PDA

View Full Version : What's the deal with computer monitors?



Adrian Lopez
04-30-2007, 09:01 PM
I've just purchased a 19" LCD monitor (ViewSonic VX922) so that I can run my computer at 1280x1024 pixels, which my 17" CRT could not display without a great deal of noise and flicker (not to mention unreadable text). Now that I've made the switch, I must say I'm a little disappointed.

It's hard to get used to the brightness of an LCD after using CRTs all my life, and the way the backlight bleeds into the top edge of the screen is incredibly annoying when looking at images that have dark backgrounds. I'm also bugged by the way it displays the console when running Linux, and the image in XFree86 (Linux GUI) is very, very noisy (horizontal lines running down the screen while connected via analogue at 60Hz vertical). Adjusting the frequency reduces the noise when running MS Windows, but the monitor goes out of sync when I try to change the display frequency in XFree86. I also don't like that some of the games I like to play don't support the monitor's native 1280x1024 resolution, and therefore look like crap.

Oh... also, the new monitor is so big that I have to crane my head up to look at the top of the screen :D. Now I'll have to get a different desk / chair to go with the new display.

So, then... what are your experiences with different types of computer displays?

Mr Maze
04-30-2007, 09:11 PM
If you think that's big, you should see my boss's monitor. He uses a 30" Apple Cinema display hooked up to a Windows pc - you have to literally turn your head from left to right to see the sides of the display.

Also, I have noticed that the newer Cinema displays have horrid image persistance problems (much like burn-in on a crt) when running on a windows computer. Anyone else seen this?

ingo
05-01-2007, 12:53 AM
The only advantage of an LCD is that it doesn't shoot dust particles at you like the crt monitor does. I suggest you adjust the screen brightness to something between 30 and 50 % depending on how bright it is in your room. Than go to at least 75 Hz frequenzy which should be visibly better (any decent OS does this), maybe a dvi connection will help too.

StereoMike
05-01-2007, 01:46 AM
I switched once from crt to lcd and I am not disappointed. It's way better for my eyes (less strain) and everything is clearer. Also crt are fading faster than lcd, so your discovery of lcd being so bright could alo depend on your crt being so dimmed. With both lcd together on one pc I have a resolution of 3520*1200 and that's really kewl to work with (LW, PS and all the other stuff, finally you have room for all the panels). Show me a 24" widescreen crt or even 30". There's none affordable to my knowledge.

mike

Lightwolf
05-01-2007, 02:01 AM
Than go to at least 75 Hz frequenzy which should be visibly better (any decent OS does this), maybe a dvi connection will help too.
DVI yes, absolutely a must, it makes a hug difference.
75Hz will not do anything (and won't work via DVI either). 60Hz is all the current LCDs do. However, since they persistently store the state of a pixel, and thus don't need a scanline refresh like CRTs do, it won't flicker.
Heck, you could update a LCD at 1Hz and it wouldn't flicker (but you'd only get a new frame from the computer once per second).

Cheers,
Mike

Extent
05-01-2007, 02:21 AM
Digital (dvi) is the only way to go with a flatscreen, by their very nature they look like crap in everything but their native resolution. Getting an analog video signal to match up pixel perfect with the native elements of the screen is just a nightmare.

For me I like the crispness and the color of a good LCD. Plus it's the only way to get three screens on my desk.

Overall I switched to LCDs and haven't looked back, not that I don't have some complaints.

If your backlight is uneven that's got to be a problem with your screen, none of my good LCDs have that problem (Sharp 19s, Sony 19, SGI 17, HP 17)

Verlon
05-01-2007, 02:25 AM
I've been on LCDs for 7-8 years now. I wouldn't go back to a CRT without a REALLY big incentive.

I just upgraded to a Dell 30" a couple of months ago...

Just turn the brightness down from "unbelieveable" to "fairly credible" and you'll be all right.

Ztreem
05-01-2007, 02:33 AM
I switched to LCD and I will never ever use a CRT again, what a crap!
I used a 22" CRT and now I use a 24" wide LCD, the screen is so much clearer and crisp compared to the CRT and it's not as heavy if you want to move it.

