23" or larger LCD/CRT monitor

wrote in message

For Photoshop for print work and web work on a PC:

My 7 year old Sony GDM-W900 22.5 viewable monitor is dying and I need a replacement. Sony has stopped making large monitors and has moved into the LCD arena. So far, these are the two models for 23" or greater than I have been considering:

HP LCD L2335, as seen here:
http://h18004.www1.hp.com/products/monitors/performance/l233 5_specs.html
and Sony SDM-P232W/B, as seen here:
http://displaysbysony.com/displayb2b/model.jsp?pCode=LCD&amp ;pModelId=561&pMenu=Specs
So far, I am leaning toward the HP as it seems more feature rich, however, is has one major drawback. The color temperature is set at the default and does not appear to be user changeable. This could be a real problem. I have an email in to them to find out for sure if it can be changed, and am waiting for an answer.

A minimum native resolution of 1920 x 1200 is important. I have learned that the native resolution on LCDs is very important.

Stay at least ten feet away from any current HP product. Their management has been gutting the company for the last three years.

So my questions are:

Do any of you use LCDs over CRTs?

LCDs are great for text and non-critical graphics work, but they still lack color gamut relative to higher-end CRTs. Working with images with lots of near-blacks or near-whites is often an exercise in futility. Also their backlights begin to fade within a year or two and will eventually fail altogether, like all other backlights. Best not to invest a large sum of money into that technology IMO.

Are the days of different angles yielding different colors (as was the case with notebooks) a thing of the past with these new LCDs?

No. Some are much better than others, but the issue remains.

Any suggestions or recommendations on these or other models with 23" minimum size and the larger resolution?

While it’s only 22", Mitsubishi’s 2070SB with their Diamondtron tube is one of the brightest consumer CRTs made (= largest color gamut), and can handle 1920×1200 without breaking a sweat. This tube is used by LaCie and others in addition to Mitsubishi’s own models.

Rick

I’m hoping to get my order/purchase in over the Memorial Day weekend to take advantage of the sales and coupons.

Any input/help is appreciated!

Thanks,
Dorothy

email addy is munged

I agree with all of this. I have a couple of things to add, however. The first is you probably shouldn’t compare a 23" CRT with a 23" LCD. The 23" LCD will have a display size of 23" diagonal. The 23" CRT will have a "viewing area" of closer to 21" – 21.5" diagonal, and by the time you adjust the height and width to get a circle to display as truly round you will probably be down another inch or so. I don’t intend this as a plug for LCDs, hoever, because they are not currently up to snuff for imagery. You should take sizes into account, however.

The other point is that I believe Sony is still making and will continue to make the Trinitron tube, which many other monitor and TV set manufacturers use. I don’t think it is quite as good as the Diamondtron when new, but it does seem to maintain it’s color performance longer.

Don

"Rick" wrote in message

wrote in message

For Photoshop for print work and web work on a PC:

My 7 year old Sony GDM-W900 22.5 viewable monitor is dying and I need a replacement. Sony has stopped making large monitors and has moved into the LCD arena. So far, these are the two models for 23" or greater than I have been considering:

HP LCD L2335, as seen here:
http://h18004.www1.hp.com/products/monitors/performance/l233 5_specs.html
and Sony SDM-P232W/B, as seen here:

http://displaysbysony.com/displayb2b/model.jsp?pCode=LCD&amp ;pModelId=561&pMenu=Specs

So far, I am leaning toward the HP as it seems more feature rich, however, is has one major drawback. The color temperature is set at the default and does not appear to be user changeable. This could be a real problem. I have an email in to them to find out for sure if it can be changed, and am waiting for an answer.

A minimum native resolution of 1920 x 1200 is important. I have learned that the native resolution on LCDs is very important.

Stay at least ten feet away from any current HP product. Their management has been gutting the company for the last three years.

So my questions are:

Do any of you use LCDs over CRTs?

LCDs are great for text and non-critical graphics work, but they still lack color gamut relative to higher-end CRTs. Working with images with lots of near-blacks or near-whites is often an exercise in futility. Also their backlights begin to fade within a year or two and will eventually fail altogether, like all other backlights. Best not to invest a large sum of money into that technology IMO.

Are the days of different angles yielding different colors (as was the case with notebooks) a thing of the past with these new LCDs?

No. Some are much better than others, but the issue remains.

Any suggestions or recommendations on these or other models with 23" minimum size and the larger resolution?

While it’s only 22", Mitsubishi’s 2070SB with their Diamondtron tube is one of the brightest consumer CRTs made (= largest color gamut), and can handle 1920×1200 without breaking a sweat. This tube is used by LaCie and others in addition to Mitsubishi’s own models.

Rick

I’m hoping to get my order/purchase in over the Memorial Day weekend to take advantage of the sales and coupons.

Any input/help is appreciated!

Thanks,
Dorothy

email addy is munged

Thanks, Don. For larger monitors, the 22.5 VIS (viewable) seems to be the "standard". Rick also feels that LCDs are not yet there for graphic work. That’s two for two in my book.

What you said about color performance is the problem with my monitor. It has lost its ability to properly display darks, and the white looks like a soft blue. It’s test pattern shows no difference between the white and light blue.

Thanks again,
Dorothy

email addy is munged

Don, using only recycled electrons, took the time to scribe on the lovely day called 5/29/2004 8:31 AM the following important message }:~)

I agree with all of this. I have a couple of things to add, however. The first is you probably shouldn’t compare a 23" CRT with a 23" LCD. The 23" LCD will have a display size of 23" diagonal. The 23" CRT will have a "viewing area" of closer to 21" – 21.5" diagonal, and by the time you adjust the height and width to get a circle to display as truly round you will probably be down another inch or so. I don’t intend this as a plug for LCDs, hoever, because they are not currently up to snuff for imagery. You should take sizes into account, however.

