17′ flat or 21’crt

If you work in an enviroment that requires high quality color accuracy control, the CRT is the best choice.

In all other cases, the LCD takes less space on the desk and it’s arguably easier on the eyes… take your pick!

HTH,

—
Pepe
Milano, Italy

"portroe" ha scritto nel messaggio

Dear all,

if you had the choice of the following two monitors for graphical work, which would you choose?

SONY SDMX72B 17" TFT LCD Monitor 1,3 MegaPixel (1280 x 1024) Aufl

"portroe" wrote in message

Dear all,

if you had the choice of the following two monitors for graphical work, which would you choose?

SONY SDMX72B 17" TFT LCD Monitor 1,3 MegaPixel (1280 x 1024) Aufl

Easily the 21" CRT.

However… I just ordered a computer with a 21" LCD flat panel…. LCDs are getting close to the same quality as CRTs, and if you can swallow the cost and need the space, they are well worth it in the long run. My Dell here at the (boo hiss!!!) Ford (booo!) office has two 18" panels on it… they are BETTER than the trinitron display I had on my last PC by far. Now I just wish they would let me take this machine away with me when I leave in two weeks!!

"portroe" wrote in message

Dear all,

if you had the choice of the following two monitors for graphical work, which would you choose?

SONY SDMX72B 17" TFT LCD Monitor 1,3 MegaPixel (1280 x 1024) Aufl

let me take this machine away

-"I dont know where it is. Perhaps some other department took it?… Well anyway, buy now, take care"…

🙂

/Tomas

Easily the 21" CRT.

However… I just ordered a computer with a 21" LCD flat panel…. LCDs are getting close to the same quality as CRTs, and if you can swallow the cost and need the space, they are well worth it in the long run. My Dell here at the (boo hiss!!!) Ford (booo!) office has two 18" panels on it… they are BETTER than the trinitron display I had on my last PC by far. Now I just wish they would let me take this machine away with me when I leave in two weeks!!

"portroe" wrote in message

Dear all,

if you had the choice of the following two monitors for graphical work, which would you choose?

SONY SDMX72B 17" TFT LCD Monitor 1,3 MegaPixel (1280 x 1024) Auflösung

Sony GDMF520 Professioneller 21"-Monitor, optimale Auflösung 2048×1536 bei 86 Hz

I have both offered for the same price, but am unsure which makes more sense,

thanks

Portroe

–To contact me please mail to tomas dot holm at rodem dot se.–

Another reason to get the F520 is that 1280×1024 is not a proper resolution for graphics editing — it does not conform to the standard 4:3 aspect ratio. Circles will appear as ellipses, squares as rectangles etc. With a CRT you’re free to run at any resolution, not one "native" resolution as with an LCD.
Rick

I don’t think you’ll find that’s quite correct. I agree if you have a 4:3 CRT and use 1280×1024 it would be the wrong resolution and circles would appear as ellipses but an LCD monitor with a native resolution of 1280×1024 would actually have a screen with a 5:4 ratio not 4:3 and circles would appear as circles.

—
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.550 / Virus Database: 342 – Release Date: 09/12/2003

"Rick" wrote in message

"portroe" wrote in message

Dear all,

if you had the choice of the following two monitors for graphical work, which would you choose?

SONY SDMX72B 17" TFT LCD Monitor 1,3 MegaPixel (1280 x 1024) Aufl

I cant possibly carry all that out the door stealthily! Either that or I need to buy a HUGE coat, with wheels on it. And have someone open both the fire exits.

"Tomas Holm" wrote in message

let me take this machine away

-"I dont know where it is. Perhaps some other department took it?… Well anyway, buy now, take care"…

🙂

/Tomas

Easily the 21" CRT.

However… I just ordered a computer with a 21" LCD flat panel…. LCDs

are

getting close to the same quality as CRTs, and if you can swallow the

cost

and need the space, they are well worth it in the long run. My Dell here

at

the (boo hiss!!!) Ford (booo!) office has two 18" panels on it… they

are

BETTER than the trinitron display I had on my last PC by far. Now I just wish they would let me take this machine away with me when I leave in

two

weeks!!

"portroe" wrote in message

Dear all,

if you had the choice of the following two monitors for graphical work, which would you choose?

SONY SDMX72B 17" TFT LCD Monitor 1,3 MegaPixel (1280 x 1024) Aufl

"SpaceGirl" writes:

Easily the 21" CRT.

