Shopping for a monitor

BubblePixel · Jul 11, 2006

Hiyaz!!

I'm about to change my monitor, I presently have a 19"NEC MultiSync 97F

Looking to switch to LCD... 19" or 20"
What would you recommend so that my soso pics look wonderful? hehehe! (kidding...)

Thanks!:hug::

Orrin · Jul 11, 2006

Generally, the LCD monitors do not have as good a contrast range as
a CRT, unless you spend a lot of money.

If you are doing serious image editing, you may not be happy with an
inexpensive LCD. If your use is general purpose computing with an
occasional venture into a graphics editing program, an LCD may be OK.

BubblePixel · Jul 11, 2006

ok... What's "alot of money" ?

Digital Matt · Jul 11, 2006

I would personally stick with a CRT for image editing. You can probably pick up a 21" Trinitron for around $200-$300.

BubblePixel · Jul 11, 2006

That's interesting... didn't know LCD's weren't as accurate for image editing...

thanks for that! :wink:

EBphotography · Jul 11, 2006

Not sure accuracy is the right word, I think its more about clarity and picture quality.

markc · Jul 11, 2006

They really aren't making CRTs like they used to, and LCDs are only now starting to catch up. I just had to replace my dying CRT, so I did a bit of research into this myself. I wish I had saved all the links. The really good LCDs are going to cost a lot ($700+), but so will the good CRTs that are left. One of the things to keep in mind with CRTs is that they fade over time. That was the problem with mine. It had just gotten too dim. Buying used is a real risk.

I ended up with a Viewsonic VP930b. There are better ones for editing, but not that I found for the price, and it's still fast enough for gaming. I've been happy with it, and it beats my fading E790. I think it's worth looking at.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/17/viewsonic_vp930_lcd_monitor/
http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?art=2244

I was fully expecting to have to settle for a sub-par CRT to fit my budget and get decent photo editing, but I've been really happy with the LCD.

One of the big issues has been with contrast. LCDs are much brighter than CRTs, but they don't have as good blacks. An LCD might have a 0.3 cd/m2 black point and 233.5 cd/m2 white point for a 778:1 contrast ratio. A CRT might only have a 97 cd/m2 white point, but if it has a 0.01 cd/m2 black point, that's a 970:1 contrast ratio. Older LCDs had ratios much worse, like 300-400, so double the contrast made a real difference. That's why they got a bad reputation. These days, the difference is not as much a big deal with the better black levels. My monitor was fading, so with it color balanced, it could only handle 70 cd/m2 at most. Not only was the contrast worse than my new LCD, but it was soooo dim. Thankfully I had the calibration system. Without it, the shadows were completely crushed.

However you go, I highly recommend getting a Spyder or similar monitor calibrator.

Orrin · Jul 11, 2006

Something that I forgot to mention above is that LCD's have a "fixed"
resolution, while most CRT's are "multisync".

Here is a good article about monitors:

http://compreviews.about.com/od/multimedia/a/CRTvsLCD.htm

thebeginning · Jul 11, 2006

CRTs are great, check out the larger (20,21inch) trinitron and diamondtron displays, they are excellent. i know sony and NEC made some good models. like mark said though, LCDs are definitely catching up. Many pro photographers use LCDs now because they take up less space, show more detail (yes, that's right. photos look more clear on an lcd, partly because of brightness though), and are easier on the eyes. I wanted a CRT for color work, but couldn't fit a nice one on the deskspace i had, so i did alot of research on LCDs. I found that the really nice ones (lacie, eizo) were very expensive and out of my price range, but there were still some great displays in the mid-high price range. Check out Apple's cinema displays, they are excellent. Dell uses the same displays in the ultrasharp widescreen LCDs such as their 2005fpw/2007fpw (20.1 inch), 2405/2407fpw (24 inch) and their 3007fpw (30 inch). If you buy an LCD I strongly recommend that you get a widescreen. after you try one, you'll never want to go back to 4:3! Out of the ultrasharp/cinema series, the 2005/2007fpw seems to have the best color representation. It also calibrates easily. I ended up grabbing one of those to try out, and I absolutely love it. It's much more like a brighter, sharper CRT than other LCDs i've used. I'd strongly recommend it. Others may say that CRTs have better color reproduction, and overall, yes. they do...and even better shadow detail, but only slightly. In print and publication the differences are minimal though, especially if you calibrate your monitor.

markc · Jul 12, 2006

From the reading I had done, the widescreens weren't quite up to some of the 4:3 monitors. Not sure why that was the case. The Dell were the top rated ones of the widescreens, though.

BubblePixel · Jul 12, 2006

Well, I just went and got myself the HP f2105 monitor...

Geez... it's too friggen big!! no, correct that, it's HUGE!! (I swear it didn't look this big in the store!!)

The only way I can enjoy it is in 1 680 x 1 050 !!

It's ratio is 900:1 and the pixel pitch is 0.270 mm

What have I done?! LOL!!!
I'm giving myself a couple of days to see if I'm keeping it or not...

silly me...