Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

LCD Screen for Image Editing

CmdrTaco posted more than 9 years ago | from the true-enough dept.

Displays 168

An anonymous reader writes "Most image editors will tell you that the colour accuracy on an LCD monitor is still nowhere near as good as a high quality CRT. Although this is generally true, this new screen from NEC is definitely a big step forward for the LCD cause."

cancel ×

168 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

hmmm (3, Interesting)

sabernet (751826) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130020)

If they can pull it off, all the better, but I'm still of firm belief that OLED or color-digital-ink will be the only thing to replace CRT in terms of color sharpness once they're actually useable.

Re:hmmm (1)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130174)

I'm still of firm belief that OLED or color-digital-ink will be the only thing to replace CRT in terms of color sharpness once they're actually useable.

I have a better idea, based on already existing technology: create an e-book that's so compelling that people will buy it en-masse (that is, not DRM-encumbered). Then everybody will quit reading dead tree books and will read their e-books' LCD instead, and so the colors will always be exactly like the author intended. Voilà!

Re:hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11130750)

You've never seen nor understood what e-ink is exactly, I guess. :-)

Yeah, I know what you meant. But people won't switch to e-books until they're as easy to read, and that implies the same kind of technology as e-ink...

Re:hmmm (2, Interesting)

IdleGod (811284) | more than 9 years ago | (#11131063)

I've heard about some new display out of Canada called the iFire. It uses thick-film dielectric electroluminescent (TDEL) technology. Has anyone else heard of it? And can anyone else comment on it if they have?

Still looks a little pricy. (3, Insightful)

Blapto (839626) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130025)

You could probably get a much cheaper, nicer CRT. The market it is aimed at would probably not care about footprint anyway after all.

Yeah... (2, Interesting)

BJH (11355) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130128)

...but have you tried looking for a decent CRT these days? Nanao/Eizo, which used to be my favourite monitor manufacturer, has zero models available. Many other manufacturers have at best a limited range.

It might be better there in the US, but here in Japan, it's getting hard to find anything but el-cheapo 15-inch CRTs (for people who can't afford/don't want to spend the money on an LCD) these days.

Re:Yeah... (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130207)

I have been buying used CRTs for more than the last ten years. I have yet to regret a purchase, and have yet to have one die on me, the last four being 21" CRTs. I did sell an old 15" to a relative who had a 14" monitor that died.

I'm certain you could do a web search for new, old stock monitors if you don't like used.

Re:Yeah... (1)

Gherald (682277) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130237)

It might be better there in the US, but here in Japan, it's getting hard to find anything but el-cheapo 15-inch CRTs
Japan is, shall we say, a bit spatially challenged. In the warehouse room alone saved by stocking LCDs instead of CRTs you folks can probably house something on the order of 50,000 people ;-)

Re:Yeah... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11130321)

Oh haw haw. I wondered how long it was going to take for somebody to come up with that cliche. Well done for being entirely predictable.

Re:Yeah... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11130722)

but still somewhat funny and not redundant.

A Cliche that is True. (1)

Raffaello (230287) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130833)

It is a cliche because it is true. Real estate is an order of magnitude more precious in Japan than in the United States - simply divide the total population by the total land area of the country:

Japan: 130 million / 395,000 km2 = ~ 340 persons/km2

U.S: 291 million / 9 million km2 =~ 32 persons/km2

See: Japan Statistics [admin.ch] and U.S. Statistics [admin.ch] for the exact figures.

Re:Still looks a little pricy. (1)

tokul (682258) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130211)

You could probably get a much cheaper, nicer CRT. The market it is aimed at would probably not care about footprint anyway after all.
Tell that to PHBs and office space designers.

Re:Still looks a little pricy. (0)

arth1 (260657) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130668)

One problem with all the 1280x1024 LCD monitors are that they don't have square pixels. The display itself is 4:3, but the pixels are squat, unlike 1600x1200, 1280x960, 1024x768, 800x600 et cetera.
This makes the monitors well suited for business work, as in word processing and spreadsheets, as you cram in a few lines extra, and nice for watching PAL movies which also uses non-square pixels, but it makes it completely unsuitable for graphical work where you don't want people to look short and fat, or a circle to become an oval.

As for games -- many games won't work in non-4:3 resolutions. So what can you do? If you choose a resolution like 1280x960, you'll either get a black border on the top and bottom, and everything looking squat, or the image is scaled up to 1280x1024, and you get distortion artefacts.

Summary:
Unless you plan to use an LCD monitor for office work that doesn't include drawing, or for watching PAL movies, avoid 1280x1024. Also let the manufacturers know that you'd like to see a 1280x960 LCD monitor, as the next step to 1600x1200 is too expensive for many mortals and businesses.

Regards,
--
*Art

Re:Still looks a little pricy. (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130884)

What planet are you on? I have an LG L1710S LCD display [17" viewable, real viewable unlike CRTs which are usually -1" or so from that] and I can tell you that games look just fine in 4:3 resolutions.

I typically play UT2k4 at 640x480 and it's just fine not all distorted as you're suggesting. Maybe that's because the difference from 960 and 1024 isn't really that much. It's a difference from 4:3 and 4:3.2

Tom

Re:Still looks a little pricy. (1)

BlueArchon (531981) | more than 9 years ago | (#11131414)

At that resolution the distortion is not that bad, but try switching your desktop resolution to 800x600 and you'll see what he means.