The other point is that I believe Sony is still making and will continue to make the Trinitron tube, which many other monitor and TV set manufacturers use. I don’t think it is quite as good as the Diamondtron when new, but it does seem to maintain it’s color performance longer.

Don

wrote in message

Thanks, Don. For larger monitors, the 22.5 VIS (viewable) seems to be the "standard". Rick also feels that LCDs are not yet there for graphic work. That’s two for two in my book.

What you said about color performance is the problem with my monitor. It has lost its ability to properly display darks, and the white looks like a soft blue. It’s test pattern shows no difference between the white and light blue.

Check the color temperature on the monitor. It may have reverted back to its factory default, which is likely 9300K. If this is the case, set it to 6500K and see if it fixes the problem(s).

Rick

Don, using only recycled electrons, took the time to scribe on the lovely day called 5/29/2004 8:31 AM the following important message }:~)

I agree with all of this. I have a couple of things to add, however. The first is you probably shouldn’t compare a 23" CRT with a 23" LCD. The 23" LCD will have a display size of 23" diagonal. The 23" CRT will have a "viewing area" of closer to 21" – 21.5" diagonal, and by the time you adjust the height and width to get a circle to display as truly round you will probably be down another inch or so. I don’t intend this as a plug for LCDs, hoever, because they are not currently up to snuff for imagery. You should take sizes into account, however.

The other point is that I believe Sony is still making and will continue to make the Trinitron tube, which many other monitor and TV set manufacturers use. I don’t think it is quite as good as the Diamondtron when new, but it does seem to maintain it’s color performance longer.

Don

In article <Ce8uc.74795$>,
wrote:

Thanks, Don. For larger monitors, the 22.5 VIS (viewable) seems to be the "standard". Rick also feels that LCDs are not yet there for graphic work. That’s two for two in my book.

Dorothy: Have you had the opportunity to use a Mac G5 with the 23 inch display? Put aside for the moment the wintel vs. mac issue and consider just the monitor (and video board). It’s just downright _beautiful_. Now add the Mac/OS-X system color management and it’s unbeatable. Sure, such screens have shorter lives than "CRT"s, but IMHO, it’s worth it. Live cheap or live well? If you have a choice, it’s a no brainer. Besides, just how long do you think you will keep your next tube? Chances are – not long enough to make a difference.

Don’t shoot me. It’s just my x0 bits worth.

Rick, using only recycled electrons, took the time to scribe on the lovely day called 5/29/2004 1:53 AM the following important message }:~)

Stay at least ten feet away from any current HP product. Their management has been gutting the company for the last three years.

Only ten? <G>

So my questions are:

Do any of you use LCDs over CRTs?

LCDs are great for text and non-critical graphics work, but they still lack color gamut relative to higher-end CRTs. Working with images with lots of near-blacks or near-whites is often an exercise in futility. Also their backlights begin to fade within a year or two and will eventually fail altogether, like all other backlights. Best not to invest a large sum of money into that technology IMO.

This is good to know. All of the reviews of these LCDs that I found were geared towards the home consumer, which made it hard to be better informed.

Are the days of different angles yielding different colors (as was the case with notebooks) a thing of the past with these new LCDs?

No. Some are much better than others, but the issue remains.

Again, I guess this is because they are still geared towards the consumer market. What the heck, if the colors do not look good, they can just play around with the controls until they like what they look like for that game <G>.

Any suggestions or recommendations on these or other models with 23" minimum size and the larger resolution?

While it’s only 22", Mitsubishi’s 2070SB with their Diamondtron tube is one of the brightest consumer CRTs made (= largest color gamut), and can handle 1920×1200 without breaking a sweat. This tube is used by LaCie and others in addition to Mitsubishi’s own models.

Rick

Unfortunately, this model is "only" a 20" VIS. Coming from a 22.5" VIS, for me, it would be like trading in a Ferrari for a Yugo (well, okay, maybe not a Yugo, but you get the point). I actually tried masking off my monitor to replicate this smaller size. After a few hours, I had to rip it off, as it was really bothering me not having all the real estate I had grown used to.

I am going to do some searches for this tube and see if I can find it in a larger model. At least now I know I will stay away from the LCDs.

Thanks for your help,

Dorothy

email addy is munged

It was at 9300K, which is where it has been for a while now. When I set it back to 6500K, well, the whites turn creamy and muddled and the darks are still extremely dark.

Over the 7 years I have had this monitor, I have mislaid the color calibration unit. But I do not really think this is the problem. I have played around with the brightness/contrast to no end in the last couple of days to no avail.

Have a look at this photo:
http://home.netcom.com/~slepcevc/dvd/Waterfall%20Grotto.jpg

On my monitor, below the waterfall and the left hand branch, it is black until you reach the stream where you can see a small area of green above it. There is the color green on the right hand side below the stream. As for detail – what detail. You cannot see any. Now, if I look at it on my notebook, I can almost see the detail of each leaf.

What do you see?

Dorothy

Rick, using only recycled electrons, took the time to scribe on the lovely day called 5/29/2004 2:39 PM the following important message }:~)

wrote in message

Thanks, Don. For larger monitors, the 22.5 VIS (viewable) seems to be the "standard". Rick also feels that LCDs are not yet there for graphic work. That’s two for two in my book.

What you said about color performance is the problem with my monitor. It has lost its ability to properly display darks, and the white looks like a soft blue. It’s test pattern shows no difference between the white and light blue.

Check the color temperature on the monitor. It may have reverted back to its factory default, which is likely 9300K. If this is the case, set it to 6500K and see if it fixes the problem(s).

Rick

I have never had the opportunity to use a Mac. I’ve just looked at them from afar <G>.

I’ve had this monitor for 7 years now. You could even say I am really, really tired of looking at it! So aside from the obvious problems and difficulties in its recent performance, you could say I am not too sad to see it go and get a new one. This one has lost its brilliance.