I would not recomend to work in 1280*1024 resolution as it's a non standard ratio and can get you deformed picture on other monitors. Like if you do a circle that looks like a circle on your screen may look like an ellipse on other screens.

RedBull
05-01-2007, 02:44 AM
DVI yes, absolutely a must, it makes a hug difference.
75Hz will not do anything (and won't work via DVI either). 60Hz is all the current LCDs do. However, since they persistently store the state of a pixel, and thus don't need a scanline refresh like CRTs do, it won't flicker.
Heck, you could update a LCD at 1Hz and it wouldn't flicker (but you'd only get a new frame from the computer once per second).

Cheers,
Mike

Both my Dell2407WFP and Samsung 940b both can do 75hz on LCD via DVI..
But i agree change to DVI to get rid of interference...

As for monitors, LCD's do have less eye strain than CRT's and that is/was a big plus when moving from CRT.

Extent
05-01-2007, 03:49 AM
That's just native resolution again. If that's what the native rez of the screen is it will display at the correctly, and actually if you ran a different resolution (a "correct" resolution) you /would/ get distortion.

Take my laptop for instance, 1440x900 native rez widescreen. If I ran that at 800x600 (a true 4x3) everything would be stretched out. The only times I can get correct aspect on the screen is if I work in multiples of the native resolution (assuming you're working in fullscreen mode, as most people do)

tribbles
05-01-2007, 04:16 AM
I've recently upgraded from 2x19" LCDs to 2x24" LCDs - vast improvement (although you do have a fairly large panaoramic display to look at!)

Unfortunately, I did miss the 1600x1200 on the 19" LCDs that I had on the CRTs beforehand (but that got fixed with 1920x1200 on the new LCDs)

Ztreem
05-01-2007, 04:29 AM
That's true for most CRT monitors, but for TFTs (most flat panels are actually TFT (Thin Film Transistor) and not LCD (Liquid Crystal Display). But for TFTs running native 1280x1024, this is not the case (not for me anyway). If I draw a perfect circle on my TFT it's still a perfect circle on a true 4:3 screen, the same way that rendering a sphere in LW still displays a perfect sphere on both screens. I guess the 1280x1024 uses a non-square pixel aspect ratio or something like that, to compensate visually. I'm not a guru on these screen matters, but distortion is not a problem on the 1280x1024 TFTs that I have. I have visual aspect match when bringing stuff over on a 1280x960 CRT.

Anyone know something solid on this?

OK, I didn't know that. I just remeber that it looked a bit strange back on old CRT's and assumed the same thing would be for LCD's. Good to know it's not an issue any more.(not that I want to use that resolution)
My next screen will be a 30" LCD screen with a resolution of 2560 x 1600 or more.

Skonk
05-01-2007, 05:16 AM
I use a 24" wide LCD (Dell) and a 19" wide lcd both side by side, love them to bits. But and LCD screen will never give you as good an image as a good crt monitor will.

kopperdrake
05-01-2007, 05:51 AM
I use a similar setup to SpankDaddy, went all LCD about 4 years ago. Most of my stuff is for print and my initial problem was getting the colours to some semblance of printed colours. The problem is that LCDs are just *too* good :D I have to downgrade the colour to replicate better the murky colours of print, which is a shame as this Dell 24" has a stonkingly good colour range :)

As people have said, DVI is the only way to go and I really do not miss the headaches the CRTs used to give me :thumbsup:

Exception
05-01-2007, 05:58 AM
I strongly disagree. But this is probably very subjective. In my oppinion CRT tech is dead.

Well, not really. You can disagree, but that won't help the technology being any better :)

TFT's and LCD's are not able to accurately reproduce color necessary for color matching and offset printing tasks. They can't get to the contrast levels of CRT's yet and the color gamut isn't up to a CRT yet. It's inherent in the technology.
Because much of what I do is very match-critical I sincerely prefer CRT's, and good ones like a proper Eizo, but flat panels definately have many other advantages. I'm looking forward to the arrival of new technologies such as oled and the likes which will replace CRT for good.

mattclary
05-01-2007, 07:20 AM
Both my Dell2407WFP and Samsung 940b both can do 75hz on LCD via DVI..
But i agree change to DVI to get rid of interference...

