Re: Which type of Monitor

"Joel" <Joel@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:rcrj149cg3bq9uttmvan33pmb0nqesk05r@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Joel <Joel@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> ray <ray@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:27:55 -0400, jime 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.
>> >
>> > After moving to my 20" widescreen LCD, I'll never go back - even if
it
>> > were suboptimal for photo editing. I find it works quite well.
>>
>> Of course most people won't go back.  But I wonder do you see those
>> visible large dot pitch?
>>
>> I am portrait retoucher, and I often looking at the skin-texture like
>> seeing under magnifier glass, and that is similar to what I see on LCD
>> monitor (except around 1/2-1/4 smaller when I zoom in, but sharper).
>>
>> Hmmm it actually don't look like skin-texture, but something like those
>> circles or almost square (?) below
>>
>> oooooooo
>> oooooooo
>> oooooooo
>> oooooooo
>>
>> Except skin-texture is much softer, and more like a mold than hollow
>> circle.
>
> I may wanna add more comparison between the Dot Pitch I see between most
> LCD montiors I have checked at local stores to the dot pitch of my
current
> CRT (not the smallest as I think it's around .23 or so).
>
> LCD
>
> (  ) (  ) (  )
> (  ) (  ) (  )
> (  ) (  ) (  )
>
> or at least (cuz the CRT looks almost solid)
>
> OOO
> OOO
> OOO
>
> CRT (the dot is MUCH MUCH smaller and lighter to almost none)
> ......
> ......
> ......


My laptop is 0.18 dot pitch! Thats a few years old  vgn-a497xp Sony VAIO
17 
inch widescreen (14 inches horizontal width) with 1920 x 1200 resolution
on 
an X-Black screen. Like this. Trust me its the screen you are paying for. 
But you better have good eyes to use this resolution on a  smaller that 14

inch wide screen... Great for photos but bad for trying to use windows 
without a magnifying glass.

0.18 - Thats so close you cannot see any pixels without photographing the 
screen in close up and then zooming in hugely. I never saw any CRT get 
remotely close to that. However my best monitor and one thats MUCH better 
for photographic work in only the same resolution on a 24 inch widescreen.

Thats the Samsung SyncMaster 244T.  Its just better, brighter and clearer 
with better contrast and brilliant accurate 12bit per chanel colour. It 
makes fotos come alive and is a perfect photo editing screen. Its dot
pitch 
is 1920 pixels and divided by 20 inches (measured horizontal real width) 
= 
96 pixels per inch. Or if you convert to metric 25.4 (mm per inch) divided

by 96 = 0.26 dot pitch. And no mater how hard I look I cannot see them any

more than on the old cathode ray tube! Its just sharper and brighter and 
absolutely 1 pixel from the cameras ccd or cmos censor per monitor pixel. 
And accurate as its possible to get. Its what the camera saw! Admitedly
skin 
looks softer and smoother on an old tube but thats just because of pixels 
not lining up bperfectly and focus in the tube issues. The file isnt 
actually like that, the CRT just adds a sort of analog soft focus filter.
As 
do analogue connected Flat panels but less so.