Basic LCD monitor question

[scott_jones2]

Greetings,

 

<p>I have a basic monitor question. I am doing more and more inkjet

printing now and much less darkroom work.</p>

 

<p>In the past I was always told that CRTs were far supreior to LCDs

for digital photography (color and B&W for me). However I am

wondering if that is still so. I would love to clear off my desk

from my big behemoth CRT and get either one or two LCDs perhaps 17

0r 19 inchers. In the past I was not happy with the rendering of

text or motion on LCDs but this was a long time ago that I looked at

this. My latest issue of PC World highly recommends the top grade

DELL or NEC LCD monitors.</p>

 

<p>I am using a PC with XP Home, fast processor and 1.5 GB RAM and

have an anolog and digital out for monitors. Presently I am using a

very old Compaq 17" (color calibrated with Monoco). I print on my

R2400 printer</p>

 

<p>Question is: Are LCDs now ecellent for color calibrated work (I

would use my MOnaco)? Is the old bias toward CRTs a thing of the

past? Are these brands sufficient for high quality work?</p>

 

<p>Thanks for bringing me up to date on what works well!</p>

 

Scott

<p><a href="http://www.scottjonesphoto.com"

target="_blank">ScottJonesPhoto.com</a></p>

[Ed_Ingold]

Many newer LCDs can be calibrated and are suitable for photographic and graphic work. One of the desirable features is a wide viewing angle. Early LCDs would change color and luminance dramatically with small changes in position. Look for a monitor that has a viewing angle of 130 degrees or so - you see very little change in appearance.

 

Secondly, it is desirable to have internal RGB adjustments, in addition to the usual brightness and contrast. This allows you to set the luminance and white balance in hardware, which is more accurate than using the driver.

 

Most 17 inch LCDs have a resolution of 1024x1280. 19 inch and larger tend to have 1200x1600 (or something close). As a result, text in a 19 inch display is too small for my taste. I would find it fatiguing to use. Unlike CRT's, you must use the native resolution for all practical purposes. If you need multi-resolution settings, stick with a CRT.

 

I have a Viewsonic VP191, which has these features, and can be calibrated with a Gretag-MacBeth Eye One (Pro) system. I'm sure there are better displays, but this one is good enough, and the price was right. Incidentally, you get the entire screen area for viewing, corner to corner - unlike a CRT which is usually adjusted well under the nominal size.

[Ed_Ingold]

Many newer LCDs can be calibrated and are suitable for photographic and graphic work. One of the desirable features is a wide viewing angle. Early LCDs would change color and luminance dramatically with small changes in position. Look for a monitor that has a viewing angle of 130 degrees or so - you see very little change in appearance.

 

Secondly, it is desirable to have internal RGB adjustments, in addition to the usual brightness and contrast. This allows you to set the luminance and white balance in hardware, which is more accurate than using the driver.

 

Most 19 inch LCDs have a resolution of 1024x1280. 20 inch and larger tend to have 1200x1600 (or something close). As a result, text in a 19 inch display is too small for my taste. I would find it fatiguing to use. Unlike CRT's, you must use the native resolution for all practical purposes. If you need multi-resolution settings, stick with a CRT.

 

I have a 19 inch Viewsonic VP191, which has these features, and can be calibrated with a Gretag-MacBeth Eye One (Pro) system. I'm sure there are better displays, but this one is good enough, and the price was right. Incidentally, you get the entire screen area for viewing, corner to corner - unlike a CRT which is usually adjusted well under the nominal size.

[Ed_Ingold]

LCDs tend to have a long persistence - 35 msec and up - which make them unsuitable for viewing videos. My Viewsonic VP191 is 20 msec, and OK for video editing and an occasional movie. LCD's are available for gaming and entertainment with a persistence as low as 4 msec. I think this would show flicker, rendering it nearly unuseable for graphics and photo editing.

[mike_r.1]

The Dell 2001FP is fantastic. I also set up a BenQ 19" (937 I think was the model) for a co-worker...very nice too. I think most LCD's today have fast response times & viewing angles and can be calibrated.

[gluteal cleft]

Most of the LCDs that I have around the office are pretty cheap units around $250 for a 19". Out-of-the-box, there's no way that you would ever think of using one for any sort of color work. Once calibrated with our Monaco system, they're very usable. Between a calibrated CRT and LCD, there are tradeoffs, but I still give a slight preference to the CRT.

 

One of the folks at the office, though, just spent over $900 on a Dell flat panel, and I was pretty impressed. Out-of-the-box, it was still not yet good enough for color work, but much better than any other flat panel I've seen. It took very little work either on the contrast, brightness, or white balance to get it where it needed to be. Once calibrated, it was really, really nice.

 

For me, while I still prefer a CRT, the gap between CRT and LCD - once calibrated - isn't too big of a concern.

 

steve

[peterblaise]

.

 

Hi Scott and fellow photo.net friends,

 

Does ANYBODY have specifications that can help ANYONE predict what ANY SCREEN, LCD or CRT, will offer?

 

I'm presuming a few things:

 

Gamut?

 

Who has "gamut" specifications?

 

Gamma?

 

Okay, everyone's settling on 2.2

 

Color "temperature"?

 

D50 and 5000 degree K -- or -- D65 and 6500 degree K?

 

Contrast ratio?

 

By the way, what's the contrast ratio of our printers and inks? How would we know? What's our real target that the screen accuracy has to predict?

 

Brightness?

 

Can ANY SCREEN actually "look" like the blank white paper going into our printers under the same lighting -- as that's what a "white" screen should look like, right?