As for monitors, LCD's do have less eye strain than CRT's and that is/was a big plus when moving from CRT.


The 75hz refresh might help framerates on movies or games, but a pixel is either of or on in an LCD, so flicker is not an issue. When people talk refresh rates for a CRT, they are talking about flicker or avoidance of such. Flickering monitors can seriously screw with your eyes.

Signal to Noise
05-01-2007, 08:31 AM
...
It's hard to get used to the brightness of an LCD after using CRTs all my life, and the way the backlight bleeds into the top edge of the screen is incredibly annoying when looking at images that have dark backgrounds. ...

I would suggest getting some monitor color calibrating software then. It'll optimize your screen resolution and color levels providing you with an accurate image on your screen as well as toning down the brightness in most cases. I use the Spyder2 (http://www.colorvision.com/product-mc-s2p.php) calibration tools.



... But [an] LCD screen will never give you as good an image as a good crt monitor will.

I wouldn't say 'never'. Technology advances every day. Today's LCDs are pretty damn good compared to LCDs of a couple of years ago.

Ivan D. Young
05-01-2007, 10:35 AM
The whole issue aboutr CRT's vs. LCD's is really moot. Most places in the world are close to banning CRTs because they are toxic to the enviroment. I can't confirm this, but it was my understanding that in some countries in Europe the manufacturers had to help pay for the disposal of CRTs. So the mad march to LCD was well under way. There are really a bunch of reasons for this, just know this in about a year or so; you won't be able to really buy a decent CRT anyway.

jasond
05-01-2007, 11:24 AM
and I replaced my viewsonic crt with a coloredge ce240W from Eizo. I am very, very happy. It's a little pricey, but other than some minor ghosting on fast images (it's not for games) I have absolutely *no* complaints and about half the eyestrain headaches.

Titus
05-01-2007, 12:23 PM
Why do you think Apple can sell 30" cinema displays to professional designers and photographers, if they're useless for that kind of work?


Because it's an Apple product, these monitors are above average quality in my opinion.

I've a 24" Viewsonic and have serious problems with dynamic range and temperature calibration, I'm still working side by side with a NTSC monitor.

Matt
05-01-2007, 12:37 PM
I bought a ViewSonic 21" widescreen TFT, and sent it back, wasn't overly impressed with the quality, especially for a "pro" monitor. It had 2 dead pixels, and I had issues with the display when at certain contrast / brightness ratios, basically it would display blue lines all over the display. The casing around the controls were bulging out too.

Could have been a duff one, but I ain't risking buying one of those again.

The Sharp 19" TFT I'm using now is absolutely awesome, pin sharp display, great colour reproduction, no dead pixels.

I need a bigger, widescreen monitor still, not sure what brand to go with. I was thinking either Dell's UltraSharp range or an NEC one.

Any recomendations would be welcome.

Signal to Noise
05-01-2007, 12:59 PM
Not sure about the larger sizes but I have three NEC lcd monitors (17" & 2 x 19") and they are awesome.

Ztreem
05-01-2007, 01:18 PM
I need a bigger, widescreen monitor still, not sure what brand to go with. I was thinking either Dell's UltraSharp range or an NEC one.

Any recomendations would be welcome.

I have a Dell 24" ultrasharp and it's super.

Exception
05-01-2007, 01:44 PM
Why do you think Apple can sell 30" cinema displays to professional designers and photographers, if they're useless for that kind of work?