Either that, or my eyes are getting old <G>.

But serious again, the Mac 23" LCD, as the others, only has 16.7M colors. CRTs offer 64M.

Dorothy

jjs, using only recycled electrons, took the time to scribe on the lovely day called 5/29/2004 2:50 PM the following important message }:~)

In article <Ce8uc.74795$>,
wrote:

Thanks, Don. For larger monitors, the 22.5 VIS (viewable) seems to be the "standard". Rick also feels that LCDs are not yet there for graphic work. That’s two for two in my book.

Dorothy: Have you had the opportunity to use a Mac G5 with the 23 inch display? Put aside for the moment the wintel vs. mac issue and consider just the monitor (and video board). It’s just downright _beautiful_. Now add the Mac/OS-X system color management and it’s unbeatable. Sure, such screens have shorter lives than "CRT"s, but IMHO, it’s worth it. Live cheap or live well? If you have a choice, it’s a no brainer. Besides, just how long do you think you will keep your next tube? Chances are – not long enough to make a difference.

Don’t shoot me. It’s just my x0 bits worth.

In article <lBauc.59917$>, Dorothy
wrote:

But serious again, the Mac 23" LCD, as the others, only has 16.7M colors. CRTs offer 64M.

I don’t mean to bait the self-aggrandizing but, of what use is more than 16.8M colors in print production in particular and anything else in general?

"Dorothy" wrote in message

It was at 9300K, which is where it has been for a while now. When I set it back to 6500K, well, the whites turn creamy and muddled and the darks are still extremely dark.

Yes, you’d need to adjust both brightness and contrast to compensate. Manufacturers ship monitors at 9300K because it looks "crisper", at the expense of color fidelity.

Over the 7 years I have had this monitor, I have mislaid the color calibration unit. But I do not really think this is the problem. I have played around with the brightness/contrast to no end in the last couple of days to no avail.

7 years is a reasonable lifespan for a CRT. It sounds like yours is at least dying gracefully.

Have a look at this photo:
http://home.netcom.com/~slepcevc/dvd/Waterfall%20Grotto.jpg
On my monitor, below the waterfall and the left hand branch, it is black until you reach the stream where you can see a small area of green above it. There is the color green on the right hand side below the stream. As for detail – what detail. You cannot see any. Now, if I look at it on my notebook, I can almost see the detail of each leaf.
What do you see?

I can also see the detail between the branch and stream on my CRT.

Rick

In article <lBauc.59917$>,
says…

I have never had the opportunity to use a Mac. I’ve just looked at them from afar <G>.

I’ve had this monitor for 7 years now. You could even say I am really, really tired of looking at it! So aside from the obvious problems and difficulties in its recent performance, you could say I am not too sad to see it go and get a new one. This one has lost its brilliance.
Either that, or my eyes are getting old <G>.

But serious again, the Mac 23" LCD, as the others, only has 16.7M colors. CRTs offer 64M.

Where did you get a figure of 64million colours? That means that each colour (R, G and B) would be represented by about 8.6 bits of information, which doesn’t seem very useful…

On the life of CRTs vs LCDs: I’ve often seen figures quoted for CRTs that their useful life is ~3yrs (after which they cannot be calibrated properly), whereas LCDs are more like 5 years. This thread is the first time I’ve seen the claims the other way round.

"Graeme Cogger" wrote in message

In article <lBauc.59917$>,
says…

I have never had the opportunity to use a Mac. I’ve just looked at them from afar <G>.

I’ve had this monitor for 7 years now. You could even say I am really, really tired of looking at it! So aside from the obvious problems and difficulties in its recent performance, you could say I am not too sad to see it go and get a new one. This one has lost its brilliance.
Either that, or my eyes are getting old <G>.

But serious again, the Mac 23" LCD, as the others, only has 16.7M colors. CRTs offer 64M.

Where did you get a figure of 64million colours? That means that each colour (R, G and B) would be represented by about 8.6 bits of information, which doesn’t seem very useful…

On the life of CRTs vs LCDs: I’ve often seen figures quoted for CRTs that their useful life is ~3yrs (after which they cannot be calibrated properly), whereas LCDs are more like 5 years. This thread is the first time I’ve seen the claims the other way round.

No, you have it backwards. Why do you think LCDs, even
higher-end LCDs such as the Apple Cinema Display ($2K-$3K) have one year warranties, while decent CRTs have three year warranties? The original poster’s CRT is seven years old, and I’ve seen hundreds of other CRTs in the field that were still perfectly calibrated after 3, 5 and even 7 years.

There’s a reason why LCDs have only a one year warranty. Their backlights (like all other flourescent lamps) lose 40-50% of their brightness within the first two years, three tops. And they (like all other flourescent lamps) eventually fail altogether.

Rick

On Sun, 30 May 2004 04:20:12 -0700, "Rick" wrote:

There’s a reason why LCDs have only a one year warranty. Their backlights (like all other flourescent lamps) lose 40-50% of their brightness within the first two years, three tops. And they (like all other flourescent lamps) eventually fail altogether.

My "old" Sony SDM-M61 has a three year warranty which is nearly finished. No problem with the back lights. I needed to turn them down when I first used the monitor and I have not needed to adjust them since.

Steve
—
EasyNN-plus. The easy way to build neural networks.
Build networks from numeric, text and image files.
http://www.easynn.com

In article ,
says…

"Graeme Cogger" wrote in message

Where did you get a figure of 64million colours? That means that each colour (R, G and B) would be represented by about 8.6 bits of information, which doesn’t seem very useful…

On the life of CRTs vs LCDs: I’ve often seen figures quoted for CRTs that their useful life is ~3yrs (after which they cannot be calibrated properly), whereas LCDs are more like 5 years. This thread is the first time I’ve seen the claims the other way round.

