Looking for BEST graphics display!

[Libby]

I'm about at my wit’s end over trying to find a decent flat display. I've been stubbornly sticking to crts after nothing but disappointments in inaccurate colors, blown highlights and shadow details in any/all mainstream LCDs I’ve gotten my hands on. I do work quite frequently with digital images in photoshop, but I also use my system for a wide variety of other things, including web surfing and watching videos. You would be hard pressed to find a more particular person than I am when it comes to displays.

Currently in front of me is a 19” LG, which while seems to be a nice pretty mainstream monitor, is complete crap when it comes to photo editing. I found myself asking a friend on another machine to look at some online photos because I honestly could not tell if my edits were useable. The screen is too bright, the contrast is too low, the reds/pinks are awful, and the blues, while pretty and vibrant, look like someone took a crayon and colored them (very unrealistic). So.. LG is way out..

After much research I’m narrowed down my thought to the Viewsonic Pro Series VP930b, Eizo Nano S1931, or an Apple display.

Does anyone have any experience with these or similar monitors from these companies? What would you recommend?

 

[markc]

I bought the VP930b earlier this year (after much research) and have no complaints. It's a lot better than my dying CRT was. It amazing how dim it had gotten. The brightness did take some getting used to. If you want to do photo work, I strongly suggest getting a h/w calibrator like a Spyder. It makes a big difference. I chose the Viewsonic because it seemed to combine good color with good speed. I play video games too, and I haven't noticed any shearing.

 

[Mohain]

Have you tried calibrating your monitor?

Apples monitors are pretty good. If you want a monitor specifically for editing images you might be better off with something like a LaCie 321. Double that up with a decent hardware calibrating device and you probably cant much better than that. It doesn't come cheap though.

 

[Libby]

Thanks guys! The monitor is not going to entirely be used for graphics editing, so I suppose that's part of my problem.. I've never used a calibrator. I'll check into the Spyder.. I have to say one of my big problems with this monitor is it is too bright, which is completely blowing out many highlight details. It seems like while high contrast ratios are a big plus on the market today, they produce very unrealistic images. Price range at this point is under $700.

 

[markc]

LCDs tend to be lower contrast than CRTs. They often have trouble getting a good black level because they are so bright. The calibrator will help get a usable brightness set. The problem I was having with my old fading CRT was that the shadows were getting blocked up. Now I have decent detail across the tonal range, including the highlights.

If you can spend up to $700, you might want to look at something like the LaCie. I don't know if they go that low or how well it deals with motion video though. Part of my choice was a tight budget.

 

[Libby]

Umm.. okay I'm going to upload some photos and I'd appreciate if you could tell me if you can see certain details on them? LaCie is out of my price range right now and I'm concerned about video speed too..

http://angelicvoices.net/test10.jpg - how are the shadow details in that? Does it look extremely contrasty or are the details preserved? Can you see all her individual hairs or texture on her shirt? It looks absolutely awful on my monitor right now and I loved it on my last one.

http://angelicvoices.net/test4.jpg - Does the layout look “washed out” to you? Too bright?

http://angelicvoices.net/test5.bmp - Look at the crystal structure in the middle. Do the clouds and areas of the crystal look completely blown out? That’s another example of awful rendering by this monitor.

http://angelicvoices.net/test6.JPG - Are skin tones realistic with a slight (but natural) pink to the cheeks? Can you see the knitting pattern on the black parts of the hat?


Umm.. yeah that would give me an idea if the monitor was at least worth looking into.. I really appreciate it!

 

[markc]

I can barely see the ribbing in her shirt, but bringing it into PS shows that there isn't much of a variation there, so you shouldn't see much.

The layout looks washed out to me, but it's mostly pure white, which generally isn't recommended. I think it's going to be bring no matter what LCD you have.

I can differentiate the crystal fine, but the cloud itself is pure white, so it's going to be "blow out".

The skin on the last one looks like I would expect for someone outside. The forehead is a little blue, but the nose and cheeks are rosy. I can see the detail in his hat, but it doesn't stand out. I have to make sure my pupils are closed down by anything bright nearby.

