"Joel" <Joel@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:q1pk1419mmvctu8l556vgd61vbc42oig7m@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "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.
I am not sure what you are refering to. There is no metal screen on LCD
displays that I can see?. You see the image directly from the
transister/pixel.
If I go to any computer store and look at all the dozens of lcd monitors
they all look too small by miles as nobody here seems to keep decent sized
ones on stock or if they do they are lower resolution cheaper ones and
generally all look dull and lifeless and dont have good blacks, bright
true
colours shadow or highlight detail etc.
I dont see how any self respecting photographer can work on and use
anything
less in size than a 24 widescreen of GOOD quality for photo work.
Wide because thats the shape of our images. Big because our cameras have
huge resolution and at monitors typical 100 dpi can display a clean clear
image the size of a typical fridge.
I take images to freinds houses including some pros and computer stores to
check out monitors - my pictures look dull with no shadow detail, and
lacklustre colours even on calibrated "cheap" monitors. And the blacks are
purple off axis etc. colours change with angle. You cant get decent
monitors
at discount stores it seems! And you get what you pay for in this case. I
have a friend with a nasty cheap monitor that uses a D200. he
overprocesses
to get some life and detail in the shadows and overdoes the saturation and
white cloud detail because it then looks right to him. It look totally
false
and ott on my monitor or even on my laptop! He cant figure out why the
prints he orders look totally different to what he sees on his calibrated
monitor...
Dells newest 24 wide screen is cheaper than the Samsung and uses the same
actual matrix. Its just as good. The earlier Dell 24 inch is less bits per
channel and the reason I bought the Samsung, which was better at the time.
That was a couple of years ago, but things havent really changed since
other
than its now about half the price! And there may be more good photographic
monitors out there now but beware!
The reason you think you can see the metal grid is because they are
clinically sharp. at 100 percent viewing the screen displays the image
that
your cameras sensor saw from each individual photo site on to each pixel
on
screen. As long as you use a digital graphics card and cable conection.
Thats correct. Thats real.
The reason they dont look like that on the old fuzzy CRT tubes (or
incorrectly connected LCDs) is because that cant ever happen and several
"sites" (holes in grill) "light up" as the beam tries to fire an analog
version of each pixel at an incorrectly spaced and laid out aperture
grill.
This grill is neither spaced correctly or can be spaced correctly and the
beam is never focused accurately and the picture is distorted by magnetism
etc. So instead of a single pixel lighting as should happen a bunch of
nearby phosphers glow!
This may be "complimentary" for portrait or skin (and allows the monitor
a
choice of resolutions) but its false. Its similar to interpolation but in
an
analog way. LCD at 100 percent IS the original. Once you achieve your
perfect skin on a CRT monitor in reality its still not what you are seeing
on screen, or in print. The file is actually what you see on an LCD. You
effectively have a soft focus filter in front.
Incidentally zooming to 300 percent is exactly the same as increasing dot
pitch by 3x. 9 pixels used for every 1 in the original image.
|