Re:Still looks a little pricy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11130714)

You could probably get a much cheaper, nicer CRT. The market it is aimed at would probably not care about footprint anyway after all.

There are two very important considerations when considering the type of monitor when working with pro imagery. One is of course the image quality. You won't get anywhere without the light coming from the display being right in the first place.

The next is the operator. The person sitting in front of the screen and their eyes. If they get eyestrain after an hour of working at a CRT where they could happily go all day on an LCD that may only need a little extra work to get good colour results, the LCD is going to win out. Other people don't see good colour on LCDs and to them even the best panels appear to have a tiny viewing angle. It's all about perception. Some of us can't look at even the best CRTs in comfort, other people will look at a perfectly good LCD and see a washed out mess of colour.

That doesn't mean consumer level displays need as much attention as the pro ones to the level of the NEC that this article is about, but in a marketing world where creating a good image is worth thousands, being able to accomodate your artists needs is worth every cent.

Will this be the rage in 6 months? (5, Interesting)

Darkn3ss (812009) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130032)

In 2005 we are expected to have flat (just a little thicker than LCDs) CRT monitors. Since the makers are promising that these monitors will be cheaper than their LCD counterparts, wouldn't saavy buyers just wait until then and get a higher (or equal) quality monitor at the same price?

Re:Will this be the rage in 6 months? (5, Insightful)

aardvarkjoe (156801) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130093)

Size isn't the only advantage that LCDs have. Most people also find them to be easier on the eyes, and they are cooler and more energy efficient.

And anyway, I'll believe the stuff about thin CRTs in 2005 when I see them on the shelves.

always six months, isn't it? (1)

poptones (653660) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130218)

I remember reading about these wonderful new thin CRTs that used arrays of tiny electron guns and all sorts of gee whiz stuff. Let's see that was... about three years ago? They were just a few months away then...

LCDs are ok, but pretty much useless for graphics apps due to low contrast and washed out color. I'd love to have a thin CRT, but I'll believe it when I see it.

Re:always six months, isn't it? (5, Informative)

tschak (90399) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130306)

LCDs are ok, but pretty much useless for graphics apps due to low contrast and washed out color

Yeah and CRTs tend to have over-saturated color that drifts over time. I'm a prepress tech, and I have to do a lot of color correcting for my job and the general rule is that the screen is wrong. period.

A CRT or LCD will never be able to represent colors in RGB that exists in CMYK, or even some of the wildly bright color in the Pantone system. How can a monitor reproduce fluorescent orange or silver metallic ink? It can't. Once your good, you can mentally map what a color should look like compared to what it looks like on screen. Most of the people in my field who complain about how LCD aren't color accurate are just looking for an excuse when they can't remap their own color perception lookup table in their head.

And, if you complain about how a LCD has crappy contrast or under-saturated colors and a poor refresh rate, maybe you should buy a nice LCD instead of a cheap piece of crap from Walmart.

maybe you should remove your head from butt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11130448)

that would help you see those colors you're supposed to be watching.

What makes you think I have EVER bought an LCD monitor? What makes you think? Nothing at all, apparently.

Posted anonymously because you're not worth it...

Re:maybe you should remove your head from butt (0)

imsabbel (611519) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130512)

Yeahm nobody would have thought that you spoke out of experience, it was clear you never had a tft and only spoke out of your ass, mr ac

Re:always six months, isn't it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11131270)

A CRT or LCD will never be able to represent colors in RGB that exists in CMYK

You mean that a device that displays subtractive color (RGB) is incapable of displaying additive color (CMYK)? W O W, Who'da thunk it? Gimp bashing photoshop fanboys take note!

Re:always six months, isn't it? (1)

juiceCake (772608) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130520)

LCDs are ok, but pretty much useless for graphics apps due to low contrast and washed out color.

How so? I'd say LCDs have superior colour (if you get a true 24bit display rather than 18). Nothing is washed out and it is extremely sharp. Use it all the time for graphics work in both print and screen (video and internet). Would never go back. The colour in particular is brilliant.

Re:always six months, isn't it? (1)

haruchai (17472) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130657)

What brand and model do you use?

Re: energy efficient? (0)

v1 (525388) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130295)

Are CRTs really more energy-efficient than LCDs? My two ViewSonics use 65 watts of power when on with a moderately bright picture. My powerbook uses at most 35 watts when going full tilt gaming with the CPU and GPU maxed out. (18w when sitting idle, with LCD on full intensity)

By this comparison at least, the LCD looks very much more efficient. The only efficiency issue I see is that the CRT draws less power (relative to itself) when displaying a dark image, whereas the LCD draws about the same power at all times, unless you adjust the backlight intensity,

Re: energy efficient? (1)

lxs (131946) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130464)

Well, with my old CRT I hardly ever needed to heat the room my computer is in. Since I switched to TFT the room is considerably cooler. It would be a fun exercise to estimate the power saved for say, the US, which must have at least 50 million active CRTs (If you start counting TVs this number would rise enormously) You probably could shut down many power stations if all CRTs were replaced by TFTs. Just something to think about in these times of high oil prices.

Re: energy efficient? (0)

Dun Malg (230075) | more than 9 years ago | (#11131197)

You probably could shut down many power stations if all CRTs were replaced by TFTs. Just something to think about in these times of high oil prices.

CRTs consume an infinitesimal amount of electricity compared to lighting and heating/cooling. You could shut down maybe a half dozen power plants if everyone switched to TFT. Not a significant savings.