No, you have it backwards. Why do you think LCDs, even
higher-end LCDs such as the Apple Cinema Display ($2K-$3K) have one year warranties, while decent CRTs have three year warranties? The original poster’s CRT is seven years old, and I’ve seen hundreds of other CRTs in the field that were still perfectly calibrated after 3, 5 and even 7 years.

There’s a reason why LCDs have only a one year warranty. Their backlights (like all other flourescent lamps) lose 40-50% of their brightness within the first two years, three tops. And they (like all other flourescent lamps) eventually fail altogether.

Rick

As I said, this is the first place I’ve seen figures like yours. Having only owned monitor calibration hardware for under 1 year, I can only go by a consensus of reports I’ve seen. I strongly suspect that nobody really knows – LCDs are still relatively new technology, and the ones being produced today are way better than the ones from even a year or two ago. I’ve also heard that some LCDs can have the backlights
replaced, which must (I would hope!) be cheaper than replacing the tube in a CRT.

Both of my LCDs (Sharp and Samsung) have 3 year warranties – on-site in the case of the Sharp. Perhaps the Apple screen only has a 1 year warranty because _all_ Apple hardware has a 1 year warranty.

In article wrote:

There’s a reason why LCDs have only a one year warranty. Their backlights (like all other flourescent lamps) lose 40-50% of their brightness within the first two years, three tops. And they (like all other flourescent lamps) eventually fail altogether.

True and that’s the reasons at least one large display intended for digital TV is now offering a replaceable backlight. (I cant’ remember the brand.) Certainly, they aren’t good enough for critical photo work, and I wonder just how spendy those backlights are going to be.

Graeme Cogger, using only recycled electrons, took the time to scribe on the lovely day called 5/30/2004 2:34 AM the following important message }:~)

Where did you get a figure of 64million colours? That means that each colour (R, G and B) would be represented by about 8.6 bits of information, which doesn’t seem very useful…

I could have sworn I read 64M somewhere, but when I typed the email yesterday, I almost did not, cause I thought someone would question me on it and I would be empty brained about it. Well, here I am, empty brained. But 8 bits of info each is ringing a bell in my aging head. If I remember it or find it, I’ll post it here.

Dorothy

email addy is munged

Rick, using only recycled electrons, took the time to scribe on the lovely day called 5/29/2004 6:28 PM the following important message }:~)

"Dorothy" wrote in message

Over the 7 years I have had this monitor, I have mislaid the color calibration unit. But I do not really think this is the problem. I have played around with the brightness/contrast to no end in the last couple of days to no avail.

7 years is a reasonable lifespan for a CRT. It sounds like yours is at least dying gracefully.

Ah, yes, gracefully. So much so, that it was my Mother that pointed it out to me. She was standing over my shoulder one day and saw what I was working on on this monitor and at the same time on the notebook screen and commented on how much darker the monitor was over the notebook. I know I should thank her, but….

Perhaps I can eBay it for CAD/CAM or spreadsheet use and get some funds out of it.

Dorothy
email addy is munged

wrote:

On Sun, 30 May 2004 04:20:12 -0700, "Rick" wrote:

There’s a reason why LCDs have only a one year warranty. Their backlights (like all other flourescent lamps) lose 40-50% of their brightness within the first two years, three tops. And they (like all other flourescent lamps) eventually fail altogether.

My "old" Sony SDM-M61 has a three year warranty which is nearly finished. No problem with the back lights. I needed to turn them down when I first used the monitor and I have not needed to adjust them since.

Soon, you won’t be able to purchase a CRT monitor.

LCDs lead out future!

🙂

Uni
p.s. Plus, you don’t have to worry about LCDs emitting X ray, like CRTs, which is cancer causing 🙂

Steve

"Uni" wrote in message

wrote:

On Sun, 30 May 2004 04:20:12 -0700, "Rick" wrote:

There’s a reason why LCDs have only a one year warranty. Their backlights (like all other flourescent lamps) lose 40-50% of their brightness within the first two years, three tops. And they (like all other flourescent lamps) eventually fail altogether.

My "old" Sony SDM-M61 has a three year warranty which is nearly finished. No problem with the back lights. I needed to turn them down when I first used the monitor and I have not needed to adjust them since.

Soon, you won’t be able to purchase a CRT monitor.

Nonsense. CRTs will still be sold, but they will be considered a high-end item, sold to graphics professionals and others who need or want their better color gamut, resolution flexibility etc.

Rick

On Sun, 30 May 2004 16:52:07 +0100, Graeme Cogger
wrote:

In article ,
says…

"Graeme Cogger" wrote in message

Where did you get a figure of 64million colours? That means that each colour (R, G and B) would be represented by about 8.6 bits of information, which doesn’t seem very useful…

On the life of CRTs vs LCDs: I’ve often seen figures quoted for CRTs that their useful life is ~3yrs (after which they cannot be calibrated properly), whereas LCDs are more like 5 years. This thread is the first time I’ve seen the claims the other way round.

No, you have it backwards. Why do you think LCDs, even
higher-end LCDs such as the Apple Cinema Display ($2K-$3K) have one year warranties, while decent CRTs have three year warranties? The original poster’s CRT is seven years old, and I’ve seen hundreds of other CRTs in the field that were still perfectly calibrated after 3, 5 and even 7 years.

There’s a reason why LCDs have only a one year warranty. Their backlights (like all other flourescent lamps) lose 40-50% of their brightness within the first two years, three tops. And they (like all other flourescent lamps) eventually fail altogether.

Rick

As I said, this is the first place I’ve seen figures like yours. Having only owned monitor calibration hardware for under 1 year, I can only go by a consensus of reports I’ve seen. I strongly suspect that nobody really knows – LCDs are still relatively new technology, and the ones being produced today are way better than the ones from even a year or two ago. I’ve also heard that some LCDs can have the backlights
replaced, which must (I would hope!) be cheaper than replacing the tube in a CRT.