It's not all so black and white, my friend.
It's not useless, it's just not as good as a proper calibrated CRT.
You can kick and scream and disagree, but you can't change the inherent qualities of the technologies themselves. CRT has a larger Gamut, and a higher contrast ratio. It's also large, bulky, tons of radiation, uses much more power, prone to breakage, can be noisy, susceptible to interference, expensive to manuafacture and environmentally unfriendly. There's nothing you can say to change that either :)
All technologies have their pro's and cons, use whatever you prefer, it makes no sense arguing over it :)

RedBull
05-01-2007, 04:41 PM
, which is a shame as this Dell 24" has a stonkingly good colour range :)

I'm not so convinced my 2407WFP only supports 80% of the NTSC (Never The Same Color) color spectrum, the new 2407WFP-HC has 92% NTSC color support, which is a little bit better..... All still have 8bit lookup tables..

My Dell is 24" S-IPS compared to most of them which are S-PVA panels, and it's still missing colors.... :) I think Eizo are the only ones with 14bit color support.

CRT's offer better color reproduction, and a few other advantages, but LCD's using S-PVA, M-PVA and S-IPS have definitely made the margin minimal.

With less eye strain, and reflection, combined with brightness and vividness LCD's are definitely a better bet for long hours in front of a monitor.

Stooch
05-01-2007, 07:57 PM
I use a 24" wide LCD (Dell) and a 19" wide lcd both side by side, love them to bits. But and LCD screen will never give you as good an image as a good crt monitor will.


dont use absolutes. Can you guarantee that there will NEVER be a flat panel that will be as good as crts? no you cant. so dont say stuff like that.

anyway, currently, the crts have an edge for both color range and response time. Do they look "better"? Thats subjective, they are more accurate (the high end ones) than the best LCD, yes. Will this be ALWAYS the case? no. that would be a a dumb thing to say...

I love my dell 2470wfp rev4 btw. Great monitor. I have not yet seen a perfect flat panel though, in terms of uniform backlight, perfect gradients and brightness. These dells come damn close. Great response too. The macs are overpriced POSes. Horrible response time and horrible support from the manufacturer. All the mac based motion designers i know are all rocking the dells. heh.

Stooch
05-01-2007, 08:10 PM
Well, not really. You can disagree, but that won't help the technology being any better :)

TFT's and LCD's are not able to accurately reproduce color necessary for color matching and offset printing tasks. They can't get to the contrast levels of CRT's yet and the color gamut isn't up to a CRT yet. It's inherent in the technology.
Because much of what I do is very match-critical I sincerely prefer CRT's, and good ones like a proper Eizo, but flat panels definately have many other advantages. I'm looking forward to the arrival of new technologies such as oled and the likes which will replace CRT for good.

heh. you are the fraction of a percentage of users that needs that functionality. sucks to be you ;) for the overwhelming majority of users crt is dead technology indeed.

btw, not sure why you even bother with colors so much, i worked at an ad agency and we never got so anal about colors, once a design is done, its handed over to the print lab who do the final color separation and matching to approved color specs. the entire creative/design/3d department use flat panels and most arent even calibrated (tsk tsk i know). But at the end of the day, all final colors are the responsibility of the print department.

Animapper
05-01-2007, 08:22 PM
According to some Sony reps at NAB last week, the color reproduction issue for LCD's has been buried and a psalm has been sung. Every major camera manufacturer has switched to LCD. The LCD's I'm talking about start at $4500 for a 17" with all the bells and whistles of a production monitor because they ARE production monitors. Don't confuse the LCDs for your computer with these units. Panasonic, JVC and Pioneer also all offer high end LCDs. If your work is going to broadcast then this kind of color reproduction is critical. (Just try messing with Discovery channel on color reproduction, no don't ...really, don't).

I have a 1999 version of the JVC HV-M300VSU. It's a 30" widescreen HD/SD monitor. It has excellent color matching for broadcast standards and serves as an analog and digital input device - very flexible for my workflow. I can't justify any LCD to replace this unit for another few years at least. I've found them used before for $2000. I got mine for about $2900 a few years back. That being said, it weighs about 130 lbs and is just peachy fun to move by myself!

Anyway, Matt, if this was not your angle then I can suggest the new HP 30" 3065. It is gorgeous and has three dual-DVI inputs. I've used one and it beats my apple 30" hands down and runs about $1500 US.

