PDA

View Full Version : Samsung "18 for OSX and Lightwave?



Ade
02-20-2003, 02:02 AM
reviewed (http://www.monkeyreview.com/reviews/review.php?num=208)


Im thinking of a new setup, using a "20CRT at work hurts my eyes, and coming home on a "17 crt doesnt no good either.
Size wise how does a "18 LCD compare to a "20 crt?
Anyone have this monitor?
Is it wall mountable?
What does apples "20 have ove rthis monitor quality of picture and ease of connection wise?

ArneK
02-20-2003, 05:03 AM
I purchased a 23" Apple Cinema LCD a few weeks ago, after the massive price drop - and I'm really glad I did.

I previously had two 19" CRT's, and when working really long hours (which I normally do every day) my eyes were sore, red and hurt.

I really notice a difference after using the LCD now for a few weeks. The steady flicker-free picture is very gentle to my eyes. I kept one of the CRT's for use on another Mac color calibrated for pre-press work, and though I never noticed before - the CRT picture now seems very disturbing and tiresome to look at in comparison. My 23" LCD has been calibrated for PAL color space using the Pantone Spyder, and is dead-on correct compared to my broadcast monitor standing beside it.

Dunno anything about the Samsung you are thinking about, but I know for sure that my next monitor will also be an LCD. I figure that an 18" LCD would be about the same as a 20" CRT in screen size - but it also depends on how high the resolution is on the LCD. My massive 23" has an awesome 1920x1200 pixels and it feels like having two screens welded into one...

LCD? Go for it!

Ade
02-20-2003, 05:24 AM
Samsung specs -
Specs


Viewable Area: 18.1

Resolution: 1280 x 1024

Pixel Pitch: 0.281 mm

Brightness: 250cd/m

Contrast: 500 : 1

Dimension (WxDxH): 39.8 cm x 20.8 cm x 44.3 cm

Viewing angles: 85 / 85 / 85 / 85

Response Time: < 25 ms

Colours Supported: 16.7 mil (24 bit)

Horizontal Frequency: 30 ~ 81 kHz

Vertical Frequency: 56 ~ 85 Hz

Interface: Dual (Analog & Digital)

Terminals: 15 pin D-Sub (Analog RGB) & Digital DVI-D (Digital RGB)

Operational power: < 40 Watts

Standby power: < 2.6 Watts

OSD-Digital Display Director: Eng. / Fre. / Ger. / Span. / Ita. / Swed.

Back light life: 20,000 hr (replaceable)

paintboy
02-20-2003, 06:55 AM
Ade,
go see this monitor in person before dropping the money.
i purchased a samsung flat panel for a 2nd monitor
and it was not up to standards.....extremely high"viewing
incidence angle" in other words, if you are not dead infront of it at the perfect angle it looks like crap(color distortion, out of focus), wound up taking it back.(got a viewsonic va520)
also... have been working on an apple 22" cinemas for about a year and a half now and not having near the problems with my eyes...worth the bucks.
also... check out www.Formac.com they offer 2 new flats that are really nice for the price.
good luck

Ade
02-20-2003, 07:02 AM
Thats the first negative ive heard for a samsung seeing appleuses samsung panels.. Anyone else have this same prob?

paintboy
02-20-2003, 07:46 AM
Ade,
thats what i thought as well...
but when i got it(samsung) here at the studio next to the apple unit
there was a huge difference, enough that i took it back(picky bastard=)
may be this is not the case with the larger monitors they make?
anyway my point is, if you can... go see it in person might save you some grief.

Ade
02-20-2003, 07:51 AM
So what size do u think is optimim for lightwave work if im coming off a "17 crt? "17 crt is really "15 viewable, so a "17 LCD would be like a "19 crt?
What does ADC connection do for the Apple and Formac gallery 1740 OX?

mlinde
02-20-2003, 10:18 AM
On CRTs, actual viewable area is 1-2" less than the listed size, so if you have a 17" CRT, you have (usually) about a 15" viewable screen (diagonal). With most LCDs, the number listed is a viewable size, so a 15" LCD is equivalent to a 17" CRT, a 17" CRT is comparable to a 19" CRT, a 19" or 20" LCD is comparable to a 21" CRT.

