7 Jun
2007
7 Jun
'07
2:56 p.m.
Hi,
Well, I don't know whether they're
"plasma/LCD" or not, but I
find I get dramatically better picture quality out of flat-screens
as compared to CRTs.
Well, the last two CRTs I bought are flat-screen so I'm not sure exactly
what you're getting at.
The biggest problems with LCD panels are colour registration, black
level/contrast and response time. Even with top of the range panels, their
comparatively slow response time leads to very noticable blurring when
things move around on the screen - and I'm not talking about games here, I
find this blurring totally unacceptable even when scrolling text windows,
etc.
And the colour/contrast/black level problems are a total show stopper when
I'm dealing with video....
I don't know whether this just means every CRT
I've used has been crap,
or perhaps I *am* "profoundly blind", but even if so, in my experience
the comparison stands.
I wouldn't have thought so, IME even the cheapest/crappest CRT is head and
shoulders above even the most expensive LCD panel. It all depends what your
expectations are....
TTFN - Pete.
8 Jun
8 Jun
12:03 a.m.
Well, I
don't know whether they're "plasma/LCD" or not, but I find I
get dramatically better picture quality out of flat-screens as
compared to CRTs.
Well, the last two CRTs I bought are flat-screen so I'm not
sure
exactly what you're getting at. The biggest problems with LCD panels are colour
registration, black
level/contrast and response time.
I don't know what kind of flat-panel technology I'm talking about. But
I not so very long ago paid about $200 for a brand-new 1280x1024 flat
panel that is substantially better, to my eye, than any CRT I would
expect to get for a comparable amount of money. Possibly it's not LCD;
I don't know. (It's an Acer AL1716B. I've also used a Dell
something-or-other at work, and find it comparable.)
In my experience, flat panels are roughly on a par with CRTs for colour
registration. (I'm perfectly willing to believe this means the CRTs
I've used need adjustment, but it's still true.)
Black level is mildly annoying, but only very mildly - and I'm totally
willing to put up with it for the sake of crisp pixel edges and no
fading of thin vertical lines (each of which has been a near-universal
problems with CRTs in my experience).
Response time is not really an issue for me. They've got it down under
10ms, and with a vertical retrace rate of 76Hz (I just checked, that's
what I'm using), there's no point worrying about differences under
about 13ms (1000ms/76).
Even with top of the range panels, their comparatively
slow response
time leads to very noticable blurring when things move around on the
screen - and I'm not talking about games here, I find this blurring
totally unacceptable even when scrolling text windows, etc.
I find it no worse than the blurring from phosphor persistence on CRTs.
(For relatively recent panels, that is, such as the ones I bought.
I've got a couple of old machines with built-in flat-panel displays
with substantially worse persistence issues.)
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
6:47 a.m.
In my experience, flat panels are roughly on a par
with CRTs for colour
registration. (I'm perfectly willing to believe this means the CRTs
I've used need adjustment, but it's still true.)
They need adjustment :)
For colour proofing, especially video and photography, people still rely on
CRTs (I know I do). It's not so much the *hue* that's the issue, but greys and
gamma. You yourself even notice it:
Black level is mildly annoying, but only very mildly -
and I'm totally
willing to put up with it for the sake of crisp pixel edges and no
fading of thin vertical lines (each of which has been a near-universal
problems with CRTs in my experience).
CRTs are non-linear on the low end of the gamma curve, yielding darker
and more even blacks/dark greys, while LCDs use a linear gamma that has a lot
of artifacting in the low end. In addition, LCDs' grey contours tend to be
compressed, yielding sharper, less-attractive gradations (which is why
operating systems like OS X have different settings for antialiasing
depending on if you are using an LCD or a CRT).
Even though LCDs actually have better colour -- believe it or not, most
LCD elements of reasonable quality do indeed have similar or better colour
saturation than reasonable quality CRT phosphors -- their inability to
properly render smooth tones, made worse by the uneven display illumination
even in many medium-quality panels, makes it very hard to do professional
image work with them because the lightness and noisiness of the image is so
difficult to assess accurately. When I want to determine how an image
"actually looks," I will take it to my 19" CRT -- and I use Apple LCDs,
which
are not cheap displays.
But, LCDs are getting better. I think LED displays will be better yet.
Some links with food for thought:
http://www.macworld.com/2001/06/features/color/index.php
http://www.displaymate.com/ShootOut_Comparison.htm
http://broadcastengineering.com/newsrooms/broadcasting_gamma_correction/
--
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com
-- Roger Waters to moving crew: "Hey! Careful with those racks, Eugene!" ------
9 Jun
9 Jun
5:36 a.m.
For colour proofing, especially video and photography,
people still
rely on CRTs (I know I do).
No surprise there. I wouldn't maintain flat-panels are better in *all*
respects!
But for people who don't need that kind of detailed colour fidelity
(which includes me and most people at $DAYJOB, for example), that issue
slides down the priority list, often well below other things.
CRTs are non-linear on the low end of the gamma curve,
yielding
darker and more even blacks/dark greys, while LCDs use a linear gamma
that has a lot of artifacting in the low end.
Artifacting? I just tried a grey wash (black at one end to white at
the other) and the only things I see that could be called artifacts
are, I think, actually Mach bands. (I don't have a good light meter
available to actually measure the emitted light.)
In addition, LCDs' grey contours tend to be
compressed, yielding
sharper, less-attractive gradations (which is why operating systems
like OS X have different settings for antialiasing depending on if
you are using an LCD or a CRT).
You'll need that just because of the different gamma curve. (Unless
the antialiasing code inverts the gamma before and after operation,
you'll need different antialiasing for different gamma curves.)
When I want to determine how an image "actually
looks," I will take
it to my 19" CRT -- and I use Apple LCDs, which are not cheap
displays.
Surely you should be using whatever the image's target will be using,
since that will give you the most accurate impression of what your end
consumers will be seeing?
But, LCDs are getting better. I think LED displays
will be better
yet.
True. CRT displays are a relatively mature technology at the moment;
flat panels are relatively new. (Not that that invalidates current
comparisons; it just means they're likely to change soon.)
6407
days inactive
6409
days old
3 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
classiccmp＠memory-alpha.org.uk -
mouse＠Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA -
spectre＠floodgap.com