Re: energy efficient? (1)

cnettel (836611) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130487)

The parent wrote that LCDs are more energy efficient, not the other way round.

I am not sure, but is there really any big difference when the CRT is firing or not? I was under the impression that the real killer is the magnets directing the electron beam, and those will surely be just as active even if the beam is almost gone.

(But maybe the magnets are responsible for adapting the amplitude of electrons reaching the surface, but I wouldn't think so? Too lazy to Google...)

Re:Will this be the rage in 6 months? (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 9 years ago | (#11131250)

Interestingly, LCDs give my wife migranes. Switching back to CRT (on the advice of the doctor, who'se seen the problem before) solved that.

So not everyone finds them easier on the eyes :)

Re:Will this be the rage in 6 months? (3, Informative)

SmokeSerpent (106200) | more than 9 years ago | (#11131481)

LCD monitors are lit by a flourescent tube. Just as some people get migranes from flourescent lighting, the number of people having trouble with LCD displays will begin to escalate as more and more LCD displays surround us.

A modern CRT monitor usually has a refresh rate faster than 60hz, and the fading out of the phosphors tend to even out the flicker even more.

If your wife wants a flat panel display, she could try a plasma model. While plasma is also based on flourescent lighting technology, it is essentially made of thousands and thousands of individual flourescent lights, all turning on and off and varying their brightness individually, which might eliminate the migraine-inducing flicker.

Re:Will this be the rage in 6 months? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11130113)

Those new "flat CRTs" are only about 20% thinner than current ones.

games (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11130034)

but are they good enough for gaming yet?

As for graphics, I wonder how LCD technology deals with logarithmic color spaces?

Re:games (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11130248)

Sure, tux racer runs just fine on my PowerBook...

Re:games (1)

beakerMeep (716990) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130278)

define good enough?

My Dell 18.1" has been good enough for my gaming and work (animation and web design) for almost 2 years now. I don't see ghosting and I see very vivid color - to me it much better than any expensive CRT I have ever seen (although I may not have seen the real cream of the crop). And for me there isn't a chance in hell I would ever switch back.

Frankly, It surprises me that people still tote the CRT line as much as they do. I could see how a print designer who need very exactly color replication (say to get the coke branded red) or a video effects/compositor might need such color accuracy but I dont think CRTs are really needed for 90% of the people they used to be including gamers and graphics pros. In other words, the "I need such good color/response time that I need a CRT" crowd should be tiny niche of what it used to be.

Re:games (2, Interesting)

Twirlip of the Mists (615030) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130522)

The need for color calibration in print production is way overstated. There are some areas in which having a color-calibrated workflow really helps, like catalog production for example. But for most print work, it's just not helpful. To use your example, Coca-Cola Red is a specially defined printing ink. It's not a process-color mix. That is, control over the color of Coca-Cola Red happens on the printing press, not in the computer.

Like I said, there are people who really benefit from a color-calibrated workflow: camera to computer to printing plate. But for everybody else, it's just a big waste of time and money.

Re:games (1)

Twirlip of the Mists (615030) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130502)

Last night I played "Call of Duty: United Offensive" for three hours on my Apple 17" Studio Display. (One of the old square ones with the acrylic body, not one of the even-nicer new ones.) No complaints at all.

(Except about that stupid chateau level. When the tanks started coming from all directions at once and the music came up and the P-47s took out the German armor, seriously, I got tears in my eyes. Wow.)

/.ed (1)

spac3manspiff (839454) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130039)

hmm it's already slashdotted

yeah that really annoys me too... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11130121)

No bullfudging everyone get in line and click that mouse in an orderly fashion in five second increments. The manners of some people sheesh!

Obligatory... (1)

aurb (674003) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130133)

hmm it's already slashdotted
No no, you should have said oh my god, we slashdotted ...!, then someone would have said we bastards!.

Re:/.ed (1)

G-Licious! (822746) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130168)

Google Cache [google.com]

Re:/.ed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11130244)

haha i got this error:
Server Error in '/.ed' Application.
Server Too Busy

someone already posted the article text here on /. (1)

raventh1 (581261) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130412)

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=133290&thresho ld=1&commentsort=3&tid=196&tid=1&mode=thread&cid=1 1130281

One Comment (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11130045)

and the site is slashdotted! Damn, any other place for details on this monitor? Price especially, I design on a laptop and constantly have to double check my work on a CRT. My personal CRT is a piece of crap, so I have friends view stuff on a Mac with better monitors.

On that note, will someone who owns one of these please invite Taco over to dinner and show him what Slashdot really looks like on a good monitor?

Nice, 2 comments and already slashdotted (5, Insightful)

jmcmunn (307798) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130055)


I will argue a point without seeing the article, since it is dead. This screen is still likely much more expensive than a CRT, so unless the desk space you save with the LCD is worth a couple hundred dollars, I am guessing this is not going to appeal to most people.

The people who buy LCD's now do it because they are small, sexy, and save on desk space. The very SMALL minority will be buying an LCD just because it has good colors and refresh rates. Those people do exist (ie gamers and graphic designers and such) but most people are just looking for the slim, sexy design of the LCD, myself included. Code looks just fine on an LCD, I use one at work 9 hours a day, with no trouble at all.