Plus your old monitor isn't going to be the best to compare to unless that was calibrated. If these were done while using it, and it had the shadow brightness too high, looking at the images on my monitor won't tell you much. The best thing would be to look at a known good image. I can see each grey step as distinct on that bottom row. Box #2 looks slightly pink to me, but that could be an optical illusion or my calibration. It's data is true grey.

What gamma your system is using will also have an effect. I'm using 1.8, since that's what my printing system is calibrated to. A lot of Windows systems use 2.2. I should probably see about having an alternate 2.2 setup since I post so much to the web now, and a lot of people use PCs.

 

[Libby]

My old monitor wasn't calibrated, but none of those photos were edited on this machine. I have viewed the actual photographs I took on a calibrated professional monitor at the place that printed them.. and I'm looking at the physical prints at the same time. I have a very good idea what they should look like on screen. As for the little cartoony ones, I didn't have anything at all to do with creating those images. I just pulled them off a website. The slight color inaccuracies aren't so much a bother to me as the blown highlights and shadow again *sigh* I hope Apple or Eizo will do better with them. I really appreciate you taking the time to look at those images. It was a great help.

 

[markc]

No propblem. Just as a point of reference, each of those grey steps on the card I posted is 15. The biggest difference between light and dark bands on her shirt is about half that. If you are able to quite easily distinguish the bands, I'm thinking that something is wrong with the settings that display that. At a difference of only 7, from what I've seen, they difference should be subtle.

The graphics aren't the best examples because so much actually *is* white, as shown by the PS eyedropper. I'm not sure what you were looking for there. The detailed parts were distinguishable from the pure white.

 

[Christie Photo]

so.... what is the consensus? I thinking about a new monitor, and have been considering a CRT. I haven't yet worked with a LCD that REALLY impressed me. Should I just not consider CRTs? I would LOVE freeing up the desk space.

Pete

 

[markc]

so.... what is the consensus?

Unfortunately I don't think there is one. I don't think any of us have had personal experience with a large number of current monitors, so we can only talk about the ones we have used ourselves or data that's been published.

 

[fmw]

Calibration is the key. My own LCD monitor is a 19" HP 1940. I don't know if it's a good one or a bad one but I would never go back to a CRT. I have it calibrated with the Pantone Huey, a trivially inexpensive and effective little tool, and get print images that look quite close to what I see on the screen. I also have a 17" IBM LCD monitor that I calibrated with the same Huey and it works just fine. I haven't calibrated the 17" NEC but I have no reason to think it wouldn't work well also.

Color management is not an exact science. All we can hope to do is get inside the ball park.

 

[John_05]

this is just my opinion, but ive seen my pictures on quite a few different LCDs, and on even more CRTs. i know most of the workers at the Circuit City here, so when i went to get a new monitor, i went there because i knew they had no problem with me taking my USB flash drive there and looking at a couple of my photos on their computers.

im not sure of the brands of all the LCDs, but a couple were extremely expensive ($700+) monitors, and a few were cheaper $200-$400 models. after looking at the same shots on about 20 different monitors, i still prefer a nice flat screen CRT. i doubt any of the monitors i looked at were calibrated, but when none of them were calibrated, im pretty sure the differences i saw would have been similiar had they all been calibrated properly. if im wrong, hopefuly someone will point that out.

i still want a new monitor, preferrably a flat panel type, so when i get the opportunity to, i stop in and have a look at the newer ones they have there. im still not too impressed by the LCDs ive looked at yet.

hopefully when they finally come out with the new SED TVs, they will have some that can be used as computer monitors too.

 

[Big Mike]

I have a calibrated LCD at home...HP somthing or other. Now that it's calibrated...it's pretty accurate....but the problem that I have is that it looks different depending on the angle at which I've viewing it at. If I'm having a hard day and I'm slouching in my chair...the image looks different (mostly shadow detail) than if I'm sitting up straight. I don't have this problem with a CRT.

 

[Mohain]

If you get a decent LCD and a good Calibration device I doubt you'll want to go back to a CRT. Apple's have a good wide angle of view and wont suffer from the problem Big Mike talked about (unless yr at extreme angles). Also, apart from the LaCie already mentioned, I've heard good things about the new Dell range. Like everything in life, the good stuff costs tho.