"Burgerman" <burgerman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
<snip>
> > 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.
Thanks for your responses and information. But it seems like because
English isn't my native language to be able to pick the right word to
desribe what I am trying to say.
So, you may be right that because I am looking at the wrong LCD monitors,
or the setting at local stores. But it seems like we still have some
misunderstanding because I can't be able to explain what I can see at my
end, but you can't see at your end.
Yes, I have read few people mentioned about several Dell LCD monitors
before, and read some about the real professional LCDs those cost several
Ks
a pop. But it'sa sad that I haven't had the chance to see them with my
own
eyes to learn more about those better LCD monitors. Yes, I don't have
problem spending few hundreds for a good LCD monitor (it's only around 1/3
to 1/4 of what I paid for most of my CRT monitors), and if I don't use for
photo retouching then I wouldn't care much about the dot pitch.
|