Re:Nice, 2 comments and already slashdotted (1)

Zareste (761710) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130249)

Well, the article says graphic artists use CRT screens. I suppose whoever came up with that idea is using a 386, or perhaps couldn't read what he was typing on his gigantic dark display. What was the motive behind all that? Sometimes I wonder about those /. writers.

Re:Nice, 2 comments and already slashdotted (2, Interesting)

advance512 (730411) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130291)

I am a programmer with the Israeli army.

My unit has serious problems with physical space (we are positioned in an old building, I think it was originally built by the British army circa 1940 - too damn small). We need all the space we can get. (Is this sounding like a radio commercial?)

We used to work with 21" and 22" IBM CRTs. IBM CRTs are acknowledged as some of the best out there (like almost anything IBM does.. except, maybe, for the Java IDE ;]). The problem was that the CRTs are huge - taking large amount of space, and that using them for over 10-12 hours a day was simply painful for the eyes, whatever refresh-rate you use.

Since then we've received a few of the latest IBM ThinkVision 19" LCD screens, and it's a great improvement. I can work for longer periods of time without physical inconvenience, text crispness is improved (using ClearType fonts) and I can actually see my desk.

Also, in my opinion the color and crispness of the graphics has improved. Nothing like Laetitia Casta in true color :) This is only my personal opinion, though - some graphic designers might have a different opinion.

Re:Nice, 2 comments and already slashdotted (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130560)

Well, style does count for something, I suppose. But the one thing that modern LCD displays don't do is display images well in anything but their native resolution. Yes, LCD controllers do interpolation and other tricks to make off-res images look halfway acceptable but it's not good enough from my perspective. The software I write has to look good across the entire spectrum of standard VGA resolutions and then some. My company hasn't seen fit to supply me with an LCD display on my development system yet (and until they're cheaper than LCDs they probably won't) but even if they do, I'd still want a good CRT around to test my displays properly.

Re:Nice, 2 comments and already slashdotted (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 9 years ago | (#11131196)

The software I write has to look good across the entire spectrum of standard VGA resolutions and then some.

That's why you run it in a window. Drag the little resize box at the lower right corner from quarter-screen (640x480) to full-screen (1280x1024) and you can see exactly how it looks on different size PC monitors without ugly blurring.

Re:Nice, 2 comments and already slashdotted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11130563)

Text looks better on an LCD than a CRT, IMHO. Writing is much more readable because LCDs produce sharper images.

I wouldn't say LCDs are good enough for coding, they are perfect for coding.

Re:Nice, 2 comments and already slashdotted (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130848)

Um not quite. I do appreciate that my LCD is smaller than my CRT [well actually the LCD has a larger viewing size despite their both '17" monitors'].

What I REALLY appreciate is that the LCD makes less heat. My room isn't that large and the CRT could heat it up something awful. Specially during the winters when I'm cooped up inside. Well that and the LCD is easier on the eyes than the CRT.

Though truth be told depending on prices my next monitor might not be an LCD. I paid $377 [cdn, plus taxes] for my 17" LG LCD. A 17" CRT around here costs $180-$200.

Tom

Re:Nice, 2 comments and already slashdotted (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 9 years ago | (#11131176)

This screen is still likely much more expensive than a CRT, so unless the desk space you save with the LCD is worth a couple hundred dollars

What about the reduced electric bill, or the reduced optometric bill? LCDs are known to drain less electric power and create less eye fatigue than CRTs.

And what about power consumption? (1)

Vroem (731860) | more than 9 years ago | (#11131200)

unless the desk space you save with the LCD is worth a couple hundred dollars, I am guessing this is not going to appeal to most people.
I replaced my 15" CRT that costs me € 52 on electricity bills by a 19" TFT that 'consumes' € 21 per year.

I figured it was worth the money on the long term.

The apple 30 inch (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11130057)

Whats the colour quality like on these

No it's not (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11130072)

Don't buy a computer at all and it's not a problem.

Re:No it's not (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11130192)

or get yourself a braille display, or use a text-to-speech program.

Re:No it's not (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 9 years ago | (#11131154)

or get yourself a braille display,

Feel sorry for the blind when they feel goatse for the first time. In fact, goatse is probably how they GOT blind.

Steven P Jobs said... (1)

liangzai (837960) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130124)

... that the CRT is dead. So, most "image editors" don't use CRT:s. They use Apple Cinema Displays.

Re:Steven P Jobs said... (1)

AlphaJoe (798014) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130377)

Well said...

Not just a problem of color (3, Funny)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130126)

the colour accuracy on an LCD monitor is still nowhere near as good as a high quality CRT.

I don't know about color, but I've clicked on the link in the blurb and it still shows the /. page after 5 minutes. I'd say the refresh rate really sucks...

Re:Not just a problem of color (1)

BabyDave (575083) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130539)

As an example, here's what the slashdot article looks like on a normal CRT [slashdot.org] , and here it is on an LCD [slashdot.org] monitor. Notice how the LCD version makes your eyes bleed.

All bark, no bite: where's the ICC profile? (1)

Morgaine (4316) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130847)

> the colour accuracy on an LCD monitor is still nowhere near as good as a high quality CRT.

I don't know about color, but I've clicked on the link in the blurb and it still shows the /. page after 5 minutes.


I got to the article without any problem, but it was hardly worth reading. The key element was missing, namely a link to the ICC profile for the monitor.

