Monitor for Photoshop??

Rick wrote:

"Uni" wrote in message

Supchaka wrote:

I have $350 princeton lcd. I also have 20/20 vision. I scan a photo on my HP scanner, and by golly it looks the same on my screen, I do my PS work and save it for Walmart print and those images come back looking just as they did on screen. Call me a happy simple feller.

That’s why CRTs are being phased out. Old technology never lasts.

The primary reason why LCDs are being pushed so hard,
often to unwilling markets (such as graphics professionals), is because manufacturers’ profit margins on LCDs are
several times what they are on CRTs. And if you have
any doubts about that, read the product plans for any
major monitor manufacturer. CRTs will still be sold, but as a niche product to the graphics industry and others
who need their better capabilities. You’ll still be able to get them, but be prepared to pay more for the quality.

By the time you pay more for CRT’s, the quality of LCD’s will well exceed that of CRTs. You don’t make money by mass producing two similar products. You concentrate on the one which you know will sell best. I see way more people, even office secretaries, using LCD technology, these days.

Uni

Rick

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 17:10:33 -0500, in article
wrote:

[…]

The primary reason why LCDs are being pushed so hard,
often to unwilling markets (such as graphics professionals), is because manufacturers’ profit margins on LCDs are
several times what they are on CRTs. And if you have
any doubts about that, read the product plans for any
major monitor manufacturer. CRTs will still be sold, but as a niche product to the graphics industry and others
who need their better capabilities. You’ll still be able to get them, but be prepared to pay more for the quality.

I’m not so sure the profit margins are that much greater. In fact, in the early days of LCD manufacturing, the "throw-away" rate of the panels was in the high 30 percentile range (they tossed nearly 4 of every 10 panels produced). This is an *enormous* throw-away rate for any manufacturing process of course, and contributed greatly to keeping early laptop prices sky high. The rate has declined significantly today of course, but the manufacturing process is still so technically demanding that we are forced to accept the odd stuck pixel on LCD displays — if the standard was absolute zero, the prices would be much higher.

By the time you pay more for CRT’s, the quality of LCD’s will well exceed that of CRTs. You don’t make money by mass producing two similar products. You concentrate on the one which you know will sell best. I see way more people, even office secretaries, using LCD technology, these days.

I just bought a Samsung 193P last night — my first desktop LCD. Quite a trade off over CRT, but in the end what it does well, it does so much better (for my eyes anyway) that I can ignore what it doesn’t do so well (give splendid imagery at non-native resolutions and respond like a CRT).

Yuki

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 17:10:33 -0500, in article
wrote:

[…]

The primary reason why LCDs are being pushed so hard,
often to unwilling markets (such as graphics professionals), is because manufacturers’ profit margins on LCDs are
several times what they are on CRTs. And if you have
any doubts about that, read the product plans for any
major monitor manufacturer. CRTs will still be sold, but as a niche product to the graphics industry and others
who need their better capabilities. You’ll still be able to get them, but be prepared to pay more for the quality.

I’m not so sure the profit margins are that much greater. In fact, in the early days of LCD manufacturing, the "throw-away" rate of the panels was in the high 30 percentile range (they tossed nearly 4 of every 10 panels produced). This is an *enormous* throw-away rate for any manufacturing process of course, and contributed greatly to keeping early laptop prices sky high. The rate has declined significantly today of course, but the manufacturing process is still so technically demanding that we are forced to accept the odd stuck pixel on LCD displays — if the standard was absolute zero, the prices would be much higher.

By the time you pay more for CRT’s, the quality of LCD’s will well exceed that of CRTs. You don’t make money by mass producing two similar products. You concentrate on the one which you know will sell best. I see way more people, even office secretaries, using LCD technology, these days.

I just bought a Samsung 193P last night — my first desktop LCD. Quite a trade off over CRT, but in the end what it does well, it does so much better (for my eyes anyway) that I can ignore what it doesn’t do so well (give splendid imagery at non-native resolutions and respond like a CRT).