However… I just ordered a computer with a 21" LCD flat panel…. LCDs are getting close to the same quality as CRTs,

Actually, the best LCD’s are better than the best CRT’s.

<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.

"Rick" writes:

"portroe" wrote in message

Dear all,

if you had the choice of the following two monitors for graphical work, which would you choose?

SONY SDMX72B 17" TFT LCD Monitor 1,3 MegaPixel (1280 x 1024) Auflösung

Sony GDMF520 Professioneller 21"-Monitor, optimale Auflösung 2048×1536 bei 86 Hz

I have both offered for the same price, but am unsure which makes more sense,

thanks

Portroe

The LCD will have a contrast ratio roughly half that of the F520.

On what measurements do you base this statement?

If color gamut is even slightly important (which it is for almost all graphics work) then go for the CRT.

I don’t think that’s true. The best LCD’s are at least competitive with the best CRT’s for color gamut, and are better for resolution, uniformity, and stability.

As for this particular case, I don’t know how good the Sony LCD is, and the sacrifice in pixel count and screen size makes the choice a hard one.

<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.

"portroe" wrote in message

Dear all,

if you had the choice of the following two monitors for graphical work, which would you choose?

SONY SDMX72B 17" …..or….> Sony GDMF520 Professioneller 21…..etc.

It’s nice to have that extra screen space, but I’d take a flat panel any day if it was good enough.

If it’s color accurate & you can adjust your aspect ratio for circles & what not.
That screen real-estate is nice, but if your sitting 10" away from that big beast with gamma rays shooting at you all day… I mean, that can’t be good for your long term health right?

G

"Stephen H. Westin" <westin*> wrote in message

"Rick" writes:

"portroe" wrote in message

Dear all,

if you had the choice of the following two monitors for graphical work, which would you choose?

SONY SDMX72B 17" TFT LCD Monitor 1,3 MegaPixel (1280 x 1024) Aufl

"Barry" wrote in message

Another reason to get the F520 is that 1280×1024 is not a proper resolution for graphics editing — it does not conform to the standard 4:3 aspect ratio. Circles will appear as ellipses, squares as rectangles etc. With a CRT you’re free to run at any resolution, not one "native" resolution as with an LCD.

I don’t think you’ll find that’s quite correct. I agree if you have a 4:3 CRT and use 1280×1024 it would be the wrong resolution and circles would appear as ellipses but an LCD monitor with a native resolution of 1280×1024 would actually have a screen with a 5:4 ratio not 4:3 and circles would appear as circles.

Obviously one can draw circles and squares on any monitor. The problem is when you take an image created at one aspect ratio and view it on another monitor with a different aspect ratio. All common monitor resolutions conform to the standard 4:3 ratio except 1280×1024.

Rick

The newer LCD’s are getting better, so make sure you’re looking at one with the deeper contrast and higher refresh rate (I think it’s called). You’ll put up with less tracing effects and you’ll be able to tell the difference between #FFFFFF and #EEEEEE — which you can’t on the *earlier* LCD technology, even at 24bit color. Showing my web site on my boss’s computer with his LCD was a real pain — trying to explain to him his $1000 LCD wasn’t displaying correctly. But the new ones are better supposedly!

21" is huge, so just hope you never have to carry that thing.

-Max

"Max" wrote in message

The newer LCD’s are getting better, so make sure you’re looking at one with the deeper contrast and higher refresh rate (I think it’s called). You’ll put up with less tracing effects and you’ll be able to tell the difference between #FFFFFF and #EEEEEE — which you can’t on the *earlier* LCD technology, even at 24bit color. Showing my web site on my boss’s computer with his LCD was a real pain — trying to explain to him his $1000 LCD wasn’t displaying correctly. But the new ones are better supposedly!

Yes they are, but "better" and "equal to a CRT for the same cost" are two entirely different things. One often sees flame wars over in rec.photo.digital about color casts and poor color response with different digital cameras, and the argument usually breaks down into two groups — those who have CRTs and can see the casts and poor response, and those who have LCDs and
cannot see these problems.

Rick

"Rick" writes:

"Stephen H. Westin" <westin*> wrote in message

"Rick" writes:

The LCD will have a contrast ratio roughly half that of the F520.

On what measurements do you base this statement?

Sony’s SDM-X72 has a contrast ratio of 400:1. The F520’s contrast ratio exceeds 750:1, which is typical of higher-end CRTs. A Mitsubishi or LaCie with a Diamondtron CRT has
an even higher ratio which exceeds 800:1.