That's the key element in any discussion about monitors for professional (or even serious amateur) color work. First of all, the mere fact that the generic ICC profile for the model is provided would say a lot about both the product and the reviewer, and secondly, if the profile is linked then interested readers can plug it in to color gamut viewers and other analysis tools for themselves and see whether the monitor is good for their application.

You didn't miss much. The article was quite reasonable at a shallow consumer level, but did not hit the mark for the color professional.

definitely? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11130132)

He means 'definately', no??? Oh /., what's coming next, when even the stories are spell checked now?

Yours sincerely,
the-one-who-thinks-that-spell-checking-is-for-siss ies

Quality of LCD panels (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11130152)

I think there is a much bigger problem with LCD than color accuracy - defective subpixels. In a recent month I had to return three over $1K LCDs (for those who are interetsted: two LaCie Phonot20Vision II and one NEC/Mitsubishi LCD2080UX+). And it doesn't seem even a single manufacturer (not even Apple) is trying to change this; all of them agreed (they even cooked up an ISO standard for this) that some small number of defects is acceptable. Until this nonsense stops LCD will be staying where they are now - consumer electronics.

Re:Quality of LCD panels (1)

lachlan76 (770870) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130236)

If you're not willing to accept some defects, supply will drop to a trickle.

Re:Quality of LCD panels (2, Insightful)

t_allardyce (48447) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130259)

We're not willing to accept some defects, let supply drop to a trickle..

Re:Quality of LCD panels (3, Informative)

lachlan76 (770870) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130280)

AFAIK, some manufacturers offer a zero-defect screen.

The supply of such screens is already at a trickle.

Re:Quality of LCD panels (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11130781)

Ok, but you're gonna have to pay five times as much for your perfect LCD display.

Still want to buy your 2500$US 15" LCD monitor?

Re:Quality of LCD panels (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11130547)

If you're not willing to accept some defects, supply will drop to a trickle.

Are you willing to accept some defects in your next CPU (i.e., "CPU may fail on some small set of instructions, this is acceptable, just avoid using those instrcutions") or in the sensor of your next $1K digital camera? Do you think it is more difficult to produce CPU or digital camera's sensor than LCD matrix? I've heard somewhere that it cost about $15 to produce a TFT panel.

Re:Quality of LCD panels (1)

lachlan76 (770870) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130636)

But for each $15 TFT panel, how many don't pass QC?

Also, your eyes tend to even things out, and most of the time, a bad subpixel isn't catastrophic. A CPU that can't execute MOV however is for all intents and purposes, dead.

Re:Quality of LCD panels (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130855)

In part, it depends on the defect. As far as I'm concerned, a stuck pixel is cause for return because it sticks out on a black screen. A dead pixel is more tolerable but to be honest, I expect better from a monitor that costs a week's wages.

Maybe if the retailers and manufacturers were up-front about it and didn't hide it in the warranty info or in a paper tucked in the package, I wouldn't be concerned about it.

Re:Quality of LCD panels (1)

lachlan76 (770870) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130910)

When was the last time you heard of a retailer emphasising a fault in their product?

It depends on what you do with your screen though - your average windoze xp play school colour scheme user won't notice much.

I probably would, because I spend ~90% of the time in a terminal. But I have a CRT.

Re:Quality of LCD panels (1)

ebrandsberg (75344) | more than 9 years ago | (#11131408)

I don't know if I'm just lucky, but I've NEVER had an LCD with a dead pixel, from my laptops to my standalone LCD's, they have all had good displays. I'm not sure what the overall % rate is of bad pixels for the industry, it seems the cheaper brands must have a LOT more than the IBM's and Sony's of the world.

Re:Quality of LCD panels (1)

wwwillem (253720) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130343)

I fully agree. I really hate it when even a single pixel is black or brigth. Last week I bought a new 17" LCD, Samsung, and through IMHO clever purchasing and probably a lot of luck, I got one with all pixels OK. The clever purchasing consisted of not buying Samsung's cheapest model, but paying 30 bucks more for their mid-range one. They have three models all in the same series. According to Samsung, the model I choose has better specs, but my guess is that they just make one model, and then at Quality Control they decide which ones become the low-end, which mid and which the high-end models. So I would also expect that the ones with pixel defects end up in the low-end bin. Probably the same is true for notebooks.

It would be much nicer if they would take out the "lottery" element. Just tell the customer: "this one 400 bucks, 4 pixels dead", "that one 440, 1 pixel dead" and "that one $470, all pixels OK".

Re:Quality of LCD panels (5, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 9 years ago | (#11131053)

I think there is a much bigger problem with LCD than color accuracy - defective subpixels.

'
.

Nah, you're exaggerating
.

Here's what I wonder. (4, Interesting)

mindstrm (20013) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130247)

Apple Cinema displays.

Apple is loved by artists all over the place, yet apple doesn't have a CRT anymore, only LCDs.

Are Apple LCDs somehow far far better for color calibration? If not, it seems odd that they would drop CRTs from the menu.

Re:Here's what I wonder. (4, Informative)

Marovingian (679783) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130430)

Apple Cinema Displays have great contrast, wide viewing angles, and [when properly calibrated with professional hardware/software] great color accuracy. I worked in prepress for 6 years and we had no problem moving to ACD's for all of our color critical work.

And Apple [unfortunately] still makes a CRT- the eMac, not that you would catch a color professional using one...