The lifetime limits of the CCT backlight technology has always been an issue for notebooks where energy saving strategy and backlight saving strategy go in opposite directions.

Newer technologies – LED backlight for desktop LCDs – promise longer lifetime and calibration options but are either very expensine or still in prototype stage.

Michael

wrote in message

For Photoshop for print work and web work on a PC:

My 7 year old Sony GDM-W900 22.5 viewable monitor is dying and I need a replacement. Sony has stopped making large monitors and has moved into the LCD arena. So far, these are the two models for 23" or greater than I have been considering:

HP LCD L2335, as seen here:
http://h18004.www1.hp.com/products/monitors/performance/l233 5_specs.html
and Sony SDM-P232W/B, as seen here:

http://displaysbysony.com/displayb2b/model.jsp?pCode=LCD&amp ;pModelId=561&pMenu=Specs

If you ever intend to run video on that monitor, don’t get the Sony. It has a response time of 40ms, so any object moving on the screen will leave behind a mud trail. The HP is 16ms, which is very good. Most LCDs I’ve seen have around 25ms for the response time.

Consider this in terms of the video signal – 50Hz for PAL or 60Hz for NTSC,
i.e. 20ms or 17ms. The response time needs to be better than that (i.e.
lower ms value) or the LCD won’t have time to clearly display any frame before the starting to display the next one.

Regards,
Aaron Queenan.

Rick wrote:

CRTs will still be sold, but they will be considered a
high-end item, sold to graphics professionals and others who need or want their better color gamut, resolution flexibility etc.

In less than a year you can get TFT panels with larger color gamut than most CRT’s.

<http://www.creativepro.com/story/news/21393.html> | The partnership with Lumileds Lighting has enabled
| NEC-Mitsubishi to develop this ground-breaking display which | exceeds the Adobe® RGB color space, the standard in the | professional color processing market. The new LED backlight | utilizes Luxeon DCC — an RGB light source — that generates | white light with an enhanced color spectrum and allows for | tuning of the white point, which, when allied with a feedback | sensor, ensures the display operates consistently over time.

Most CRT’s are not even close to Adobe RGB.
NEC-Mitsubishi has also made a CRT that utilizes around 97.6% of Adobe RGB(*) but even that is not as good as their new TFT mentioned above because it exceeds Adobe RGB (109%).

(*) The 22" RDF225WG.

—
Regards
Madsen

Rick wrote:

"Uni" wrote in message

wrote:

On Sun, 30 May 2004 04:20:12 -0700, "Rick" wrote:

There’s a reason why LCDs have only a one year warranty. Their backlights (like all other flourescent lamps) lose 40-50% of their brightness within the first two years, three tops. And they (like all other flourescent lamps) eventually fail altogether.

My "old" Sony SDM-M61 has a three year warranty which is nearly finished. No problem with the back lights. I needed to turn them down when I first used the monitor and I have not needed to adjust them since.

Soon, you won’t be able to purchase a CRT monitor.

Nonsense. CRTs will still be sold, but they will be considered a high-end item, sold to graphics professionals and others who need or want their better color gamut, resolution flexibility etc.

Thomas G. Madsen wrote:

In less than a year you can get TFT panels with larger color gamut than most CRT’s.

Looks like they’re headed towards extinction, period.

🙂

Uni

Rick

"Rick" writes:

wrote in message

<snip>

Do any of you use LCDs over CRTs?

LCDs are great for text and non-critical graphics work, but they still lack color gamut relative to higher-end CRTs.

No, that’s wrong. I have it on good authority (from Mark Fairchild, director of the Munsell Color Science Laboratory at the Rochester Institute of Technology) that the best current LCD’s are, except for some dependence on viewing angle, *better* than the best current CRT’s.

That said, there are two possible flies in this ointment:

1. Calibration software developed for CRT’s may not be able to get the best performance from an LCD, and

2. At lower price points, it’s quite possible that a CRT may offer much better quality than an LCD of similar cost.

So while a $2K LCD might be able to beat a $2K CRT, a $300 LCD may well be much worse than a $300 CRT.

You might look at the 23" Apple Cinema Display; it runs less than $2K and looks to be an excellent device.

—
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

(jjs) writes:

In article <Ce8uc.74795$>,
wrote:

Thanks, Don. For larger monitors, the 22.5 VIS (viewable) seems to be the "standard". Rick also feels that LCDs are not yet there for graphic work. That’s two for two in my book.

Dorothy: Have you had the opportunity to use a Mac G5 with the 23 inch display? Put aside for the moment the wintel vs. mac issue

Or defeat it: an ADC/DVI adapter at $100 will let you use the Apple display with an Intel machine.

<snip>

—
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

Dorothy writes:

I have never had the opportunity to use a Mac. I’ve just looked at them from afar <G>.

I’ve had this monitor for 7 years now. You could even say I am really, really tired of looking at it! So aside from the obvious problems and difficulties in its recent performance, you could say I am not too sad to see it go and get a new one. This one has lost its brilliance.

Either that, or my eyes are getting old <G>.

But serious again, the Mac 23" LCD, as the others, only has 16.7M colors. CRTs offer 64M.

Hm. Where did you get that figure? That’s about 400 color levels per channel, which isn’t near any power of two. What graphics card would one use to get this performance?

In fact, the lab-tested dynamic range of a typical CRT is much greater than that of an LCD. But there are a couple of points that make that moot.

First, the tests are generally done with full-screen areas of white and black. While an LCD maintains excellent pixel-to-pixel independence, pixels on a CRT interact with each other. In the limit of one black pixel on a white field, the actual contrast on most LCD’s will beat even the best CRT.

