On Saturday 18 March 2006 16:44, Gracia M. Littauer wrote:

which is preferred for graphics? I've heard that lcd is not good.

Even among crt monitors there are different levels of capability. I bought used on ebay a Sony CPD-G520 which has color temperature settings etc. New this class of monitor costs over $1,000 each. In general with crts you get what you are willing to pay for.

Gracia M. Littauer wrote:

which is preferred for graphics? I've heard that lcd is not good.

In the past, CRT monitors were considered better because the displayed gamut was wider, the color consistency (same color in different areas) was better and greater resolutions were offered when compared to LCDs. From what I see, Apple is no longer offering CRT monitors, Viewsonic has abandoned its CRT Professional series. Does this mean LCD monitors are on par with CRTs ? LCDs are now a lot better than before, but since I am not a professional user and I still use my CRT, I'd say as long as you can have calibrated colors and controlled results through the whole process (scan or photo shoot, image treatment, print) both should be ok. I checked high-end LCD and low quality CRT and the LCD was a clear winner on comfort even if refreshing rate of the CRT was over 75 Hz.

BTW, are there any user of large recent Viewsonic LCD and CRT monitors ? I would also like to know your opinion.

Gilles Maltais

Gilles Maltais writes:

In the past, CRT monitors were considered better because the displayed gamut was wider, the color consistency (same color in different areas) was better and greater resolutions were offered when compared to LCDs.

For basic low-end displays (the ones you see on display in your local computer store), all those differences are still true. But you can get better resolution and better color in an LCD monitor if you pay for it.

...Akkana

Hi,
gracia@yadtel.net (2006-03-18 at 1644.03 -0500):

which is preferred for graphics? I've heard that lcd is not good.

High end CRTs (probably the only ones you can find now, and in 19-22 inches sizes, price 400-600 euros) have years of development behind them, so if you do not mind the weight and power usage, they are a good solution, and probably cheaper than equivalent LCDs. They have good resolution for the size (and can work at different resolutions without problems), colour is good, just make them run in 85-100Hz.

LCDs keep improving, but they are still are evolving and catching up (you will probably find news about "now with x% of NTSC color" or "lots and lots of money for the medical series", for example), so do not expect to get some cheap LCD and be as good as the CRTs still in production (or stock, dunno if they are just running on big stock). Even the expensive ones still have issues compared to CRTs, and vendors just change the measure method to "show" they are better, so take things with a grain of salt.

You better view them working, with videos and all kind of images (of your own, preferably) before buying. Of course, if you want a 30", you have to go with LCD.

GSR

Hi!

I not tested today's best LCD monitors... but while there are differences in colors while you move your head before an LCD monitor, the CRT monitor is better for professional use!

Anti

On Sun, 2006-03-19 at 09:41 -0800, Akkana Peck wrote:

Gilles Maltais writes:

In the past, CRT monitors were considered better because the displayed gamut was wider, the color consistency (same color in different areas) was better and greater resolutions were offered when compared to LCDs.

For basic low-end displays (the ones you see on display in your local computer store), all those differences are still true. But you can get better resolution and better color in an LCD monitor if you pay for it.

...Akkana

On 3/18/06, Gracia M. Littauer wrote:

which is preferred for graphics? I've heard that lcd is not good.

The Shootsmarter site has a decent article on comparing CRTs to LCDs.

http://www.shootsmarter.com/infocenter/wc041.html