Regards,

Exception
05-01-2007, 08:56 PM
heh. you are the fraction of a percentage of users that needs that functionality. sucks to be you ;) for the overwhelming majority of users crt is dead technology indeed.

Eh... which makes what point exactly?
Most people use Microsoft Word, 3DS max, Windows XP Home and a mouse.
No thanks :)

I'm perfectly happy with the fact that 99% of the users want a flat panel. I have plenty of room and just two years ago I picked up 4 Eizo F980's for $150 each, just because of this flat panel craze. For LCD's with the same resolution, color reproduction, refresh speed, contrast ratio and sheer stability I could buy a new car.
I'm sure they'll get replaced some time, but till then these are hard if not impossible to beat.

Color matching is important. You send it off to a service bureau, I'd rather do my own colors :)

RedBull
05-02-2007, 06:26 AM
According to some Sony reps at NAB last week, the color reproduction issue for LCD's has been buried and a psalm has been sung. Every major camera manufacturer has switched to LCD. The LCD's I'm talking about start at $4500 for a 17" with all the bells and whistles of a production monitor because they ARE production monitors. Don't confuse the LCDs for your computer with these units. Panasonic, JVC and Pioneer also all offer high end LCDs. If your work is going to broadcast then this kind of color reproduction is critical. (Just try messing with Discovery channel on color reproduction, no don't ...really, don't).

I have a 1999 version of the JVC HV-M300VSU. It's a 30" widescreen HD/SD monitor. It has excellent color matching for broadcast standards and serves as an analog and digital input device - very flexible for my workflow. I can't justify any LCD to replace this unit for another few years at least. I've found them used before for $2000. I got mine for about $2900 a few years back. That being said, it weighs about 130 lbs and is just peachy fun to move by myself!

Anyway, Matt, if this was not your angle then I can suggest the new HP 30" 3065. It is gorgeous and has three dual-DVI inputs. I've used one and it beats my apple 30" hands down and runs about $1500 US.

Regards,

Pro broadcast LCD models like the DT-V24L1D which have some really good features for broadcast useage, but you will find they still use the same 8bit panels you will find in a Dell or BenQ.... There are very few manufacturers of LCD panels, people like Sony generally use S-PVA, M-PVA which are manufactured by Samsung.

And while some claim that the latest generation PVA and S-IPS (manufactured by LG-Phillips) rival CRT for color, i think it's a few years off yet personally.

RedBull
05-02-2007, 06:37 AM
As i can't edit my post....

If Lightwolf or someone is still reading the thread, can anyone tell me if there is an Lscript or C SDK command in Modeler or Layout which is the equiv of either "Sending Object to Layout" or "Synchronize Layout"

I've set up 9.2 today on my 24" with spanning to my 19", I have Modeler on the 19" and Layout with Fprime running on the 24"

The Hub which i haven't used in a while was quite fast and responsive, so i tried modeling with Fprime, which worked really well...... Except i have to manually click on sync to layout for Fprime to update on the 24"...

If i could automated it to sync after every change, or every 1ms, Modelling in Fprime would be fantastic... Anyone know?

Lightwolf
05-02-2007, 06:42 AM
If Lightwolf or someone is still reading the thread, can anyone tell me if there is an Lscript or C SDK command in Modeler or Layout which is the equiv of either "Sending Object to Layout" or "Synchronize Layout"

In Layout:
Model
Switch to Modeler. If Modeler isn't running, it will be started. If the Hub isn't running, the command has no effect.

Synchronize
Synchronize objects in the scene with Modeler (reload objects that have been modified in Modeler).

Have a look at the commands section in the SDK.

No get back on topic, will'ya? ;)

Cheers,
Mike

RedBull
05-02-2007, 07:16 AM
In Layout:
Model
Switch to Modeler. If Modeler isn't running, it will be started. If the Hub isn't running, the command has no effect.

Synchronize
Synchronize objects in the scene with Modeler (reload objects that have been modified in Modeler).

Have a look at the commands section in the SDK.