Dell 2005FPW = same monitor at 1/2 price (1)

realitybath1 (837263) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130635)

don't know about your question, but i've been looking at lcd's lately and will buy the above one. It uses the same panel as the apple's (its the exact same panel as in the g5 iMac 20") and is half the price of the similar cinema displays. Never bought anything dell before, and never expected too. The 2005FPW looks nice and MUCH more reasonably priced.

Re:Dell 2005FPW = same monitor at 1/2 price (1)

eMartin (210973) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130905)

Dell's manufacturing standards and quality control are much worse than Apple's though.

Go to any of the popular hardware site forums, and read the threads about the 2005, and how people are getting theirs with extremely uneven backlights, uneven color saturation, delayed ghosting, and of course, lots of bad pixels.

I'm on my second one now, and still not happy. It's far from perfect. This is a case of "you get what you pay for" except that even at $600, it's still pathetic to see these kinds of problems.

Yep, the're great (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11130741)

The're classic Apple products: the're great beyond what you normally find; at the special Apple price.

The have a great viewing angle AND they are SWOP certified, so no need to doubt the color accuracy

"Certified systems are capable of producing proofs visually identical to the SWOP Certified Press Proof as defined in ANSI CGATS TR 001,"

So the (calibrated) screen is good enough; no need to do a special color print to know what it looks like.

http://www.apple.com/displays/technology.html [apple.com]

As someone that bought an Apple CRT yesterday... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11131410)

at an Apple store, I'll have to disagree with you. Apple not only sales them, but they're promoting them pretty hard. They had six on display at the store. They only had two iBooks and four PowerBooks on display.

Article text. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11130281)

Page 1
NEC SpectraView 1980
Ask any imaging professional or enthusiast about their digital imaging workflow and the words "colour calibration" will undoubtedly crop up in the conversation. However, ask a number of these people to describe exactly what it is that they do and I can pretty much guarantee their methods will all differ in a number of ways, apart from one fundamental goal - the desire to bring all of their imaging hardware and software together under a unified colour-matched umbrella.

Now, how to do this properly has been a long-running and continuing debate that started ever since colour film and colour displays were brought to market. How is colour perceived? Does an output device produce a comparable image to the input device? Does the software accurately handle colour? Does the final image look like the original scene? These are the type of questions that worry users, especially those in the pre-press sector or those fully versed in digital photography or graphic design and animation.

Whether you fall into one of the aforementioned job descriptions or if you simply like to produce your own pictures at home on your printer, there is one component of the digital imaging workflow that is generally regarded as the most important piece of hardware - the monitor. This is the device you use to evaluate those pictures you've captured from your scanner or digital camera and in my opinion it's the first device you should calibrate.

If I tell you the number of times I've been asked the question, "Why do my prints look nothing like the images on my monitor", then you'll understand why I believe monitor calibration to be such an important task. If you can't place any faith in the colours it reproduces there's basically no point in conducting any colour calibration to the rest of the components in your imaging setup.

In the past (and to this day I might add), many monitor manufacturers overlook calibration altogether and basically leave the user to calibrate the monitor themselves whether it be a CRT or LCD. This is why a number of third party companies have stepped in and have produced hardware or software packages that allow you to calibrate your monitor by creating ICC (International Colour Consortium) profiles that are specific to the actual display you are using. These are then employed by the operating system at start-up (Mac OS), or are made available when ICC aware software applications (Photoshop, etc) are fired up. Such examples are Adobe's Gamma utility that comes with the companies Photoshop software or the various photo sensors, colourimeters, and spectral photometers that are available that actually take measurements directly from the monitors screen.

However some monitor manufacturers are fully aware of how important their displays are in the world of image editing, and consequently they've taken the proverbial bull by its horns and seriously entered the colour management market.

One such company is NEC/Mitsubishi that back in September 2004 announced a new range of LCD monitors that are geared towards colour critical applications. All members of this range fall under the company's sub-brand "SpectraView" and the first to market are the 19in SpectraView 1980 which I have here, and the 21in SpectraView 2180. These will be followed by the launch of a 21in LED backlight version (the SpectraView 2180WG) in 2005, which the company claims will have the widest colour gamut in the history of flat panel displays. For now though, let's take a closer look at the SpectraView 1980.

First of all, the SpectraView 1980 is actually an S-IPS (In Plane Switching) TFT MultiSync 1980SXi that has undergone the SpectraView treatment (the aspects of which I'll explain later). Many of our readers will also instantly recognise NEC/Mitsubishi's angular design that we saw in the both the 2080UX+ and the 2180UX models we've reviewed. Personally, I like the overall industrial look of these monitors but I know that some will prefer monitors with smoother lines. Of course, it's largely down to personal preference, but what you can't argue with is the range of adjustability that these monitors offer. A spring-assisted height adjustable range of 130mm will make sure that all users will find a comfortable eye-level to work with, whereas a swivelling base that can almost complete a 360 degree turn will find favour with those that love to show the information on their screens to others seated around them. In addition, there's the neat ball and socket arrangement between the neck and the back of the panel casing that allows for a full tilting arc of 30 degrees, plus 90 degrees worth of rotation for a portrait view.
Page 2
NEC SpectraView 1980
As for cable routing, there's no cable hooks as such and instead NEC/Mitsubishi has gone for a detachable cable cover that clips on the back for loosely gathering up all the cables. The cables themselves come in the shape of two types - a D-SUB to DVI-A cable and a DVI-D-to-DVI-D one. There's no D-SUB-to-D-SUB cable because you don't really need one because NEC/Mitsubishi employs what it calls the 'Ambix' feature. Derived from the word ambidextrous, the 1980 comes complete with a D-SUB, DVI-D, and a DVI-I port for a full range of connection options. For example, the DVI-I port can accept a signal from either an analogue or digital-enabled graphics card and at the same time you can attach another two PCs - one with an analogue interface and the other with a digital one to the remaining respective ports. In other words, you're pretty much covered for any setup scenario.

