[filmscanners] Re: OT: Choosing a high End CRT

["Julian Vrieslander" <julianv@mindspring.com>]

On 2/28/02 11:50 AM, Moreno Polloni <mp@dccnet.com>, wrote:

>Two drawbacks to the LCD. One, the optimum viewing angle is narrow compared
>to a CRT, although I understand the latest LCD designs are much better in
>this regard. Two, the tonal accuracy of an LCD display is not great out of
>the box. It needs to be profiled with a measuring instrument and software
>(such as with Optical/LCD Spyder). Even still, the LCD has slightly less
>shadow detail than a CRT.

We have two high-end monitors in our office: a Sony GDM-F520 (21" CRT),
and an Apple Studio Display (17" LCD).  They are driven by essentially
identical video cards and CPUs (Apple G4 and Nvidia GeForce2 MX).  Both
were calibrated with the ColorVision LCD/CRT Spyder and OptiCAL.

Either of these monitors is quite adequate for critical photo editing.
Each has advantages and disadvantages.  The LCD is sharper, brighter,
more saturated in some colors.  The CRT image is not sensitive to viewing
angle (although the high end Apples show less of this than most LCDs).
The CRT looks much better if you need to switch resolutions.  LCDs look
ghastly at anything other than their native resolution.

Interestingly, this Apple LCD did not really benefit much from
calibration/profiling.  The difference between the OptiCAL-generated
profile and Apple's canned profile is almost imperceptible.  Apparently,
it was very-well calibrated right out of the box.

Some critical users claim that the useful lifetime of a CRT is about 3
years of heavy use.  Since high-end LCDs are a relatively new commodity,
it remains to be seen how the quality holds up with time.

--
Julian Vrieslander <mailto:julianv@mindspring.com>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body