Yuki

Shishimai wrote:

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 17:10:33 -0500, in article
wrote:

[…]

The primary reason why LCDs are being pushed so hard,
often to unwilling markets (such as graphics professionals), is because manufacturers’ profit margins on LCDs are
several times what they are on CRTs. And if you have
any doubts about that, read the product plans for any
major monitor manufacturer. CRTs will still be sold, but as a niche product to the graphics industry and others
who need their better capabilities. You’ll still be able to get them, but be prepared to pay more for the quality.

I’m not so sure the profit margins are that much greater. In fact, in the early days of LCD manufacturing, the "throw-away" rate of the panels was in the high 30 percentile range (they tossed nearly 4 of every 10 panels produced). This is an *enormous* throw-away rate for any manufacturing process of course, and contributed greatly to keeping early laptop prices sky high. The rate has declined significantly today of course, but the manufacturing process is still so technically demanding that we are forced to accept the odd stuck pixel on LCD displays — if the standard was absolute zero, the prices would be much higher.

The "throw away" rate is typical of most electronic devices. It’s best to get the electronics product on the market, ASAP, then refine the process. Most CRT problems are related to High Voltage. That problem is history with LCDs. Also, alignment is almost nonexistent with LCDs, unlike CRTs, which demands a lot of (and continued) attention.

By the time you pay more for CRT’s, the quality of LCD’s will well exceed that of CRTs. You don’t make money by mass producing two similar products. You concentrate on the one which you know will sell best. I see way more people, even office secretaries, using LCD technology, these days.

I just bought a Samsung 193P last night — my first desktop LCD. Quite a trade off over CRT, but in the end what it does well, it does so much better (for my eyes anyway) that I can ignore what it doesn’t do so well (give splendid imagery at non-native resolutions and respond like a CRT).

At least you’re no longer burdened with bands of mechanical stabilizing wires obliterating your view, as used in aperture grille CRTs 🙂

Uni

Yuki

Shishimai wrote:

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 17:10:33 -0500, in article
wrote:

[…]

The primary reason why LCDs are being pushed so hard,
often to unwilling markets (such as graphics professionals), is because manufacturers’ profit margins on LCDs are
several times what they are on CRTs. And if you have
any doubts about that, read the product plans for any
major monitor manufacturer. CRTs will still be sold, but as a niche product to the graphics industry and others
who need their better capabilities. You’ll still be able to get them, but be prepared to pay more for the quality.

I’m not so sure the profit margins are that much greater. In fact, in the early days of LCD manufacturing, the "throw-away" rate of the panels was in the high 30 percentile range (they tossed nearly 4 of every 10 panels produced). This is an *enormous* throw-away rate for any manufacturing process of course, and contributed greatly to keeping early laptop prices sky high. The rate has declined significantly today of course, but the manufacturing process is still so technically demanding that we are forced to accept the odd stuck pixel on LCD displays — if the standard was absolute zero, the prices would be much higher.

The "throw away" rate is typical of most electronic devices. It’s best to get the electronics product on the market, ASAP, then refine the process. Most CRT problems are related to High Voltage. That problem is history with LCDs. Also, alignment is almost nonexistent with LCDs, unlike CRTs, which demands a lot of (and continued) attention.

By the time you pay more for CRT’s, the quality of LCD’s will well exceed that of CRTs. You don’t make money by mass producing two similar products. You concentrate on the one which you know will sell best. I see way more people, even office secretaries, using LCD technology, these days.

I just bought a Samsung 193P last night — my first desktop LCD. Quite a trade off over CRT, but in the end what it does well, it does so much better (for my eyes anyway) that I can ignore what it doesn’t do so well (give splendid imagery at non-native resolutions and respond like a CRT).

At least you’re no longer burdened with bands of mechanical stabilizing wires obliterating your view, as used in aperture grille CRTs 🙂

Uni

Yuki

On 24 Mar 2004 17:05:16 -0500, westin*
(Stephen H. Westin) wrote:

"Ron Reaugh" writes:

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

Zimphire writes:

If you are doing color work that must be accurate I would hold off on LCDs. They aren’t there yet.

