Question about Monitors

GraphyFotoz

When it comes to photgraphy and playing with digital images.......which is better LCD or Conventional flat tube type monitor? :dunno

Reason why I ask is I HAD a Conv tube type about to **** the bed and I bought a .28 pitch LCD and was wondering.
SO FAR from what I see the colors are MUCH brighter and vivid.

Also this oner claims to only consume 50watts of power MAX. How much did my old one draw for watts?
I was told years ago that the most power hungry part of a system was the monitor.

Just diging for some techie info.

digismile

Karz,

I think if money was no object, the CRT screens are still considered the "best". Best meaning perfectly calibrated to a standardized spec, wide latitude of contrast, etc. (not size, power consumption ...) LCD screens are like digital cameras, getting better every year and erasing the gap between the very best CRT and LCD.

LCD screens tend to give your image more "pop" because they are so vivid compared to a regular CRT. Many people like this look, but find their printed images are a bit flat compared to the LCD.

That being said, I still use a 17" LCD screen. It takes up less space on my desk, is sharp and crisp to my eyes, and I have calibrated it such that I am very happy with my printed results.

The two specifications on LCD monitors that I would pay the most attention to are Image Contrast Ratio and Refresh Rate. Image Contrast Ratio is probably the most relevent to digital imaging, as it relates to the relative difference between your highlights and shadows that the monitor is able to display. You will see ratios like 400:1, 600:1, 1000:1. A bigger number is better, but costs you more. This is the spec that probably differs the most between LCD and CDT IMO.

The refresh rate is more relevent to videos (or any motion on your screen, such as mouse trails). Faster is better.

As you've probably noticed in the TV industry, tube displays are disappearing, as the price of LCD/PLasma screens drop. This will certainly be the way of the world in our future for TV's and computer monitors. For today, you need to decide what is most important to you.

Hope this helps,

Brad

GraphyFotoz

Thanx Brad!

digismile wrote:

Karz,

I think if money was no object, the CRT screens are still considered the "best". Best meaning perfectly calibrated to a standardized spec, wide latitude of contrast, etc. (not size, power consumption ...) LCD screens are like digital cameras, getting better every year and erasing the gap between the very best CRT and LCD.

LCD screens tend to give your image more "pop" because they are so vivid compared to a regular CRT. Many people like this look, but find their printed images are a bit flat compared to the LCD.

That being said, I still use a 17" LCD screen. It takes up less space on my desk, is sharp and crisp to my eyes, and I have calibrated it such that I am very happy with my printed results.

The two specifications on LCD monitors that I would pay the most attention to are Image Contrast Ratio and Refresh Rate. Image Contrast Ratio is probably the most relevent to digital imaging, as it relates to the relative difference between your highlights and shadows that the monitor is able to display. You will see ratios like 400:1, 600:1, 1000:1. A bigger number is better, but costs you more. This is the spec that probably differs the most between LCD and CDT IMO.

The refresh rate is more relevent to videos (or any motion on your screen, such as mouse trails). Faster is better.

As you've probably noticed in the TV industry, tube displays are disappearing, as the price of LCD/PLasma screens drop. This will certainly be the way of the world in our future for TV's and computer monitors. For today, you need to decide what is most important to you.

Hope this helps,

Brad

Didn't know if I was gonna get a response on this.
Don't understand techo-garb about monitors much.
Here is the specs on mine.
http://www.microtekusa.com/815c_specs.html

seberri

I have 2 monitors

a normal nokia 21", and a LCD Hansol 19"
I find the nokia better, images are softer, ideal for B&W, as said digismile LCD look more pop ... horribly pop as modern life .. too sharp and contrasted, without subtility