"Joel" <Joel@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:noaj14lstk791rndm5jtgk85tadifmj0gl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Burgerman" <burgerman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> "Joel" <Joel@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:499i149660p5i6bi9dnplvo9hg499t8n3q@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > "jime" <jimeiffe@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Can you REALLY edit photos on a LCD monitor as well as you can on a
>> >> CRT
>> >> monitor? I would think things like sharpening would be difficult.
>> >> I am using a 15 year old Sony 19" that was $800 back then. It has
work
>> >> well
>> >> but is starting to lose contrast. I am looking for a replacement and
>> >> want
>> >> to
>> >> explore LCD.
>> >> I am interested in opinions a recomendations on make and model.
>> >
>> > I really want to replace CRT with LCD, and I have looked at many
>> > different
>> > models (couple Sony models cost around $600-700 few years ago), but I
>> > just
>> > can't stand the LCD displaying. Also, I am often working on slose-up
>> > portrait and zoom in 100-300% to work on skin-texture etc. and the
DOT
>> > on
>> > LCD is too big and visible for my taste.
>>
>> The dots are pixels/transistors/points exactly the same resolution
>> depending
>> on what you choose. EG 1600 x 1200 on a 21 inch monitor (20 inch
visible)
>> gives about 18 inches width. so thats 88 dots or digital pixels per
inch.
>> On
>> both CRT or Flat panel They are both around 80 to 100 dpi depending on
>> model
>
> May be DOT isn't the right word to describe what I am talking about, and
I
> am not talking about the resolution but the HARDWARE (the metal screen).
> or
> the DOT is so tiny on my CRT that nearly invisible (you have to look so
> close to see very very tiny dots) when you can see clearly on LCD. Or
> just
> like the difference between old low resolution EGA/VCD (.50-.75mm)
monitor
> with .21mm or .25mm average.
>
>> chosen.. About 1/3rd the resolution needed for decent printing quality.
>> So
>> the only difference when viewed at 100 to 300 percent is due to the
less
>> than perfect CRT monitors "focus". The digital connected and displayed
>> monitor has no error. At 100 percent view it faithfully displays what
the
>
> I am talking about zooming in to repair some skin-damaged *not* for
normal
> viewing and normally don't have much to do with printing as I normally
> retouch for large print (up to around 20x30" or so), but most of them
> won't
> be printed larger than 8x10" or 8x12"
>
>> pixels in the cameras sensor captured. The camera takes for example in
my
>> case 4288 picel wide pictures. At 100 percent I would need a display
>> resolution to be the same size to display the while picture at once. On
>> my
>> 1920 wide 24 inch monitor that would be 2.23 monitors wide. And deep.
So
>> I
>> see a faithful reproduction of a little less than 1/4 of the photos
are.
>> I
>> would need 4 monitors to see the (almost) complete picture. And the
exact
>> same thing applies to a CRT monitor. The difference isnt dot size but a
>> smoother "look" due to less accurate analog convertion. But its an
>> effect.
>> Its not real as the file does consist of what you see on the sharper
LCD
>> screen. This only applies to digitally connected monitors not to analog
>> CRT
>> style connection.
>
> Also, I am not talking about the displaying resolution of neither image
> nor displaying, but I am talking about the HARDWARE.
>
> OK, I just found an article and it mentions DOT PITCH and this is what I
> was trying to say.
>
> http://computer.howstuffworks.com/question401.htm
>
> Here, more people misunderstood or didn't give the answer the OP had in
> mind. Yup! they talked about Dot Pitch (of CRT) but don't seem to see
> the
> DOTs on the LCD monitor (metal screen)
>
> http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00LuHY
>
> more .. also, I read an article says most LCD has dot pitch between .26
-
> .29 which seems pretty right, but it seems that the LCD shows more
visible
> than CRT (or I can even see smaller dots inside bigger dot)
>
> http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum105/211.htm
> http://www.epinions.com/cmd-review-8CA-A5976C0-39455FB8-prod2
> http://www.epinions.com/cmd-review-8CA-A5976C0-39455FB8-prod2
>
> .. and lot more but I think we get the idea. Or to me, right now most
> average LCD may be ok for text or graphic displaying, but for close-up
> retouching the large dot pitch (I read LCD doesn't use Dot Pitch but you
> know what I mean) still bother me quite a bit, and that's the only
reasons
> why I am still using CRT even I really like the space saver of LCD.
>
>> I am not even talking about color
>> > which I never tried to have any experience.
>> >
>> > I read some mentioned about the professional LCD which costs around
>> > $3000-5000 for the 19-20" model which is too expensive. And I read
>> > some
>> > mentions they are happy or happier with their LCD than CRT, but I
don't
>> > know
>> > how they use theirs.
You may have a technical point, but the answer may well be in the eye of
the
user. I have a 21" Viewsonic on which I cannot see any dots. I blow the
image up to show pixels for the type of repair work you refer to and have
not had that annoyance.
During my trial period for the monitor, I compared it side, by side with a
LaCie CRT and found no real difference, except for the ambient light
protection from the hood. For the difference in price I bought myself a
good
Spyder calibrator, had a hood fashioned and had enough left over for a new
Nikkor 12-24 lens.
YMMV
--
Peter
|
