Finally have reluctantly moved from the old *once upon a time* high end flat screen 17" CRT monitor to a new classy DELL 20" LCD (1600x1200 60hz max res) I LOVE it for everything (especially gaming) EXCEPT for looking at astro and other photos on the net. My/our old photos on the net look like crap to me ;( I have been reading for a while now other people saying the same on astro lists - and its true. What was once a nice velvet black is now a weird dark grey!!!! I find it a bit sad that crts have gone the way the way of the dinosaurs coz i reckon they still absolutely crap on lcds for hi fidelity dark astrophoto viewing. Almost puts me off bothering to do it anymore! I realise they are here to stay unfortunately. Anyone agree?
Kearn
Totally agree.. Well kinda.. I don't have LCD yet but do have a laptop..
My dear ol mom recently did a film photography course which included tutorials in photoshop etc... The instructor advised all students to keep their CRT monitors and to even plug them into laptops as LCD just don't cut it... Strange colours.....Blue looks purple etc etc etc ..
I wonder what screens the pro's use??? LCD or CRT ??
BTW.. I think I paid just over $600 for my 17" Philips CRT in 1999....LOL
Yep, I agree. My laptops LCD is terrible for looking at photographs especially astro photos. I prefer my desktop with a 19" CRT for looking at or processing photos. Big CRT's are so cheap these days I wouldn't bother with an LCD.
Dave, i have mates who are techies for puters and they say most graphics people use lcds now apparently? I don't understand? The crt shows an image is MUCH closer to a print version/and the original image to me.
Kearn
Yep, I agree. My laptops LCD is terrible for looking at photographs especially astro photos. I prefer my desktop with a 19" CRT for looking at or processing photos. Big CRT's are so cheap these days I wouldn't bother with an LCD.
Jonathon, I had trouble finding a high end true flat screen that i liked in the 19" crt's - especially my fav mitsi model - discontinued! the remaining models all seemed fish bowly, even if they are cheap. Also I know most non graphics people who are going to look at our website are on cheap 17" LCDs anyway - whats the point of using a CRT if I am the only one who sees it as it should look?
Kearn
my work lcd works fine on pics now (that the right gfx drivers are installed)... crt takes up too much room and they are way too heavy. i had a 21" crt, it weighed a ton!!!
Ving, i too love all the extra room (read football field size area hehe) on my desk i now have - i love the absence of radiation and heat. i love all the extra real estate on the screen particularly with the 20". Couldnt be any flatter ect. they have a lot going for them - and of course crts will eventually disappear completely i would imagine - so might as well get used to it I suppose. I have the correct software for the monitor too - so its not that for me.
kearn
Rob, at around nearly 1200 bucks this monitor isnt exactly cheap i would think - i know you can pay a lot more than that for a better 20" i guess.
kearn
Dave, i have mates who are techies for puters and they say most graphics people use lcds now apparently? I don't understand? The crt shows an image is MUCH closer to a print version/and the original image to me.
Kearn
I think you may have misunderstood. You would be hard-pressed finding any graphic designer using anything but a CRT. Colour matching on an LCD is just not going to happen in the near future.
LCDs ain't LCDs (remember the engine oil ads?).
There are LCDs with shocking colour accuracy and black levels (laptops are generally worse) and there are good ones, just as there are bad CRTs and good CRTs.
Colour profile calibration and setup is very important if you want accuracy. But some LCDs suck even with calibration.
Make sure you set the black level correctly. The same applies to CRTs. A CRT with the brightness set too high will also give grey blacks. The only blanket statement that you can make is that every non-broken CRT is able to deliver perfect blackness.
"I think you may have misunderstood. You would be hard-pressed finding any graphic designer using anything but a CRT."
That is not true. I was surprised when I heard it, but graphic designers are using good calibrated LCDs these days.
That is not true. I was surprised when I heard it, but graphic designers are using good calibrated LCDs these days.
farout! I stand corrected.
i still love my Mistubishi 2070SB. The colours seem less washed out than the Sony G520 i had. But that's only a gut feeling because I didn't have the two togther to compare. But it seems the Mitsubishi is better.