Although I have heard good things about LCDs for viewing strain and energy usage, they are not as flexible in resolution settings as CRTs. My ideal setup (which I hope to have in place in March) is a large CRT (21") and a good sized LCD (17"). Since CRTs have similar method of display to television, you can get better color accuracy with a CRT and color correction for TV-viewed work than you can with an LCD.

As with anything you will be working with day-in and day-out, try before you buy. Go to a store and look at the monitor you want to buy, see it in use before you see it on your desk.

Ade
02-20-2003, 10:27 AM
Im sick of CRT's taking up soo much room, im sick of CRT's burning my eyes out.
LCD look more clearer and colourful to me..
LCD via VGA looks crap, DVI is the way.

paintboy
02-20-2003, 10:31 AM
Ade
ADC (apple desktop connector) Power, usb, and video sig
all in one cable...nice.
go as large as you can, you wont regret!

mlinde
02-20-2003, 10:34 AM
That's a strong opinion!

I have to admit that my eyes used to strain a lot when I worked under fluorescent lights on a CRT. For the last two years I've been working under incandescent and natural light, and my eyes suffer less than before. I also work on a higher quality monitor than before. I think, like anything else, at some point you are paying a premium for a better product.

As far as real estate, I'm with you. My 21" CRT takes up 2' square on my desk, and weighs close to 20 lbs. I'm looking forward to putting the 17" on a swiveling wall mount, not taking up any desk space at all.

eblu
02-20-2003, 12:53 PM
mlinde,
i disagree about:
color issues on an lcd.

tvs are terrible at re-producing color. CRTs have a lot of the same problems. Its a very weak reason to go with crts, simply because they are bad in the same way Tvs are. If you do wind up with a crt/Lcd dual monitor setup you will not only see a Huge difference in color reproduction, you will also stop looking at the crt. LCDs are so much better than CRTs at color reproduction, that its almost a visceral/ gut-level response to not look at CRTs.

i know, i had a similar setup. I used to think my 17" crt had near perfect color reproduction, then i put an Apple 17" lcd next to it. The LCD made the CRT look like a flourescent light bulb on the fritz. the color was tinted blue, way too dark, it Flickered visibly, and the warping was obvious, and this is just the way CRTS are.
my LCD wipes up the floor with CRTs, in all categories except 1: the color black is slightly lighter on my LCD. Small price to pay.

its one thing to go somewhere and look at an LCD, its quite another to have an LCD and a CRT on the same computer. The LCD quickly becomes the only monitor you want.

cuse
02-21-2003, 03:13 AM
havnt had time to read through all the posts but there's some good points and in the end i think it cuts down to budget and personal preference.

The 23" lcd's im running at the minute are by far the best monitors ive EVER had the pleasure to run, and if you can, stay with lcd flatscreens.

I would say go check the monitors out in person, no doubt about that, the 17" formac holds a good arguement on cost at about 700+ and the LaCie photon18Blue11 is just great, but for 1000+ may be out of your price range.
In the end i tend to turn towards apple displays, never had anything against them.




cuse

mlinde
02-21-2003, 12:10 PM
eblu, I can't speak about brightness of LCD versus CRT. That's not my color concern. My color concern is creating art that will display correctly on a television monitor, and without hooking one up to my computer as the display, the CRT is a better method to evaluate that color comparison than an LCD. A CRT also has, technically, a greater ability to adjust the color hue, saturation, and brightness, than an LCD. You may have a better "pure" white on your LCD than you did on your CRT. Did you know that you can correct your CRT further to color match a photograph or printout than you can an LCD?

Tom's hardware has a good chart listing the differences between LCD and CRT displays at http://www.tomshardware.com/display/20020114/lcd-03.html
It's not the most recent evaluation, but gives a broad range of the advantages and disadvantages of LCD v. CRT.