No get back on topic, will'ya? ;)

Cheers,
Mike

What page did you find this?

Any of the 3 commands do work to update through the HUB....

But as far as i know none of the commands are available via Lscript or C...

I did check the Commands Section for Modeler, Layout and Common in the latest SDK, and also tried Edit User Commands in Modeler and it doesn't appear there....

One of the options Send Object to Layout is bound to F12 key, so i guess i could look at making a plug that essentially hits the F12 key every few ms?

I know LW8.x was meant to have HUB access for C/Lscript and i believe technically the commands would be available as we've seen Aura do it via the HUB...

I've only had my 24" for a week, so i'm trying different configs (see kind of on topic... :))

I'm currently not subscribed to Lscript or Plugins list, so can't ask there...

Lightwolf
05-02-2007, 07:27 AM
What page did you find this?

Right at the bottom of the page:
http://www.newtek.com/lightwave/developer/LW80/8lwsdk/docs/commands/layout.html


Any of the 3 commands do work to update through the HUB....

But as far as i know none of the commands are available via Lscript or C...

You can call any of these using C (a bit tricky in certain situations) or LScript


I did check the Commands Section for Modeler, Layout and Common in the
latest SDK, and also tried Edit User Commands in Modeler and it doesn't appear there....

Hm, I saw them in the 7.5, 8.0 and 9.2 SDK, Save Command List in Layout also saves these out.


I've only had my 24" for a week, so i'm trying different configs (see kind of on topic... :))

Still waiting to get a 30" here... anything smaller will be a waste of money for the studio ;)


I'm currently not subscribed to Lscript or Plugins list, so can't ask there...
Well, I suppose there are some more appropriate sections here on the forum though.

Cheers,
Mike

coremi
05-02-2007, 07:59 AM
i have an IIyama 22", and i have not seen any diference between DVI and D-Sub, changed the cables a lot, did diferent test. The only improvement is that on DVI there is no more auto adjusting when changing resolution. Also on Tom's hardware they did a test and the conlcusion was that on the new monitor D-Sub is very improved and only someone specialized can see the diference between the 2 of them.

Lightwolf
05-02-2007, 08:13 AM
i have an IIyama 22", and i have not seen any diference between DVI and D-Sub, changed the cables a lot, did diferent test.
Hm, I can easily see it on the 20" Samsung I use for coding. But that one is more than a year old as well.

Cheers,
Mike

Ztreem
05-02-2007, 08:28 AM
i have an IIyama 22", and i have not seen any diference between DVI and D-Sub, changed the cables a lot, did diferent test.

I see a difference here on my Dell 24" With the D-Sub I get some ghost lines or shadows in high contrast areas.

RedBull
05-02-2007, 05:21 PM
i have an IIyama 22", and i have not seen any diference between DVI and D-Sub, changed the cables a lot, did diferent test. The only improvement is that on DVI there is no more auto adjusting when changing resolution. Also on Tom's hardware they did a test and the conlcusion was that on the new monitor D-Sub is very improved and only someone specialized can see the diference between the 2 of them.

I can definitely tell a large difference in colour and detail between DVI and VGA. Not to mention the inteference..

HDMI/DVI gives the highest possible picture quality, better than the previous defacto king which was component inputs..

One reason you may not see much difference, all 22" panels are only 6bit...

6Bit panels = 2^6 x 2^6 x 2^6 = 64 x 64 x 64 = 262,144 thousand colors
8Bit panels = 2^8 x 2^8 x 2^8 = 256 x 256 x 256 = 16,777,216 (16.7m)

So with a 6bit panel the panels tend to dither colors more, making the difference a little more subtle i imagine for you to detect the two...
The difference is not staggering, but noticable.

PS. Thanks Lightwolf.

ingo
05-03-2007, 01:38 AM
The reason some people think an Apple monitor is better is because Apple has a setup for the monitors thats more crt like. Compared to most other manufacturers that push the backlight to new heights, which results in a crisp picture but is highly unnatural. But the usual problem with Apples setup is that this obviously shows the problems of lcds, not enough colors and contrast.

