook, I can almost see the detail of each leaf.
>
> What do you see?

I can also see the detail between the branch and stream on
my CRT.

Rick

Graeme Cogger

2004-05-30, 12:14 pm

In article <lBauc.59917$gO6.15561@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
Dorothy@EmeraldCity.com says...
> I have never had the opportunity to use a Mac. I've just looked at them
> from afar <G>.
>
> I've had this monitor for 7 years now. You could even say I am really,
> really tired of looking at it! So aside from the obvious problems and
> difficulties in its recent performance, you could say I am not too sad
> to see it go and get a new one. This one has lost its brilliance.
>
> Either that, or my eyes are getting old <G>.
>
> But serious again, the Mac 23" LCD, as the others, only has 16.7M
> colors. CRTs offer 64M.
>

Where did you get a figure of 64million colours? That means
that each colour (R, G and B) would be represented by about 8.6
bits of information, which doesn't seem very useful...

On the life of CRTs vs LCDs: I've often seen figures quoted for
CRTs that their useful life is ~3yrs (after which they cannot
be calibrated properly), whereas LCDs are more like 5 years.
This thread is the first time I've seen the claims the other
way round.

Rick

2004-05-30, 12:14 pm

"Graeme Cogger" <gcogger@bigSPAMfoot.com> wrote in message news:40b9b891$0$25328$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
> In article <lBauc.59917$gO6.15561@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
> Dorothy@EmeraldCity.com says...
>
> Where did you get a figure of 64million colours? That means
> that each colour (R, G and B) would be represented by about 8.6
> bits of information, which doesn't seem very useful...
>
> On the life of CRTs vs LCDs: I've often seen figures quoted for
> CRTs that their useful life is ~3yrs (after which they cannot
> be calibrated properly), whereas LCDs are more like 5 years.
> This thread is the first time I've seen the claims the other
> way round.

No, you have it backwards. Why do you think LCDs, even
higher-end LCDs such as the Apple Cinema Display ($2K-$3K)
have one year warranties, while decent CRTs have three year
warranties? The original poster's CRT is seven years old, and I've
seen hundreds of other CRTs in the field that were still perfectly
calibrated after 3, 5 and even 7 years.

There's a reason why LCDs have only a one year warranty. Their
backlights (like all other flourescent lamps) lose 40-50% of their
brightness within the first two years, three tops. And they (like all
other flourescent lamps) eventually fail altogether.

Rick

steve@tropheus.demon.co.uk

2004-05-30, 12:14 pm

On Sun, 30 May 2004 04:20:12 -0700, "Rick" <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>
>There's a reason why LCDs have only a one year warranty. Their
>backlights (like all other flourescent lamps) lose 40-50% of their
>brightness within the first two years, three tops. And they (like all
>other flourescent lamps) eventually fail altogether.
>

My "old" Sony SDM-M61 has a three year warranty which is nearly
finished. No problem with the back lights. I needed to turn them down
when I first used the monitor and I have not needed to adjust them
since.

Steve
--
EasyNN-plus. The easy way to build neural networks.
Build networks from numeric, text and image files.
http://www.easynn.com

Graeme Cogger

2004-05-30, 7:14 pm

In article <2htubdFgdn7iU1@uni-berlin.de>, me@privacy.net
says...
> "Graeme Cogger" <gcogger@bigSPAMfoot.com> wrote in message news:40b9b891$0$25328$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
>
> No, you have it backwards. Why do you think LCDs, even
> higher-end LCDs such as the Apple Cinema Display ($2K-$3K)
> have one year warranties, while decent CRTs have three year
> warranties? The original poster's CRT is seven years old, and I've
> seen hundreds of other CRTs in the field that were still perfectly
> calibrated after 3, 5 and even 7 years.
>
> There's a reason why LCDs have only a one year warranty. Their
> backlights (like all other flourescent lamps) lose 40-50% of their
> brightness within the first two years, three tops. And they (like all
> other flourescent lamps) eventually fail altogether.
>
> Rick
>

As I said, this is the first place I've seen figures like
yours. Having only owned monitor calibration hardware for
under 1 year, I can only go by a consensus of reports I've
seen. I strongly suspect that nobody really knows - LCDs are
still relatively new technology, and the ones being produced
today are way better than the ones from even a year or two ago.
I've also heard that some LCDs can have the backlights
replaced, which must (I would hope!) be cheaper than replacing
the tube in a CRT.