So you’re relying on manufacturers’ quotes of contrast range. I just measured my Sony GDM-F500R at 392:1. An Apple 20" Cinema Display measured out at only about 23:1. I’m disappointed in the LCD; this deserves further checking. But I don’t think any display in the real world approaches 1000:1, with the exception of some (expensive) special-purpose displays.

Here’s my methodology. I went into Photoshop and created a 1600×900 image, with the left half white (255, 255, 255) and the right half black (0,0,0). I then took a Tektronix photometer and measured the brightness of each side. The values I got, in microwatts per square centimeter, were:

CRT LCD
Bright 66.3 88.2
Dark 0.169 3.77

The two displays are, unfortunately, in separate rooms, with more background light in the room with the CRT.

One thing is certain: the CRT contrast drops drastically with resolution.

If color gamut is even slightly important (which it is for almost all graphics work) then go for the CRT.

I don’t think that’s true. The best LCD’s are at least competitive with the best CRT’s for color gamut, and are better for resolution, uniformity, and stability.

LCDs are getting certainly getting closer, however they aren’t there yet in terms of practicality. Some LCDs exceed 1000:1 contrast ratio but most of these are monochrome and/or
horribly expensive ($4k and up).

As for this particular case, I don’t know how good the Sony LCD is, and the sacrifice in pixel count and screen size makes the choice a hard one.

Between these two monitors the choice is a no-brainer. The fact that the F520 costs three times as much indicates the difference in display quality.

No, it doesn’t. Any more than price of a car is an indicator of speed, for instance.

—
-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.

21" CRT. No question.

Matt (who’s just about to buy another CRT)
—
Banging your head against a wall uses 150 calories an hour.

"portroe" wrote in message

Dear all,

if you had the choice of the following two monitors for graphical work, which would you choose?

SONY SDMX72B 17" TFT LCD Monitor 1,3 MegaPixel (1280 x 1024) Aufl

"Stephen H. Westin" <westin*> wrote in message

"Rick" writes:

"Stephen H. Westin" <westin*> wrote in message

"Rick" writes:

The LCD will have a contrast ratio roughly half that of the F520.

On what measurements do you base this statement?

Sony’s SDM-X72 has a contrast ratio of 400:1. The F520’s contrast ratio exceeds 750:1, which is typical of higher-end CRTs. A Mitsubishi or LaCie with a Diamondtron CRT has
an even higher ratio which exceeds 800:1.

So you’re relying on manufacturers’ quotes of contrast range. I just measured my Sony GDM-F500R at 392:1. An Apple 20" Cinema Display measured out at only about 23:1. I’m disappointed in the LCD; this deserves further checking. But I don’t think any display in the real world approaches 1000:1, with the exception of some (expensive) special-purpose displays.

True. Most monitor specs are best-case scenario.

Here’s my methodology. I went into Photoshop and created a 1600×900 image, with the left half white (255, 255, 255) and the right half black (0,0,0). I then took a Tektronix photometer and measured the brightness of each side. The values I got, in microwatts per square centimeter, were:

CRT LCD
Bright 66.3 88.2
Dark 0.169 3.77

Your LCD Dark result is the most relevant for this discussion, and the reason why working on images with lots of near-blacks on an LCD, even a higher-end LCD like your Apple Cinema
Display is usually an exercise in futility.

Rick

21" CRT
========================

"portroe" wrote in message

Dear all,

if you had the choice of the following two

monitors for graphical work,

which would you choose?

SONY SDMX72B 17" TFT LCD Monitor 1,3 MegaPixel

(1280 x 1024) Aufl

"Rick" writes:

"Stephen H. Westin" <westin*> wrote in message

"Rick" writes:

"Stephen H. Westin" <westin*> wrote in message

"Rick" writes:

The LCD will have a contrast ratio roughly half that of the F520.

On what measurements do you base this statement?

Sony’s SDM-X72 has a contrast ratio of 400:1. The F520’s contrast ratio exceeds 750:1, which is typical of higher-end CRTs. A Mitsubishi or LaCie with a Diamondtron CRT has
an even higher ratio which exceeds 800:1.

So you’re relying on manufacturers’ quotes of contrast range. I just measured my Sony GDM-F500R at 392:1. An Apple 20" Cinema Display measured out at only about 23:1. I’m disappointed in the LCD; this deserves further checking. But I don’t think any display in the real world approaches 1000:1, with the exception of some (expensive) special-purpose displays.

True. Most monitor specs are best-case scenario.

Actually, I have no idea what most monitor specs mean, because they don’t give any information on methodology.