Again, my color concern is reproducing what a TV will do, without the actual TV. If you've ever produced a beautiful red that blows out on the TV screen you will understand why I keep a CRT on my desk. And, again, I can set my 21" CRT to view at 15 "recommended" display resolutions, how many options do you have with your LCD? Both monitors have advantages and disadvantages, I don't expect to be giving up my CRT anytime soon, but an LCD may sit next to it.

eblu
02-21-2003, 03:26 PM
mlinde,
i work in video production. i did a great deal of reading, and was very nervous about getting an lcd. As i said b4, i had a setup with an lcd and a crt.
From experience, I can say that lcds are simply better than crts, and its not something that can be quantified in a list.
as for crts being customizable, in color and resolution, I personally believe that this is a case of simpler being better. Almost every LCD Apple sells displays the same color spectrum, with a very small margin of error. This cannot be said for any single make and model of any CRT, this is why there are more features for adjusting the color, because CRTs aren't built to display color properly. I don't worry about changing the resolution, text looks right, as well as everything else. I agree that LCDs (that don't use colorsync) have a more difficult time showing print colors and NTSC colors, but frankly, thats why software like illustrator, and Aftereffects have tools that use a mathematical approach to color correction and previewing, this way even CRTs that have terrible color reproduction, can be used to make compatible colors.

side note: the red bloom you see normally won't ever show up on a computer monitor at all, anyway.
Its a problem with the Color space conversion from RGB - YUV which is the TV's native color space. In the conversion, each value for r, g and ,b gets turned into 1/2r, 1B, and 1/2G. Thats right, for every 2 red pixels you make in an RGB image... the TV will display 1 red pixel, the same with the green. Whats worse is that YUV color space uses Less than 255 values per channel, and they squeeze the RGB values at the extremes of color; say: the red channel of an rgb image with values going from 0-255... the values between 0-50 and 200 -255 gets scaled down while the rest remains the same, causing a spike in brightness, and washout at both ends of the red channel. Combine that with the fact that Red only has Half of the data of the original file, and you get blooming.
Why doesn't the green bloom you ask? it does. You just can't see it very well because Our eyesight is more sensitive to the red, in fact our eyes are more sensitive to the Luminosity of the Blue and thats why they use the entire Blue channel. TVs are a compromise. when they were designed, and the standard set, there were just things that could not have been done with technology. thats why we have fields, A terrible colorspace (YUV), and huge amounts of "acceptable" difference between tvs.

CRTs share this heritage, while stepping away from many of the necessary evils of TV (fields, YUV, 640x480), they still have terrible limits: they use guns that shoot radiation at your eyes, they are sensitive to magnetics, they generate heat and Sound, they weigh alot, take up tons of room, and not any two CRTs display the same color spectrum. Put an Apple LCD next to any CRT, you'll turn off the CRT for good in a few days.

peace,
eblu

Ade
02-21-2003, 07:35 PM
Im looking at a Formac 1740.. I have just read an updated model called 1740ox..Wonder what the diff is?

Im reading the Samsung "17 172T has a contrast ratio of 450:1
Formac and apple have 400:1.
How better is this?

BTW here is the samsung reviewed -
Samsung 172T (http://www.monkeyreview.com/reviews/review.php?num=196&page=0)

eblu
02-25-2003, 07:46 AM
the ox is a cheaper version of the 1740. its the Same monitor but... it has slightly looser technical constaraints. The most obvious of which are dead pixels, typically LCDs are allowed to have N number of dead pixels in the display b4 a company decides its "broken". If memory serves me the 1740 has a tolerance of 4 (Apple has a tolerance of 4). the OX allows for more dead pixels (7 ?), and you as a customer get a deal on a good monitor because Formac recognises the hassle of dead pixels, and they also reduce stock.

right now... comparing different contrast ratios from different companies is like (excuse the pun) comparing apples and oranges. each company seems to have different measuring techniques, so don't rely on numbers to tell the story. Look at comparison reviews, take note of the manufacturer of the actual screen (samsung makes Apple's) and try to see them b4 you buy them.

Darttman
02-25-2003, 08:39 AM
A good look at new LCD displays: http://www6.tomshardware.com/display/index.html

You might want to hold off a few months longer new technology is in the works for these displays (quicker response time)