Second, the tests are done in (effectively) absolute darkness. The CRT is capable of a very dark black, but its white level is much lower than that of a good desktop LCD. When there is any illumination in the room, that black level is elevated, so the CRT loses much of its theoretical brightness range, while the bright white of the LCD preserves more. So an LCD may well beat a CRT under actual viewing conditions.

<snip>

—
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

Stephen H. Westin wrote:

Or defeat it: an ADC/DVI adapter at $100 will let you use the Apple display with an Intel machine.

But not if you’re using a Matrox graphic card according to Ian Lyons. <http://www.computer-darkroom.com/acd/acd.htm>.

Quote:
| Apple and Formac LCD displays use a propriety digital
| connection designed specifically for Apple computers. This | means that PC users who might wish to use an Apple or Formac | LCD display will also need to purchase a special adapter that | converts between the Apple ADC connection and the more common | DVI connection. Be aware that even with this adapter these | LCD’s cannot be used with a PC fitted with Matrox graphics | cards. Apple and Formac LCD displays will work with graphics | cards from nVidia and ATI.

—
Regards
Madsen

"Rick" writes:

"Graeme Cogger" wrote in message

In article <lBauc.59917$>,
says…

I have never had the opportunity to use a Mac. I’ve just looked at them from afar <G>.

I’ve had this monitor for 7 years now. You could even say I am really, really tired of looking at it! So aside from the obvious problems and difficulties in its recent performance, you could say I am not too sad to see it go and get a new one. This one has lost its brilliance.
Either that, or my eyes are getting old <G>.

But serious again, the Mac 23" LCD, as the others, only has 16.7M colors. CRTs offer 64M.

Where did you get a figure of 64million colours? That means that each colour (R, G and B) would be represented by about 8.6 bits of information, which doesn’t seem very useful…

On the life of CRTs vs LCDs: I’ve often seen figures quoted for CRTs that their useful life is ~3yrs (after which they cannot be calibrated properly), whereas LCDs are more like 5 years. This thread is the first time I’ve seen the claims the other way round.

No, you have it backwards. Why do you think LCDs, even
higher-end LCDs such as the Apple Cinema Display ($2K-$3K) have one year warranties, while decent CRTs have three year warranties? The original poster’s CRT is seven years old, and I’ve seen hundreds of other CRTs in the field that were still perfectly calibrated after 3, 5 and even 7 years.

There’s a reason why LCDs have only a one year warranty. Their backlights (like all other flourescent lamps) lose 40-50% of their brightness within the first two years, three tops.

I think you need to read up on lumen depreciation of fluorescent lamps.

From < http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/infosource/home/index.cf m?act=online&id=2174&format=PDF&lang=01&Prin tView=N&Text=N>:

"The lamp lumen depreciation (LLD), at 40 percent of rated lamp life, is 85 percent of initial lumens for a T-12 lamp, whereas a T-8 lamp is much better at 95 percent."

A T-12 is the traditional 4-foot tube 1.5 inch in diameter. A T-8 is the more modern replacement, an inch in diameter.

Or, from <http://www.elotouch.com/products/crtlife.asp>,

"LCD backlights last about twice as long as CRTs and cost less to replace. LCDs backlights can be field replaced without the need for test equipment. CRT replacement requires special test equipment and cannot be replaced in the field. CRTs must be shipped to a repair depot resulting in increased down time and higher shipping costs."

LED’s, on the other hand, show immediate and constant lumen depreciation: the rated life is customarily the point at which 50% output is reached.

And they (like all
other flourescent lamps) eventually fail altogether.

And, like all other fluorescent lamps, can be replaced. For rather less than the cost of a new CRT.

—
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

In article ,
westin* (Stephen H. Westin) wrote:

(jjs) writes:

In article <Ce8uc.74795$>,
wrote:

Thanks, Don. For larger monitors, the 22.5 VIS (viewable) seems to be the "standard". Rick also feels that LCDs are not yet there for graphic work. That’s two for two in my book.

Dorothy: Have you had the opportunity to use a Mac G5 with the 23 inch display? Put aside for the moment the wintel vs. mac issue

Or defeat it: an ADC/DVI adapter at $100 will let you use the Apple display with an Intel machine.

Without any compromise? What of color management? I am so endeared to the Apple display that I’ve just started using OS-X, and I just hate the interface, but love the OS. Apple is falling back on the interface front (IMHO).

What we need today is an interface that is to the windows paradigm what Xerox(Apple)’s interface was to the command line.

(Xalinai) writes:

On Sun, 30 May 2004 16:52:07 +0100, Graeme Cogger
wrote:

<snip>

The lifetime limits of the CCT backlight technology has always been an issue for notebooks where energy saving strategy and backlight saving strategy go in opposite directions.

But desktop LCD’s, of course, don’t have the same drastic constraints on power consumption. Not only does this offer more options in backlight selection, but it also allows optimization of the LCD for gamut and dynamic range. A desktop LCD display is a different beast.

Newer technologies – LED backlight for desktop LCDs – promise longer lifetime and calibration options

Unfortunately, with lumen depreciation and considerably lower efficiency. Yes, you read that right: the best white LED’s have luminous efficiency (when new) competitive with that of incandescents, much lower than that of fluorescents.

but are either very expensine or
still in prototype stage.

—
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

Dorothy writes:

Graeme Cogger, using only recycled electrons, took the time to scribe on the lovely day called 5/30/2004 2:34 AM the following important message }:~)

Where did you get a figure of 64million colours? That means that each colour (R, G and B) would be represented by about 8.6 bits of information, which doesn’t seem very useful…

I could have sworn I read 64M somewhere, but when I typed the email yesterday, I almost did not, cause I thought someone would question me on it and I would be empty brained about it. Well, here I am, empty brained. But 8 bits of info each is ringing a bell in my aging head.