Another aspect I really like is the very narrow bezel. It's got to be one of the thinnest I've seen at only 17mm along the sides. This not only frames the picture beautifully, but also makes the bezel less conspicuous, especially when you place or mount several of these monitors side by side in a multi-display setup. If this is what you're after, it's possible to combine up to 25 units in a 5x5 arrangement to display a shared picture, but you'll need a video amplifier in order to do so.

That more or less covers the design of the chassis and the available inputs, but what makes this 1980SXi a SpectraView classified model? Well, many of you will probably recognise the folding hood that comes with the SpectraView CRTs that are currently marketed in the US. This serves a similar function here, in that it blocks out a high degree of ambient light thereby making colour calibration and general use more effective. The hood comes as standard and is secured to the screen along magnetic strips. It also features a sliding aperture that allows you to hang an optional optical sensor against the screen during calibration.

The is just one aspect of the SpectraView branding, so don't be mistaken into thinking that the extra £130 on top of the £599 estimated street price (all ex VAT) of the 1980SXi is just for the felt-lined hood. Also included is the SpectraView Profiler software on CD, which works with a range of optical sensors currently available on the market. NEC/Mitsubishi kindly supplied me with a GretagMacbeth EyeOne Display sensor which worked seamlessly with the Profiler software, once it was fully licensed through a web-based registration process. The software itself is pretty easy to use and comes with extensive .pdf documentation. Without going into too much detail, it allows the brightness, white point and luminance curve to be calibrated in the monitors hardware, and ultimately to create an ICC colour profile for use in your workflow.

That's not all the extra cost entails. There's a whole protocol that NEC/Mitsubishi follows before sending a SpectraView monitor out to you. First of all, a 1980SXi is hand selected from stock and the magnetic hood strips are fitted. The monitor is then pre-set via the OSD for use in the pre-press environment to the following settings: Brightness level 60% (160-170cd/m2); Colour temperature 5000K (Daylight 50); and Gamma Correction 1.8 (for the Mac OS). This is then followed by a full validation of these settings by comparing the colour differences to the CIE L*a*b* Colour Space Specification, expressed as a DeltaE value.

This colour uniformity value and the results of the validation are included on a signed certificate that accompanies every SpectraView monitor. As a rule, a DeltaE value of one is considered a perfect calibration i.e. there is no difference between the CIE L*a*b* colour space and the colours reproduced by the monitor. Furthermore, DeltaE values that are equal to or less than three are considered highly accurate. A DeltaE of three, or more and the chances are you'll notice the colour differences. Interestingly, the DeltaE number on my certificate here shows a figure of 3.49.

In addition, it's worth noting that a quick browse through some of the literature from NEC reveals that a test report from an independent colour consultant using Altona's Test Suite, recommends that the SpectraView 1980 is more suited to good reproduction of RGB images, but less suited for pre-press soft proofing with the CMYK colour space. Nevertheless we're talking high-end printing there and for those like me involved in digital photography and web images where an RGB colour space is probably the best option for encompassing how your monitor will render my images in your non-colour aware Internet browser (Apple's Safari and IE for Mac browsers excused). For this purpose, the NEC SpectraView lends itself splendidly.
Page 3
NEC SpectraView 1980
Of course, all this talk of DeltaE values can sound rather complicated to the novice, whereas some people in the industry regard the CIE L*a*b* colour space to be an out of date reference. On the other hand, all this colour calibration can be totally ignored if you prefer using your own pair of eyes to setup the SpectraView 1980. Indeed, you're not short of adjustable settings in the OSD. A total of eight buttons laid out in the same fashion as the 2180UX, cover power, a factory reset, a select button that also switches between the inputs, two pairs of select and adjust buttons and an exit button.

Using these to invoke changes from within the OSD is reasonably intuitive and the range of settings covers everything from brightness and contrast, picture position, and sharpness, all the way to image zoom expansion, video signal priority detection, and OSD position/rotation. Six colour temperatures as well as an sRGB and an original native colour mode are also included, plus you can increase or decrease the levels of not only red, green and blue, but also of yellow, cyan, and magenta. Even the saturation level can be tweaked. Either way there's no denying that this 19in monitor is a top performer and a quick run through the DisplayMate's test screens quickly revealed this.

Both colour scales and greyscales were evenly stepped. The 256 greyscale test showed no signs of banding with very smooth ramps from white to black and vice versa. I saw no evidence of pixel jitter when the SpectraView 1980 was fed with an analogue signal although if there was, it would probably be corrected before I spotted it because the built-in auto-adjust function is activated every time the monitor is started-up. Colours looked very rich and in terms of real world testing, I found I could easily distinguish detail from low contrast, shadowy areas in my test images. Skin tones were well reproduced too, and with a response time of 25ms I found little to worry me in the motion smearing department. DVD movies looked rich although a little soft, but this could be improved with the sharpness setting within the OSD. Viewing angles were very wide with no apparent colour shift when viewed from around 170 degrees both horizontally and vertically - an inherent property of an IPS panel.