 

Can ANY SCREEN actually "look" like a black page coming out of our printers under the same lighting -- as that's what a "black" screen should look like, right?

 

Now, about clarity and sharpness, and freedom from burn-in (virtually ALL my LCD customers have the Windows "tray" burned in after less than one year. Virtually NONE of my CRT customers have any burn in after more than 5 years!)?

 

Are there other criteria that may or may not be specified on any manufacturer's spec sheet?

 

The unanswered questions above are frustrating enough to discourage new sales. Any manufacturer's reading this?

 

I'm using a 1997 Panasonic CRT because (a) it's 96ppi is quite sharp and (b) I have it tweaked so it is an accurate predictor of my print output. I do not want to go through that arduous exercise again and again just because some new thing hits the dealer shelves and I misunderstood some specification that made me think it would improve on what I've already got working pretty well, thank you, and that new toy actually has some unintended negative consequences, not the least of which is cash out of pocket!

 

Anyway, anyone have a pointer on authoritative resolutions (so to speak) for this challenge?

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

 

Is anyone putting a blanks and test prints next to their screen and comparing?

[Ed_Ingold]

Calibration is not "long and arduous" with the proper equipment and software. With Eye One Photo, it takes about 20 minutes for the initial setup (with hardware luminance and white balance), and about 5 minutes for touchups. A printer profile takes 30-40 minutes, including a couple of iterations. Gretag-MacBeth has some excellent training videos you can download for a better feel as to what is required.

 

Adjusting the monitor to match the print presumes that both the image and print profile are accurate - a long stretch. Consequently, it also means that you will have to adjust images from other sources to get them to print correctly. The purpose of calibration is to avoid that problem.

 

To view prints properly, you need an hooded light box with calibrated lighting - a costly proposition. You only need to do this if you must match a SWOP proof or designer's layout. Otherwise, like the mariner, trust your (compass) instruments.

[peterblaise]

.

 

Earlier on this thread: "... Calibration is not "long and arduous" with the proper equipment and software ..."

 

Peter Blaise responds: Thank you for adding "... with the proper equipment and software ..."

 

However, just like in the good ol' darkroom days where all we were calibrating for was our own print out, some of us are "calibrating" a closed computer/printer system where the goal is to make our screen match our prints, and our prints match our screen - no further investment in calibration tools beyond our eyes.

 

So, you agree that the original question requires much more qualification for anyone answering to help them discover an appropriate answer: "Are you designing a closed or open system?"

 

Earlier on this thread: "...To view prints properly, you need an hooded light box with calibrated lighting - a costly proposition...."

 

Peter Blaise responds: Thanks again for pointing out a costly approach.

 

I disagree that there is only one way to view prints properly, as I believe it depends on the customer. View the prints in the lighting where they will be viewed by their intended audience -- that seems the most appropriate target to me. If that's a D50 or D65 hood, then that's our customer. If it's daylight, room light, office light, and so on, then that's our customer.

 

Yep, requires a different adjustment for different printing for each customer, and yet another adjustment for stock sales!

 

Fun, eh? Got a few new Maxtor 500 GB drives yet?!? ;-)

 

I wonder what Don Hutcheson have to say about this?

 

http://www.hutchcolor.com/Free_stuff.html

 

http://www.hutchcolor.com/CMS_notes.html

 

http://www.hutchcolor.com/profiles.html

 

Or we can save storage space and just use the same adjustment for all our customers -- maybe the tweaking we do as ARP Anal Retentive Photographers is w-a-y beyond what our customers perceive or care about.

 

Hmm ... maybe I'll convert all my files to sRGB and CMYK 8 bit and back before letting anyone have 'em and see if they notice!?!

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

 

= = = = = = = = = =

 

Oh, and since there's no response so far, let me ask again:

 

Does ANYBODY have specifications that can help ANYONE predict what ANY SCREEN, LCD or CRT, will offer?

[imaginator]

In response to Peter: I have pointed this out several times... about viewing prints under different light. Basically, there are two approaches: 1. make a print that works best under a variety of lighting 2. make two versions... "daylight" and "tungsten". Myself, I have decided to go with two versions (mostly for feedback) My printer uses pigment type inks so this is a big issue, but dye inks aren't so problematic. Anyway, now that Peter and I have really confused you, in the end (as mentioned) you need to decide about the open/closed loop thing. Also, images intended for web viewing will need to be dealt with differently than images for prints (and then again, there is a similar issue... everyone's monitors may look different) With all these vaiables, the choice between CRT and LCD isn't such a big deal. I don't have a choice (for medical reasons CRT can bother me more than most people) and because I'm on a low budget, I have a really inexpensive LCD and yes, it looks like crap unlesss you are in the ideal viewing position. Scott, it's not such a basic question, in fact, it's probably one of the most debated issues on this forum. I'm hoping that the current trend towards "daylight" types of lighting (as opposed to the traditional "tungsten" types, including compact fluorescents made to resemble tungsten) will solve some of the print viewing issues. These lights are also great for indoor plants and people as well, but many people are used to the "warm" feel of traditional lighting and may not like the "cooler" colors. The classic dilemma is a print on a wall that gets natural light (from a large window) during the day, then gets tungsten light at night. No easy solution for this, unless the home has "daylight" type lighting.

[peterblaise]

.

 

Earlier on this thread: "...now that Peter ... [has] really confused you..."

 

Gosh, that's NOT my intention. I'm just waiting for ANYBODY to help with specifications that can help ANYONE predict what ANY SCREEN,

LCD or CRT, will offer!

 

... still waiting ...

 

... still waiting ...

 

 

... still waiting ...

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/