How do you know this? I ask because the best color scientist I know says otherwise: that the best LCD’s are better than the best CRT’s.

So 19-21" LCDs in this category would include which models?

I understand the Apple Cinema Displays are good; they have 20" and 23" models, starting >$US1000. I don’t know about other manufacturers; I suspect there are some other good ones. And yes, I know that’s expensive, and there are much cheaper CRT’s that are quite good. I pointed that out in another article.
Are you saying that you have seen bad LCD’s, and no good ones, and you base your judgement on that? I actually would like to know… -Stephen H. Westin

Articles related to this subject and a thread from photo.net. Mostly from the perspective of professional users.

http://www.shootsmarter.com/infocenter/wc006h.html
Will RAVES about…LaCie Monitors
By: Will Crockett

http://www.shootsmarter.com/infocenter/wc026a.htm
Monitor Profiling Kit Comparison and Ratings
by Will Crockett, 1/04

http://www.digital-photography.org/Viewsonic_computer_monito rs_LCD/ViewSonic_computer_monitor.htm Not all monitors are the same

http://www.digital-photography.org/digital_studio_equipment/ Viewsonic_Panasonic_Nokia.html ViewSonic monitors

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007YSK Are CRT Monitors Still King For Imaging?

There are many threads about this question on photo.net. I made no close study of the recommendations for or against but my informal take is that CRTs currently edge out LCDs for critical color rendition requirements.

These products might also be of some help in evaluating monitors of whatever type.

http://www.chromix.com/ColorGear/Shop/ProductList.cxsa?refco de=cmeye&-session=tx:B16C96E518E9E92974F831F03415E4F5
Farnsworth-Munsell 100 Hue Color Test
Farnsworth-Munsell Dichotomous D-15 Color Test

rusty

On 24 Mar 2004 17:05:16 -0500, westin*
(Stephen H. Westin) wrote:

"Ron Reaugh" writes:

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

Zimphire writes:

If you are doing color work that must be accurate I would hold off on LCDs. They aren’t there yet.

How do you know this? I ask because the best color scientist I know says otherwise: that the best LCD’s are better than the best CRT’s.

So 19-21" LCDs in this category would include which models?

I understand the Apple Cinema Displays are good; they have 20" and 23" models, starting >$US1000. I don’t know about other manufacturers; I suspect there are some other good ones. And yes, I know that’s expensive, and there are much cheaper CRT’s that are quite good. I pointed that out in another article.
Are you saying that you have seen bad LCD’s, and no good ones, and you base your judgement on that? I actually would like to know… -Stephen H. Westin

Articles related to this subject and a thread from photo.net. Mostly from the perspective of professional users.

http://www.shootsmarter.com/infocenter/wc006h.html
Will RAVES about…LaCie Monitors
By: Will Crockett

http://www.shootsmarter.com/infocenter/wc026a.htm
Monitor Profiling Kit Comparison and Ratings
by Will Crockett, 1/04

http://www.digital-photography.org/Viewsonic_computer_monito rs_LCD/ViewSonic_computer_monitor.htm Not all monitors are the same

http://www.digital-photography.org/digital_studio_equipment/ Viewsonic_Panasonic_Nokia.html ViewSonic monitors

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007YSK Are CRT Monitors Still King For Imaging?

There are many threads about this question on photo.net. I made no close study of the recommendations for or against but my informal take is that CRTs currently edge out LCDs for critical color rendition requirements.

These products might also be of some help in evaluating monitors of whatever type.

http://www.chromix.com/ColorGear/Shop/ProductList.cxsa?refco de=cmeye&-session=tx:B16C96E518E9E92974F831F03415E4F5
Farnsworth-Munsell 100 Hue Color Test
Farnsworth-Munsell Dichotomous D-15 Color Test

rusty