Both of my LCDs (Sharp and Samsung) have 3 year warranties -
on-site in the case of the Sharp. Perhaps the Apple screen
only has a 1 year warranty because _all_ Apple hardware has a 1
year warranty.

jjs

2004-05-30, 7:14 pm

In article <2htubdFgdn7iU1@uni-berlin.de>, "Rick" <me@privacy.net> wrote:

> There's a reason why LCDs have only a one year warranty. Their
> backlights (like all other flourescent lamps) lose 40-50% of their
> brightness within the first two years, three tops. And they (like all
> other flourescent lamps) eventually fail altogether.

True and that's the reasons at least one large display intended for
digital TV is now offering a replaceable backlight. (I cant' remember the
brand.) Certainly, they aren't good enough for critical photo work, and I
wonder just how spendy those backlights are going to be.

Dorothy

2004-05-30, 7:14 pm

Graeme Cogger, using only recycled electrons, took the time to scribe on
the lovely day called 5/30/2004 2:34 AM the following important message
}:~)

> Where did you get a figure of 64million colours? That means
> that each colour (R, G and B) would be represented by about 8.6
> bits of information, which doesn't seem very useful...

I could have sworn I read 64M somewhere, but when I typed the email
yesterday, I almost did not, cause I thought someone would question me
on it and I would be empty brained about it. Well, here I am, empty
brained. But 8 bits of info each is ringing a bell in my aging head.
If I remember it or find it, I'll post it here.

Dorothy

email addy is munged

Dorothy

2004-05-30, 11:14 pm

Rick, using only recycled electrons, took the time to scribe on the
lovely day called 5/29/2004 6:28 PM the following important message }:~)
> "Dorothy" <Dorothy@EmeraldCity.com> wrote in message news:vnauc.59914$6I6.54600@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>
> 7 years is a reasonable lifespan for a CRT. It sounds like
> yours is at least dying gracefully.

Ah, yes, gracefully. So much so, that it was my Mother that pointed it
out to me. She was standing over my shoulder one day and saw what I was
working on on this monitor and at the same time on the notebook screen
and commented on how much darker the monitor was over the notebook. I
know I should thank her, but....

Perhaps I can eBay it for CAD/CAM or spreadsheet use and get some funds
out of it.

Dorothy
email addy is munged

Uni

2004-05-30, 11:14 pm

steve@tropheus.demon.co.uk wrote:
> On Sun, 30 May 2004 04:20:12 -0700, "Rick" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> My "old" Sony SDM-M61 has a three year warranty which is nearly
> finished. No problem with the back lights. I needed to turn them down
> when I first used the monitor and I have not needed to adjust them
> since.

Soon, you won't be able to purchase a CRT monitor.

LCDs lead out future!

:-)

Uni
p.s. Plus, you don't have to worry about LCDs emitting X ray, like CRTs,
which is cancer causing :-)

>
>
> Steve

Rick

2004-05-31, 4:14 am

"Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote in message news:40BA7D21.9020805@no.email.invalid...
> steve@tropheus.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
> Soon, you won't be able to purchase a CRT monitor.

Nonsense. CRTs will still be sold, but they will be considered
a high-end item, sold to graphics professionals and others who
need or want their better color gamut, resolution flexibility etc.

Rick

Xalinai

2004-05-31, 7:14 am

On Sun, 30 May 2004 16:52:07 +0100, Graeme Cogger
<gcogger@bigSPAMfoot.com> wrote:

>In article <2htubdFgdn7iU1@uni-berlin.de>, me@privacy.net
>says...
>
>As I said, this is the first place I've seen figures like
>yours. Having only owned monitor calibration hardware for
>under 1 year, I can only go by a consensus of reports I've
>seen. I strongly suspect that nobody really knows - LCDs are
>still relatively new technology, and the ones being produced
>today are way better than the ones from even a year or two ago.
>I've also heard that some LCDs can have the backlights
>replaced, which must (I would hope!) be cheaper than replacing
>the tube in a CRT.