Here’s my methodology. I went into Photoshop and created a 1600×900 image, with the left half white (255, 255, 255) and the right half black (0,0,0). I then took a Tektronix photometer and measured the brightness of each side. The values I got, in microwatts per square centimeter, were:

CRT LCD
Bright 66.3 88.2
Dark 0.169 3.77

Your LCD Dark result is the most relevant for this discussion, and the reason why working on images with lots of near-blacks on an LCD, even a higher-end LCD like your Apple Cinema
Display is usually an exercise in futility.

Except that it disagrees with other measurements that are available (e.g. from RIT), so I suspect I did something wrong.

—
-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.

That only matters if the pixels are at a different aspect not if the number of them are. Going from rectangular pixels to square or vice versa will make things appear squashed, but since all computer use square pixels, regardless of screen resolution, circles will be circles and squares will be squares.

Televisions are 4:3, yet if you take a raw television image into a computer, you will get distortion, as televisions use rectangular pixels.

"Rick" wrote in message

"Barry" wrote in message

Another reason to get the F520 is that 1280×1024 is not a proper resolution for graphics editing — it does not conform to the standard 4:3 aspect ratio. Circles will appear as ellipses, squares as rectangles etc. With a CRT you’re free to run at any resolution, not one "native" resolution as with an LCD.

I don’t think you’ll find that’s quite correct. I agree if you have a

4:3

CRT and use 1280×1024 it would be the wrong resolution and circles would appear as ellipses but an LCD monitor with a native resolution of

1280×1024

would actually have a screen with a 5:4 ratio not 4:3 and circles would appear as circles.

Obviously one can draw circles and squares on any monitor. The problem is when you take an image created at one aspect ratio and view it on another monitor with a different aspect ratio. All common monitor resolutions conform to the standard 4:3 ratio except 1280×1024.

Rick

Baeowulf wrote:

That only matters if the pixels are at a different aspect not if the number of them are. Going from rectangular pixels to square or vice versa will make things appear squashed, but since all computer use square pixels, regardless of screen resolution, circles will be circles and squares will be squares.

Televisions are 4:3, yet if you take a raw television image into a computer, you will get distortion, as televisions use rectangular pixels.

I’ve never understood why so few graphics programs offer display aspect correction, and why so many users just put up with distorted representations. AutoCAD had aspect ratio correction you could fine-tune to a pixel-width almost 20 years ago… on a freakin’ Hercules card.

—

| James Gifford * FIX SPAMTRAP TO REPLY |
| So… your philosophy fits in a sig, does it? |
| Heinlein stuff at: www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah |

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:36:34 +0100, portroe
wrote:

Dear all,

if you had the choice of the following two monitors for graphical work, which would you choose?

SONY SDMX72B 17" TFT LCD Monitor 1,3 MegaPixel (1280 x 1024) Auflösung

Sony GDMF520 Professioneller 21"-Monitor, optimale Auflösung 2048×1536 bei 86 Hz

I have both offered for the same price, but am unsure which makes more sense,

On that choice, the CRT. More real estate and better colour repro. If colour accuracy doesn’t matter you may want to consider the TFT if space is a premium.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, relinqui

All you should need to do is stretch the image one way or the other to fix it. And for video and stuff, the editing programmes usually compensate for the distortion so it looks right on your computer and on your tv.

If you’re just doing stuff on a computer however, there shouldn’t be any need for correction as it’s all square.

Also, 20 years ago they didn’t have the high resolution monitors and the standards we do now…most "monitors" were actual TVs just with inputs designed to be connected to a computer.

"James Gifford" wrote in message

Baeowulf wrote:

That only matters if the pixels are at a different aspect not if the

number

of them are. Going from rectangular pixels to square or vice versa will make things appear squashed, but since all computer use square pixels, regardless of screen resolution, circles will be circles and squares

will be

squares.

Televisions are 4:3, yet if you take a raw television image into a

computer,

you will get distortion, as televisions use rectangular pixels.

I’ve never understood why so few graphics programs offer display aspect correction, and why so many users just put up with distorted representations. AutoCAD had aspect ratio correction you could fine-tune to a pixel-width almost 20 years ago… on a freakin’ Hercules card.
—

| James Gifford * FIX SPAMTRAP TO REPLY |
| So… your philosophy fits in a sig, does it? |
| Heinlein stuff at: www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah |

Neither, I’d go (which I have) with the Dell 20" Digital Flat Panel. I use it for Photoshop to Solidworks (3d CAD)
to Animation Master to text. Very pleased with it, and with the 4 inputs, it really is a space saver. It emptied my desktop
of the old CRT that had a huge footprint on the desk. Worth the $$$.