Right. That’s 16,777,216 colors. The most distinct colors you can get out of most display boards, which put out only 8 bits per channel.

—
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

(jjs) writes:

In article ,
westin* (Stephen H. Westin) wrote:

(jjs) writes:

In article <Ce8uc.74795$>,
wrote:

Thanks, Don. For larger monitors, the 22.5 VIS (viewable) seems to be the "standard". Rick also feels that LCDs are not yet there for graphic work. That’s two for two in my book.

Dorothy: Have you had the opportunity to use a Mac G5 with the 23 inch display? Put aside for the moment the wintel vs. mac issue

Or defeat it: an ADC/DVI adapter at $100 will let you use the Apple display with an Intel machine.

Without any compromise? What of color management?

I don’t think there’s any sacrifice. As I understand it, there are two technical reasons for the ADC interface (there may be non-technical reasons, as well):

1. The DVI interface standard only allows resolution up to 1600×1200. Others have introduced DVI interfaces that go beyond this, but they are, strictly speaking, non-standard. From
<http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1187652,00.asp>, "Today’s DVI 1.0 spec specifies a maximum single-channel bandwidth of 165MHz. This is good enough to support a 1600×1200 display in most cases, including CRTs refreshing at 60Hz."

2. The ADC cable also includes USB, both to control the display and to eliminate the need for a separate keayboard/mouse cable. It also carries power to the display.

So I think there is a non-lossy conversion between the two. That said, the only Apple Cinema Display here is plugged into a Mac, so I have no firsthand knowledge.

You can find out more at
<http://www.gefen.com/kvm/support/adc_kits.jsp> and <http://www.apple.com/displays/adapter.html>, for starters. Or < http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Hardware/Developer_ Notes/Macintosh_CPUs-G4/PowerMacG4/3Input-Output/chapter_4_s ection_12.html>
to see the precise details of the ADC connector.

I am so endeared to the
Apple display that I’ve just started using OS-X, and I just hate the interface, but love the OS. Apple is falling back on the interface front (IMHO).

<snip>

—
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

On 01 Jun 2004 11:27:27 -0400, westin*
(Stephen H. Westin) wrote:

(Xalinai) writes:

On Sun, 30 May 2004 16:52:07 +0100, Graeme Cogger
wrote:

<snip>

The lifetime limits of the CCT backlight technology has always been an issue for notebooks where energy saving strategy and backlight saving strategy go in opposite directions.

But desktop LCD’s, of course, don’t have the same drastic constraints on power consumption. Not only does this offer more options in backlight selection, but it also allows optimization of the LCD for gamut and dynamic range. A desktop LCD display is a different beast.

Basically the lighting technology is the same but desktop LCDs use two to four tubes.
If you use the same energy savings setting common for notebooks (switch off display after a very short time) you can degrade most backlights very quickly. As desktop LCDs can be set to be very bright when new they will be bright enough for a longer time.

Newer technologies – LED backlight for desktop LCDs – promise longer lifetime and calibration options

Unfortunately, with lumen depreciation and considerably lower efficiency. Yes, you read that right: the best white LED’s have luminous efficiency (when new) competitive with that of incandescents, much lower than that of fluorescents.

The prototypes I’ve seen do not use white leds but arrays of red, green and blur leds that allow for intensity control for each color and mix on a special background. There should be enough headroom in the standard setting to compensate aging.

Michael

I have been out of commission due to surgery, and just now getting back to this. I had a look at the Apple 23" LCD, and must say, I thought it was better than the Sony, not to mention less expensive (even including the adapter). If nothing else, it sure looks nicer in design.

As I see it, the problem that I need to next address is color calibration. Isn’t this monitor with the Apple calibrated solely using Apple’s OS? To use it with a PC via the adapter, I would bump up against your #1 below, but correct me if I am wrong here, wouldn’t I have the same calibration issue, your #1 below, with the Sony as I would with the Apple? I don’t seen why I wouldn’t. So I really would not gain anything to go with the Sony. Can you tell I have never cross platform Apple/PC equipment before and am just a wee bit nervous that there might be something that I should have considered?

Also, if I go with the Apple and adapter, I would also need to get a new video card at this time, since mine does not have DVI, thereby adding to the total expense. More research, but worth it.

Finally, it was mentioned here that the DVI only supports 1600 x 1200, yet both the Apple 23" and the Sony version have a native resolution of 1920 x 1200. What am I missing here?

Thanks,
Dorothy

Stephen H. Westin, using only recycled electrons, took the time to scribe on the lovely day called 6/1/2004 6:57 AM the following important message }:~)

"Rick" writes:

No, that’s wrong. I have it on good authority (from Mark Fairchild, director of the Munsell Color Science Laboratory at the Rochester Institute of Technology) that the best current LCD’s are, except for some dependence on viewing angle, *better* than the best current CRT’s.

That said, there are two possible flies in this ointment:
1. Calibration software developed for CRT’s may not be able to get the best performance from an LCD, and

2. At lower price points, it’s quite possible that a CRT may offer much better quality than an LCD of similar cost.

So while a $2K LCD might be able to beat a $2K CRT, a $300 LCD may well be much worse than a $300 CRT.

You might look at the 23" Apple Cinema Display; it runs less than $2K and looks to be an excellent device.

"Dorothy" wrote in message

I have been out of commission due to surgery, and just now getting back to this. I had a look at the Apple 23" LCD, and must say, I thought it was better than the Sony, not to mention less expensive (even including the adapter). If nothing else, it sure looks nicer in design.
As I see it, the problem that I need to next address is color calibration. Isn’t this monitor with the Apple calibrated solely using Apple’s OS?

LCD calibration packages are one of the biggest scams going these days. The simple fact is, because of the technology used in current consumer LCDs they cannot be calibrated to any appreciable extent. You get what you get from the factory. Period. With that said, most LCDs have accurate color
within a more limited gamut compared to a high-end or
midrange CRT.