The lifetime limits of the CCT backlight technology has always been an
issue for notebooks where energy saving strategy and backlight saving
strategy go in opposite directions.

Newer technologies - LED backlight for desktop LCDs - promise longer
lifetime and calibration options but are either very expensine or
still in prototype stage.

Michael

Aaron Queenan

2004-05-31, 12:14 pm

Thomas G. Madsen

2004-05-31, 12:14 pm

Rick wrote:

> CRTs will still be sold, but they will be considered a
> high-end item, sold to graphics professionals and others who
> need or want their better color gamut, resolution flexibility
> etc.

In less than a year you can get TFT panels with larger color
gamut than most CRT's.

<http://www.creativepro.com/story/news/21393.html>
| The partnership with Lumileds Lighting has enabled
| NEC-Mitsubishi to develop this ground-breaking display which
| exceeds the Adobe® RGB color space, the standard in the
| professional color processing market. The new LED backlight
| utilizes Luxeon DCC -- an RGB light source -- that generates
| white light with an enhanced color spectrum and allows for
| tuning of the white point, which, when allied with a feedback
| sensor, ensures the display operates consistently over time.

Most CRT's are not even close to Adobe RGB.
NEC-Mitsubishi has also made a CRT that utilizes around 97.6%
of Adobe RGB(*) but even that is not as good as their new TFT
mentioned above because it exceeds Adobe RGB (109%).

(*) The 22" RDF225WG.

--
Regards
Madsen

Uni

2004-05-31, 7:14 pm

Rick wrote:
> "Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote in message news:40BA7D21.9020805@no.email.invalid...
>
>
>
> Nonsense. CRTs will still be sold, but they will be considered
> a high-end item, sold to graphics professionals and others who
> need or want their better color gamut, resolution flexibility etc.

Thomas G. Madsen wrote:
>
> In less than a year you can get TFT panels with larger color
> gamut than most CRT's.

Looks like they're headed towards extinction, period.

:-)

Uni

>
> Rick
>
>

Stephen H. Westin

2004-06-01, 12:14 pm

"Rick" <me@privacy.net> writes:

> <Dorothy@EmeraldCity.com> wrote in message news:KkYtc.189$iV4.39@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...

<snip>

>
> LCDs are great for text and non-critical graphics work, but they
> still lack color gamut relative to higher-end CRTs.

No, that's wrong. I have it on good authority (from Mark Fairchild,
director of the Munsell Color Science Laboratory at the Rochester
Institute of Technology) that the best current LCD's are, except for
some dependence on viewing angle, *better* than the best current
CRT's.

That said, there are two possible flies in this ointment:

1. Calibration software developed for CRT's may not be able to
get the best performance from an LCD, and

2. At lower price points, it's quite possible that a CRT may offer
much better quality than an LCD of similar cost.

So while a $2K LCD might be able to beat a $2K CRT, a $300 LCD may
well be much worse than a $300 CRT.

You might look at the 23" Apple Cinema Display; it runs less than $2K
and looks to be an excellent device.

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

Stephen H. Westin

2004-06-01, 12:14 pm

john@xyzzy.stafford.net (jjs) writes:

> In article <Ce8uc.74795$LB1.47167@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>,
> Dorothy@EmeraldCity.com wrote:
>
>
> Dorothy: Have you had the opportunity to use a Mac G5 with the 23 inch
> display? Put aside for the moment the wintel vs. mac issue

Or defeat it: an ADC/DVI adapter at $100 will let you use the Apple display
with an Intel machine.

<snip>

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

Stephen H. Westin

2004-06-01, 12:14 pm

Dorothy <Dorothy@EmeraldCity.com> writes:

> I have never had the opportunity to use a Mac. I've just looked at
> them from afar <G>.
>
> I've had this monitor for 7 years now. You could even say I am
> really, really tired of looking at it! So aside from the obvious
> problems and difficulties in its recent performance, you could say I
> am not too sad to see it go and get a new one. This one has lost its
> brilliance.
>
> Either that, or my eyes are getting old <G>.
>
> But serious again, the Mac 23" LCD, as the others, only has 16.7M
> colors. CRTs offer 64M.

Hm. Where did you get that figure? That's about 400 color levels per
channel, which isn't near any power of two. What graphics card would
one use to get this performance?

