rec.photo.digital News Archive
Re: Need New Monitor - LCD vs CRT Opinions???

From: Frank ess (frank_at_email.domain.hidden)
Date: Sat Mar 13 2004 - 15:34:25 EST


Rick wrote:
> "Andy Hewitt" <hairy.biker_at_spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:1galouf.1qyy40j13ogg4jN%hairy.biker_at_spamcop.net...
>> John Navas <spamfilter0_at_navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 03:47:08 GMT, "Fred A. Miller"
>>> <fmiller_at_twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> CRTs are still better than LCDs for serious image editing.
>>>>
>>>> Take a good look at the latest NEC models.
>>>
>>> I have, and stand by what I wrote.
>>
>> I agree that CRT is better for true image reproduction, but unless
>> you
>> can calibrate the monitor properly using expensive calibration
>> equipment, it isn't going to give you any advantages.
>
> That's not true at all. Calibration means nothing if the monitor
> itself has limited color gamut, and a typical $700 midrange
> CRT will provide a much wider gamut than a typical $2000
> LCD (in addition to being far more flexible with regard to
> resolution).
>
>> I have just got a Formac 17" Gallery with my new G5, and have to say
>> that photos absolutely come to life on it. I am not dissapointed,
>> and so
>> far cannot see any dead pixels at all.
>
> While dead pixels are a problem with LCDs, the major issue
> is color gamut. Try editing an image with lots of near-blacks
> on your Formac, and then try it on a CRT.
>
> Rick

Does anyone have handy a couple of typical "gamut" figures for comparison?

For instance, I haven't been able to find any number in the descriptions of
my years-old Sony 420GS that would allow comparison with current LCD
monitors, gamut-wise.

The highest LCD figure I have seen is "700". Seven hundred what? What is the
similar descriptor for a mid-high level CRT?

Are manufacturers figures suspect, as in Home Entertainment Watts Of Power?

Shopping this stuff is still a mine field, isn't it?

Frank ess