Btw, my Eizo 19" lcd is connected via dsub, which produces a smoother picture but isn't much worse than via dvi. The dvi connector is used for my crt monitor.

Last weekend i had the chance to see the difference between a 50hz lcd-tv and a 100hz lcd-tv, it was clearly visible that the 100hz model was much better. Could that be the same for the computer-monitors too ??

StereoMike
05-03-2007, 02:47 AM
[quote=Ingo]my Eizo 19" lcd is connected via dsub, which produces a smoother picture but isn't much worse than via dvi. The dvi connector is used for my crt monitor[/quote ]
Think about it: DVI is a digital signal, d-sub analog. Your LCD is digital, your CRT is analog. You loose the crispness of a DVI-LCD combo and will gain only little on your CRT. If you like the smooth appearance of letters, then there's an option to smooth letters in windows. I use it and it looks good to me. Bur i can't tell right now where to look for that checkbox.

mike

StereoMike
05-03-2007, 02:48 AM
my Eizo 19" lcd is connected via dsub, which produces a smoother picture but isn't much worse than via dvi. The dvi connector is used for my crt monitor
Think about it: DVI is a digital signal, d-sub analog. Your LCD is digital, your CRT is analog. You loose the crispness of a DVI-LCD combo and will gain only little on your CRT. If you like the smooth appearance of letters, then there's an option to smooth letters in windows. I use it and it looks good to me. But i can't tell right now where to look for that checkbox.

mike

Elmar Moelzer
05-03-2007, 10:35 AM
Agree with Red Bull here.
TFTs still have (mostly) only 6 bits per channel (so 64 levels per color channel or 64 levels of brightness). Some expensive models have 8 bits/channel , but they usually have slower refresh rates.
The 6 bit panels usually use some sort of dithering to get to the "millions" of colors the manufacturers claim them to have.
This dithering is the noise that can be seen sometimes.
Sorry, but I dont see how 256k colors can be better than 16.7 million, when it comes to color reproduction.
All TFTs I have seen so far are still suffering from viewing angle issues.
So the same color never looks the same depending from what angle you look at them. And dont trust the monitor manufacturer viewing angle things they claim, these are just the angles at which you can still see anything.
For Modeling though, I would say that TFTs are the better choice, since they dont distort the picture, which is something CRTs always will do due to the nature of the way a cathode ray tube works.
Just my two cents.
CU
Elmar

RedBull
05-03-2007, 06:07 PM
The reason some people think an Apple monitor is better is because Apple has a setup for the monitors thats more crt like. Compared to most other manufacturers that push the backlight to new heights, which results in a crisp picture but is highly unnatural. But the usual problem with Apples setup is that this obviously shows the problems of lcds, not enough colors and contrast.

Apple monitors aren't bad in the fact that they are all S-IPS panels, the majority of other manufacturers are using either TN the oldest and worst panels, or PVA which includes either S-PVA or M-PVA....

As i mentioned LG-Phillips have been manufacturing these S-IPS panels, while the others use Samsung PVA technology, S-IPS supposedly give better color (almost at CRT levels, although personally they are still a little short) and better viewing angles, and are more expensive to manufacture. So there is a technical reason why the Apples may have a slight edge on others.....

Companies like Dell make a real panel lottery, they are famous for using mainly
S-PVA, but several models also use S-IPS in all monitors, for example the 20" and 24" dell are known to use both panels, but using the same revision number.... So reviews are useless.

The only way to tell is the menu functions, which identify the panel itself.
But before you order you can't specify a S-IPS over a S-PVA... It's just lucky if you get a S-IPS. So at least Apple can guarantee a S-IPS....

Another tell tale sign of a S-IPS panel, is they give black at dead center, and a purple/blue tinge at angles......

Nobody likes to make anything easy these days, sheesh!

Bog
05-04-2007, 04:17 AM
I have to say, the high end Dell TFTs do seem pretty spanky in terms of colour acuity, viewing angle and the like. Then again, they do cost a small fortune, so you gets what you may for I s'pose...