In fact, the lab-tested dynamic range of a typical CRT is much greater
than that of an LCD. But there are a couple of points that make that
moot.

First, the tests are generally done with full-screen areas of white
and black. While an LCD maintains excellent pixel-to-pixel
independence, pixels on a CRT interact with each other. In the limit
of one black pixel on a white field, the actual contrast on most LCD's
will beat even the best CRT.

Second, the tests are done in (effectively) absolute darkness. The CRT
is capable of a very dark black, but its white level is much lower
than that of a good desktop LCD. When there is any illumination in the
room, that black level is elevated, so the CRT loses much of its
theoretical brightness range, while the bright white of the LCD
preserves more. So an LCD may well beat a CRT under actual viewing
conditions.

<snip>

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

Thomas G. Madsen

2004-06-01, 12:14 pm

Stephen H. Westin wrote:

> Or defeat it: an ADC/DVI adapter at $100 will let you use the
> Apple display with an Intel machine.

But not if you're using a Matrox graphic card according to Ian
Lyons. <http://www.computer-darkroom.com/acd/acd.htm>.

Quote:
| Apple and Formac LCD displays use a propriety digital
| connection designed specifically for Apple computers. This
| means that PC users who might wish to use an Apple or Formac
| LCD display will also need to purchase a special adapter that
| converts between the Apple ADC connection and the more common
| DVI connection. Be aware that even with this adapter these
| LCD's cannot be used with a PC fitted with Matrox graphics
| cards. Apple and Formac LCD displays will work with graphics
| cards from nVidia and ATI.

--
Regards
Madsen

Stephen H. Westin

2004-06-01, 7:14 pm

"Rick" <me@privacy.net> writes:

> "Graeme Cogger" <gcogger@bigSPAMfoot.com> wrote in message news:40b9b891$0$25328$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
>
> No, you have it backwards. Why do you think LCDs, even
> higher-end LCDs such as the Apple Cinema Display ($2K-$3K)
> have one year warranties, while decent CRTs have three year
> warranties? The original poster's CRT is seven years old, and I've
> seen hundreds of other CRTs in the field that were still perfectly
> calibrated after 3, 5 and even 7 years.
>
> There's a reason why LCDs have only a one year warranty. Their
> backlights (like all other flourescent lamps) lose 40-50% of their
> brightness within the first two years, three tops.

I think you need to read up on lumen depreciation of fluorescent
lamps.

From <http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications...ntView=N&Text=N>:

"The lamp lumen depreciation (LLD), at 40 percent of rated lamp life,
is 85 percent of initial lumens for a T-12 lamp, whereas a T-8 lamp is
much better at 95 percent."

A T-12 is the traditional 4-foot tube 1.5 inch in diameter. A T-8 is
the more modern replacement, an inch in diameter.

Or, from <http://www.elotouch.com/products/crtlife.asp>,

"LCD backlights last about twice as long as CRTs and cost less to
replace. LCDs backlights can be field replaced without the need for
test equipment. CRT replacement requires special test equipment and
cannot be replaced in the field. CRTs must be shipped to a repair
depot resulting in increased down time and higher shipping costs."

LED's, on the other hand, show immediate and constant lumen
depreciation: the rated life is customarily the point at which 50%
output is reached.

> And they (like all
> other flourescent lamps) eventually fail altogether.

And, like all other fluorescent lamps, can be replaced. For rather less
than the cost of a new CRT.

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

jjs

2004-06-01, 7:14 pm

In article <s0d64j72ad.fsf@diesel.graphics.cornell.edu>,
westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) wrote:

> john@xyzzy.stafford.net (jjs) writes:
>
>
> Or defeat it: an ADC/DVI adapter at $100 will let you use the Apple display
> with an Intel machine.

Without any compromise? What of color management? I am so endeared to the
Apple display that I've just started using OS-X, and I just hate the
interface, but love the OS. Apple is falling back on the interface front
(IMHO).

What we need today is an interface that is to the windows paradigm what
Xerox(Apple)'s interface was to the command line.