Jim
"portroe" wrote in message

Dear all,

if you had the choice of the following two monitors for graphical work, which would you choose?

SONY SDMX72B 17" TFT LCD Monitor 1,3 MegaPixel (1280 x 1024) Aufl

"Hecate" wrote in message

SONY SDMX72B 17" TFT LCD Monitor 1,3 MegaPixel (1280 x 1024) Aufl

As a rule I refuse to buy anything Sony, due to signifant quality control issues in recent years. That having been said, if your work involved critical color then a quality CRT is still your best choice. LCDs will eventually work in this role, but not yet.

Brian

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:48:37 -0500, "Tina – AffordableHOST.com" wrote:

I absolutely love my 21" crt – wouldn’t trade it for a 17" flat…regardless of the minor color issue.

The colour issue is only minor if you don’t have a need for professional printing and CMYK.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, relinqui

What about 20" Apple Cinema Display? The colours are pretty good and crisp. It can connect to pc directly if you have the video card with the DVI adapter.

"D.B. Cooper" <mnospam%%no.com> wrote in message

Neither, I’d go (which I have) with the Dell 20" Digital Flat Panel. I use it for Photoshop to Solidworks (3d CAD)
to Animation Master to text. Very pleased with it, and with the 4 inputs,

it

really is a space saver. It emptied my desktop
of the old CRT that had a huge footprint on the desk. Worth the $$$.

Jim
"portroe" wrote in message

Dear all,

if you had the choice of the following two monitors for graphical work, which would you choose?

SONY SDMX72B 17" TFT LCD Monitor 1,3 MegaPixel (1280 x 1024) Aufl

The only problem I see with flat panel displays is that they aren’t as "color correct" as a regular monitor and you get color distortions when you look at the screen from oblique angles. Just something to consider…

Kind Regards,
Nathaniel
—
flikWORLD Design
reply to: nat at flikworld(dot)com

in article , ukiharappa at
wrote on 12/12/03 8:41 AM:

What about 20" Apple Cinema Display? The colours are pretty good and crisp. It can connect to pc directly if you have the video card with the DVI adapter.

"D.B. Cooper" <mnospam%%no.com> wrote in message

Neither, I’d go (which I have) with the Dell 20" Digital Flat Panel. I use it for Photoshop to Solidworks (3d CAD)
to Animation Master to text. Very pleased with it, and with the 4 inputs,

it

really is a space saver. It emptied my desktop
of the old CRT that had a huge footprint on the desk. Worth the $$$.

Jim
"portroe" wrote in message

Dear all,

if you had the choice of the following two monitors for graphical work, which would you choose?

SONY SDMX72B 17" TFT LCD Monitor 1,3 MegaPixel (1280 x 1024) Auflösung

Sony GDMF520 Professioneller 21"-Monitor, optimale Auflösung 2048×1536 bei 86 Hz

I have both offered for the same price, but am unsure which makes more sense,

thanks

Portroe

If monitors really shot out Gamma rays they wouldn’t be sold because we’d all die of radiation poisoning after using them for a while.

The most a monitor shoots out is Visible light of course, some infrared, and some radio waves. Plus a little bit of standard electromagnetic radiation which is perfectly fine. And even with LCD monitors you get the same things coming out of them, though the amounts are greatly reduced.

The only thing monitors have been proven to harm are the eyes, and that’s only eyestrain and stuff.

"Al Lorio Design" wrote in message

"portroe" wrote in message

Dear all,

if you had the choice of the following two monitors for graphical work, which would you choose?

SONY SDMX72B 17" …..or….> Sony GDMF520 Professioneller 21…..etc.

It’s nice to have that extra screen space, but I’d take a flat panel any

day

if it was good enough.

If it’s color accurate & you can adjust your aspect ratio for circles &

what

not.
That screen real-estate is nice, but if your sitting 10" away from that

big

beast with gamma rays shooting at you all day… I mean, that can’t be

good

for your long term health right?

G

How about the Dot pitch difference between the CRT’s and LCD’s. Also viewing angle?

"BF" wrote in message

21" CRT
========================

"portroe" wrote in message

Dear all,

if you had the choice of the following two

monitors for graphical work,

which would you choose?

SONY SDMX72B 17" TFT LCD Monitor 1,3 MegaPixel

(1280 x 1024) Aufl