To use it with a PC via the adapter, I would bump up
against your #1 below, but correct me if I am wrong here, wouldn’t I have the same calibration issue, your #1 below, with the Sony as I would with the Apple? I don’t seen why I wouldn’t. So I really would not gain anything to go with the Sony. Can you tell I have never cross platform Apple/PC equipment before and am just a wee bit nervous that there might be something that I should have considered?

Also, if I go with the Apple and adapter, I would also need to get a new video card at this time, since mine does not have DVI, thereby adding to the total expense. More research, but worth it.

Finally, it was mentioned here that the DVI only supports 1600 x 1200, yet both the Apple 23" and the Sony version have a native resolution of 1920 x 1200. What am I missing here?

Thanks,
Dorothy

Stephen H. Westin, using only recycled electrons, took the time to scribe on the lovely day called 6/1/2004 6:57 AM the following important message }:~)

"Rick" writes:

No, that’s wrong. I have it on good authority (from Mark Fairchild, director of the Munsell Color Science Laboratory at the Rochester Institute of Technology) that the best current LCD’s are, except for some dependence on viewing angle, *better* than the best current CRT’s.

That said, there are two possible flies in this ointment:
1. Calibration software developed for CRT’s may not be able to get the best performance from an LCD, and

2. At lower price points, it’s quite possible that a CRT may offer much better quality than an LCD of similar cost.

So while a $2K LCD might be able to beat a $2K CRT, a $300 LCD may well be much worse than a $300 CRT.

The point is, a $700 CRT can beat a $2K LCD, at least in regards to color gamut.

Rick

"Rick" writes:

"Dorothy" wrote in message

I have been out of commission due to surgery, and just now getting back to this. I had a look at the Apple 23" LCD, and must say, I thought it was better than the Sony, not to mention less expensive (even including the adapter). If nothing else, it sure looks nicer in design.
As I see it, the problem that I need to next address is color calibration. Isn’t this monitor with the Apple calibrated solely using Apple’s OS?

LCD calibration packages are one of the biggest scams going these days. The simple fact is, because of the technology used in current consumer LCDs they cannot be calibrated to any appreciable extent.

But we’re not talking about a "consumer LCD". We’re talking about a $2000 professional unit. I have it on excellent authority that it can, in principle, be characterized (and compensated for) very well. But this was from a color scientist; I expect that he and his students wrote custom software for this task, and I have no idea whether any commercial software is up to the task.

<snip>

The point is, a $700 CRT can beat a $2K LCD, at least in regards to color gamut.

Could you show me the measurements that demonstrate this? My information is to the contrary. A $400 CRT will probably beat a $400 LCD, but that’s not what we’re talking about.

—
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 08:22:34 GMT, Dorothy
wrote:

Finally, it was mentioned here that the DVI only supports 1600 x 1200, yet both the Apple 23" and the Sony version have a native resolution of 1920 x 1200. What am I missing here?

I have no idea about your particular monitors or graphic cards, but I have seen high-end graphic cards with two DVI outputs. You can run two monitors at up to 1600 x 1200 each, or supposedly you can use both connectors to run one single monitor at a higher pixel count. Further research is highly recommended – I’ve never tried this.

Loren

Dorothy writes:

I have been out of commission due to surgery, and just now getting back to this. I had a look at the Apple 23" LCD, and must say, I thought it was better than the Sony, not to mention less expensive (even including the adapter). If nothing else, it sure looks nicer in design.

As I see it, the problem that I need to next address is color calibration. Isn’t this monitor with the Apple calibrated solely using Apple’s OS? To use it with a PC via the adapter, I would bump up against your #1 below, but correct me if I am wrong here, wouldn’t I have the same calibration issue, your #1 below, with the Sony as I would with the Apple? I don’t seen why I wouldn’t. So I really would not gain anything to go with the Sony. Can you tell I have never cross platform Apple/PC equipment before and am just a wee bit nervous that there might be something that I should have considered?

Well, you shouldn’t be worse off with the Apple display than with any other LCD; there are ICC profiles available for it, after all. The EIZO ColorEdge line of displays might be an alternative, but for more money.

Also, if I go with the Apple and adapter, I would also need to get a new video card at this time, since mine does not have DVI, thereby adding to the total expense. More research, but worth it.

Hmm. What sort of quality will you get driving the thing with an analog output? It seems to me that the cart may be in front of the horse here. You can afford $2K for a display, but not $100 for a card to drive it?

Finally, it was mentioned here that the DVI only supports 1600 x 1200, yet both the Apple 23" and the Sony version have a native resolution of 1920 x 1200. What am I missing here?

That the standard is routinely violated :). See
<http://www.ddwg.org/dvi.html> for more info.

<snip>

—
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

Dorothy wrote:

As I see it, the problem that I need to next address is color calibration. Isn’t this monitor with the Apple calibrated solely using Apple’s OS?

Yes but that’s not the only way to calibrate and profile it. Read: <http://www.computer-darkroom.com/acd/acd.htm>. I have calibrated and profiled my sisters Apple Studio Display 23" with a monitor spyder from Colorvision and OptiCAL software. (The same hard- and software that I use on my own TFT and CRT).

Finally, it was mentioned here that the DVI only supports 1600 x 1200, yet both the Apple 23" and the Sony version have a native resolution of 1920 x 1200. What am I missing here?

My sisters dual G5 has an ATI Radeon 9800 XT graphic card. You can buy the same card to a Windows based PC and it supports 1920 x 1200 via DVI. Most graphic cards that supports 1600 x 1200 via DVI also supports 1920 x 1200 if the attached TFT monitor has a function called reduced blanking. Most of the large panels out there has that function.

—
Regards
Madsen