Stephen H. Westin

2004-06-01, 7:14 pm

xalinai_Two@xalinai.de (Xalinai) writes:

> On Sun, 30 May 2004 16:52:07 +0100, Graeme Cogger
> <gcogger@bigSPAMfoot.com> wrote:

<snip>

> The lifetime limits of the CCT backlight technology has always been an
> issue for notebooks where energy saving strategy and backlight saving
> strategy go in opposite directions.

But desktop LCD's, of course, don't have the same drastic constraints
on power consumption. Not only does this offer more options in
backlight selection, but it also allows optimization of the LCD for
gamut and dynamic range. A desktop LCD display is a different beast.

> Newer technologies - LED backlight for desktop LCDs - promise longer
> lifetime and calibration options

Unfortunately, with lumen depreciation and considerably lower efficiency.
Yes, you read that right: the best white LED's have luminous efficiency
(when new) competitive with that of incandescents, much lower than that
of fluorescents.

> but are either very expensine or
> still in prototype stage.

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

Stephen H. Westin

2004-06-01, 7:14 pm

Dorothy <Dorothy@EmeraldCity.com> writes:

> Graeme Cogger, using only recycled electrons, took the time to scribe on
> the lovely day called 5/30/2004 2:34 AM the following important message
> }:~)
>
>
> I could have sworn I read 64M somewhere, but when I typed the email
> yesterday, I almost did not, cause I thought someone would question me
> on it and I would be empty brained about it. Well, here I am, empty
> brained. But 8 bits of info each is ringing a bell in my aging
> head.

Right. That's 16,777,216 colors. The most distinct colors you can get
out of most display boards, which put out only 8 bits per channel.

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

Stephen H. Westin

2004-06-01, 7:14 pm

john@xyzzy.stafford.net (jjs) writes:

> In article <s0d64j72ad.fsf@diesel.graphics.cornell.edu>,
> westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) wrote:
>
>
> Without any compromise? What of color management?

I don't think there's any sacrifice. As I understand it, there are two
technical reasons for the ADC interface (there may be non-technical
reasons, as well):

1. The DVI interface standard only allows resolution up to 1600x1200.
Others have introduced DVI interfaces that go beyond this, but they
are, strictly speaking, non-standard. From
<http://www.extremetech.com/article2...,1187652,00.asp>,
"Today's DVI 1.0 spec specifies a maximum single-channel bandwidth
of 165MHz. This is good enough to support a 1600x1200 display in
most cases, including CRTs refreshing at 60Hz."

2. The ADC cable also includes USB, both to control the display and
to eliminate the need for a separate keayboard/mouse cable. It
also carries power to the display.

So I think there is a non-lossy conversion between the two. That said,
the only Apple Cinema Display here is plugged into a Mac, so I have no
firsthand knowledge.

You can find out more at
<http://www.gefen.com/kvm/support/adc_kits.jsp> and
<http://www.apple.com/displays/adapter.html>, for starters. Or
<http://developer.apple.com/document...section_12.html>
to see the precise details of the ADC connector.

> I am so endeared to the
> Apple display that I've just started using OS-X, and I just hate the
> interface, but love the OS. Apple is falling back on the interface front
> (IMHO).

<snip>

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

Xalinai

2004-06-02, 12:14 pm

On 01 Jun 2004 11:27:27 -0400, westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu
(Stephen H. Westin) wrote:

>xalinai_Two@xalinai.de (Xalinai) writes:
>
>
><snip>
>
>
>But desktop LCD's, of course, don't have the same drastic constraints
>on power consumption. Not only does this offer more options in
>backlight selection, but it also allows optimization of the LCD for
>gamut and dynamic range. A desktop LCD display is a different beast.

Basically the lighting technology is the same but desktop LCDs use two
to four tubes.
If you use the same energy savings setting common for notebooks
(switch off display after a very short time) you can degrade most
backlights very quickly. As desktop LCDs can be set to be very bright
when new they will be bright enough for a longer time.

>
>Unfortunately, with lumen depreciation and considerably lower efficiency.
>Yes, you read that right: the best white LED's have luminous efficiency
>(when new) competitive with that of incandescents, much lower than that
>of fluorescents.

The prototypes I've seen do not use white leds but arrays of red,
green and blur leds that allow for intensity control for each color
and mix on a special background. There should be enough headroom in
the standard setting to compensate aging.

Michael