"Burgerman" <burgerman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "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.
It seems pretty similar to my old Aqcess Abe laptops those had just about
anything, like built-in web cam, touch-screen, pen, landscape/portrait
mode,
hand writing recognizer (?) those cost around $4000-4500 a pop then.
> 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
.21 is probably the smallest CRT I known, most of mine is/were between
.23
to .25
> 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.
I haven't looked at the 24" Samsung yet, but I have looked at either Sony
or Samsung (I often get mixed up between these two names) and I was so
close
to go for the 22" (or 20" or 21" I can't remember but it was one of the
largest and the best of the line then) which was onsale for around
$740-780
few years ago. I stopped by the local store 3 days but just can't get
over
the visible dot pitch, then I grabbed another CRT to stop me from going
back
<bg>
And Office Depot is 1/2 block from my house, Best Buy, OfficeMax, Sam's
Club etc. just about 2-4 miles from where I live, and even the LCD is dirt
cheap these days .. may be few more years? .. but I may not live that long
<bg>
Also, I am not talking about the Image itself which I can understand the
higher the resolution the sharper the display, but I am talking about the
Metal Screen, Dot Pitch of the metal screen *not* the image. And if I can
get over it then I think I should have no problem with LCD displaying.
|