Thanks for great feedback guys MiG i will try making a calibrated colorsync colour profile (I'm on a mac) that i can switch to for viewing/processing astro pics specifically. I am hoping that i didnt have to get the expensive apple display version of the 20" lcd to get what i want! gulp!
kearn
Rob, at around nearly 1200 bucks this monitor isnt exactly cheap i would think - i know you can pay a lot more than that for a better 20" i guess.
kearn
That must hurt!! I hooked up my old CRT last night and even a crappy standard Philips 17" was better than the one I am using now. I suppose its not so important to me as I have not really been bitten by the astrophoto bug badly yet.
Rob, interesting experiment!
I found simply adjusting my new monitors brightness down from 50% down to 23% and hey presto - not too bad now made a big diff - sorry to all but i like the brightness at 50% for everything else but.... hhmmmm
still not as good as a good crt tho - still got my 6 yr old mitsubishi diamond plus 72 (i'll hang on to it maybe?) and my mate has a 5 yr old 19" crt high end mitsubishi i can have for free.
Kearn
Have you checked the web site of the manufacturer for downloads: colour profiles? Installing a good colour profile can make all the difference. I think most Dell monitors are Samsung, so their site may be worth a look too. My LCD looks terrible without the correct colour profile. The graphics driver should make almost no difference, and remember that for still graphics, your graphics card does nothing but sinc and dig to analog (if you're not using DVI), still and desktop colour management and layout is basically an operating system, CPU function.
If it still doesn't look pretty, there are various free apps for colour balancing your system available for download. Most LCDs should look fine for viewing, they aren't reference standard and people tend to have trouble making colour profiles that balance screen to print, with the printer's colour profile. I think I've seen that big Dell working, and it was colour balanced very nicely (better than my 19 mitsubishi LCD), so it's a tweek thing IMO. Most high end graphics pros are still using reference standard CRTs, but these are nothing like the CRTs people usually bought for home use anyway. A 21 Sony reference CRT still retails just under $3000 (and are still available) and produces colour and definition good enough to be differentiable by those one in a billion wierdos that can see an extra 500 shades of grey scale. LCDs are pretty nearly as good as home use CRTs, and often better. It'll probably be a matter of getting used to the settings and getting the system tweeked for the new hardware.
One thing to take note of is that many of the extremely high contrast ratio LCD monitors achieve this by overdriving the panel. It has no purpose and looks nasty, but lets them advertise it as ridiculously high contrast monitor, which looks good the add. You don't really want the brightess up that high; not good for your eyes, not good for the monitor (LCDs can still burn in an after image, just not as fast as CRT and plasma). Overdriving the panel to achieve high contrast is basically only useful for office applications in an overly bright viewing environment.
One thing to take note of is that many of the extremely high contrast ratio LCD monitors achieve this by overdriving the panel. It has no purpose and looks nasty, but lets them advertise it as ridiculously high contrast monitor, which looks good the add. You don't really want the brightess up that high; not good for your eyes, not good for the monitor (LCDs can still burn in an after image, just not as fast as CRT and plasma). Overdriving the panel to achieve high contrast is basically only useful for office applications in an overly bright viewing environment.
I've been considering getting an LCD to replace my huge G520 and I've found the same thing. Huge brightnesses with larger contrast values. I've been looking for ones that have a "low" brightness and high contrast.
made a calibrated colour profile - and everything is even better :-))) seems the default mac contrast/gamma was too bright went for native gamma of monitor closer to a pc one! sweeeettttt!!! thanks again everyone! I just love this forum more and more :-)) just ask and ye shall receive! (or is the squeeky wheel that gets the oil?) heres a pic of final settings i can switch between the default mac settings and new calibrated settings in the blink of an eye -
kearn
EDIT: I am using the DVI connection - and re graphics card, its only a 64MB but old games like COD:UO and UT 2004 run fine at 1600x1200 60 hz - no noticible lag/freezing and this being a 16 ms screen (no 20" lcd monitors are at 8 ms yet?) thats pretty good
Last edited by fringe_dweller; 27-08-2005 at 04:12 PM.
but i like the brightness at 50% for everything else but.... hhmmmm
