The importance of dot pitch when choosing a monitor??

[jammer_jammer]

I've been tearing what's left of my hair out for two months now,

trying to decide on a monitor to replace my 6 year old, dying,

Trinitron.<p>

 

Based on this article http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?

showtopic=9613&st=3 , I thought I had finally made up my mind. I

mean heck, if it's good enough for the guy that engineered the Sony

Artison, then it should be good enough for me right?<p>

 

Well, I start looking up specs on the Nec 1980 SXI BK that Lang

suggested and the dot pitch is .29 ! I was told that dot pitch is

very important for sharpness in monitors and that the smaller the dot

pitch the better. My Trinitron is only .24 so how could an LCD that

has a dot pitch of .29 come anywhere close to being as good as what

I'm replacing???<p>

 

Someone please tell me what monitor to buy before I go insane!<p>

 

Signed,<p>

Mr. Confused???

[david_moore13]

If you are just concerned about "sharpness", don't worry because LCDs always look sharp at their native resolution. In fact, they are often considered _too_ sharp for image editing, which is helped by some "blur" between pixels that only CRTs can provide.

 

However, you should worry about resolution. That NEC is only 1280x1024, which is pretty low resolution for running photoshop. What resolution do you currently run now? You'd probably be happier with a higher resolution display -- something like 1600x1200.

 

Don't get too hung up on getting the perfect display colorimetrically. As long as you get a decent monitor, just calibrate it and be done with it. You probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference anyway once they are calibrated.

[mike_earussi1]

Because the Trinitron tube dots are of a different design, their dot pitch #'s will be different than, and cannot quite be compared with, the norm. For LCD's, what you are looking for is the resolution per size of display. For instance, my LCD is 17" with a 1280x1024 resolution making the dot pitch quite small but I have seen 19" LCD's with the same resolution that are very coarse. So a 19" with a 1600x1200 resolution should be fine. For a more detailed analysis of LCD's check out Tom's Hardware Guide.

[jammer_jammer]

Thanks guys. As of now I'm using 1280X960. Actually, I just bumped up to that recently. I can't imagine going much smaller as far as looking at text when surfing. I'll check out Tom's hardware but I'm sure I'll just get more confused. I figured if the guy that had something to do with creating the Sony Artison recommended a monitor, it ought to be an awful good one. Thanks again.<p>

 

Any and all other recommendations for a 19-20 inch viewable monitor that will be at least as good as my Trinitron was for all these years, would be greatly appreciated.

[bdpics]

Get the Dell 2005FPW. It's a beautiful 20" widescreen display--the same screen as the vaunted Apple 20" Cinema display at half the price. I got mine a few weeks ago from Dell for $410 shipped.

 

Images are stunning on this monitor, and the widescreen format is great for photoshop and other palette-driven software because the "extra" space on the side allows a full window for the image, with plenty of room for all the palettes.

 

Native resolution is 1680x1050, which is great resolution for crisp text and images--also great for watching DVDs.

 

A few other things to consider--17" and 19" square LCDs use the same resolutuion (1280x1024) so while the 19" is bigger, it's just the same resolution blown up to a larger screen. Keeping that in mind, you can buy two 17" monitors for just a little bit more than one 19", and have all that extra real estate and crisp resolution (you'll need a video card that supports dual monitors).

 

Lastly, the sad truth is that you really cannot judge a monitor based on specs. I was recently in LA at a HUGE electronics store that had just about every monitor you could imagine. A few Samsungs had great specs (i.e. 300 briteness, 1000:1 contrast, 12ms refresh, .26 dot pitch) but I was stunned at how often the monitors with lower specs just looked better than a lot of the ones with much better specs.

 

That being said I'd highly recommend the Dell--I may buy another one soon!

 

BD

[jammer_jammer]

BDiamond,<p>

 

Thanks for your input. I have heard good things about the Dell and I have almost pulled the trigger a couple of times. The one bad thing that I've heard though, is that there is no amount of adjustment that will get rid of a screen that is just too bright for proper color management/monitor to print correlation.<p>

 

Have you done any calibrating and or printing yet to know whether or not this is true?<p>

 

Thanks again.

[bdpics]

I have not calibrated my current system yet. However, a good friend has used the Pantone Pro on his Dell, and he says he's very happy with the monitor.

 

BD

[jammer_jammer]

Thanks.