Overall, I was very pleased with the SpectraView 1980's image quality results. For a 19in display (which the truth be told, is a size I'm not keen on simply because I can pay less for a good 17in display that offers the same 1,280 x 1,024 native resolution) the 1980 is excellent, although very pricey.

Verdict

Despite my personal feelings about 19in LCDs, the NEC SpectraView 1980 is by far the most accurate 19in display I have used in terms of colour reproduction. It certainly made my job easier when controlling the colour casts of my images. The SpectraView Profiler software is comprehensive and lets you quickly calibrate and profile the properties of the monitor for your digital workflow. The only real issue I have is one of price and the fact that you have to buy the optical sensor later which could set you back another couple hundred. The SpectraView 1980 does cost a lot more than your average 19in monitor, but the old adage of "you get what you pay for" is one that's applicable here. Hopefully, the estimated retail prices quoted here will fall when more units flood the market.
Page 4
Features Table
Manufacturer NEC/Mitsubishi
Model SpectraView 1980
LCD technology S-IPS TFT LCD
Stated panel size 19in
Native resolution 1280 x 1024
Colours 16.7 million
Pixel pitch 0.294mm
Stated viewing angles (H/V) 176/176 degrees
Stated Contrast Ratio 500 to 1
Stated Brightness (cd/m2) 270
Full response time 25ms
Video Inputs D-SUB, DVI-I, DVI-D
USB hub No
Speakers No (optional sound bar available)
Integrated PSU Yes
Power consumption (max) 48W
Power consumption (standby) 1.1W
Standard VESA mount Yes (100mm x 100mm)
Height adjustment (distance) Yes (130mm)
Pivot Yes (90 degrees)
Turntable swivel Yes (340 degrees)
Tilt Yes (5 degrees forward, 25 degrees back)
Kensington lock Yes
Dimensions with stand (wxhxd) 412 x 365 to 495 x 200mm (landscape)
Weight with base 10.4 kg
Certification TCO 03
In the box SpectraView Profiler, Power, D-SUB-DVI-I, DVI-D-DVI-D cables CD-ROM manual/driver, NaviSet, anit-glare hood, validation certificate
Warranty 3 years on-site including backlight

Re:Article text. (1)

raventh1 (581261) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130296)

Thanks

*sigh* so what if it's 'improving' (2, Interesting)

purduephotog (218304) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130287)

Delta E calculations are made on displays where I work such that 1 delta E is the limit of acceptable colour change on a monitor. More than that over the range of Code values and the monitor fails.

The BEST LCDs have about a 10 delta E. If you figure 1 Delta E calc is equivelent to 50% of the population seeing a change and 50% of the other 50% guessing (therefore 75% say "Yes, there's a change") then that means LCDs ... suck.

WHEN they make an LCD that acts as a lambertian light source they will see a change for the better. Until they do this NEC monitor (Don't know if we've tested it yet, to be honest, but I had heard we had some NECs in that were pretty good- and that meant 9 Delta E's compared to the 20 before) is a nice word processor doc, but never ever ever will it be certified for imaging...

Re:*sigh* so what if it's 'improving' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11130586)

FYI, the article states a respectable DeltaE of about 3.5 for the tested monitor.

Marketting ;) (1)

purduephotog (218304) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130614)

I saw that and honestly shrugged- that may be true for a midtone, but I honestly (and I really mean honestly) doubt thats true thru the entire range.

I've seen some very good monitors with Delta E's, for one patch, of 1. The whites and blacks tho were shot- one had a colour temperature range from 6300K to 8000K ....

just a thought on notebook LCDs & photographie (1)

Nuttyrave (775676) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130293)

I quite like using LCDs and avoid CRTs (even good ones although I wouldn't know) when I can. Now I know that I have recently seen amazing LCDs on notebook computers recently (TOSHIBAs and VAIOs more specifically, but probably not limited to) - they look SHINY. On a parallel with development of photograhies - it seems quite similar to the shiny/mat preferences although in my case I prefer mat photos / shiny LCDs. Any comments?

Re:just a thought on notebook LCDs & photograp (1)

adeydas (837049) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130347)

well i guess it depends from user to user and the type of work they do. if your just into writing your thesis, then LCD is fine but a graphic designer would not be very happy with it, even the newer ones...

LCDs and porn (0, Troll)

t_allardyce (48447) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130310)

I find most LCDs in public libraries/net-cafes are just not good enough for porn, you just need a CRT and theres no way around it, its abit sad to see so many people switching and knowing they will never be able to enjoy a good porno again. Luckely CRTs are cheap and crappier (read: cheaper) net cafes still have them. But having said that, I did have a go on one of those flashy new Apple LCDs and the cleavage looked pretty good, that was until the rude security guard kicked me out of the shop.

misunderstandings (2, Informative)

jeif1k (809151) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130342)

The article has the usual misunderstandings about color calibration.

Now, how to do this properly has been a long-running and continuing debate that started ever since colour film and colour displays were brought to market. How is colour perceived? Does an output device produce a comparable image to the input device? Does the software accurately handle colour? Does the final image look like the original scene?

Well, I'm sure photographers, Photoshop jockeys, and consumers like to debate such things over and over again. However, the answers to those questions are well known.

If I tell you the number of times I've been asked the question, "Why do my prints look nothing like the images on my monitor", then you'll understand why I believe monitor calibration to be such an important task.

In general, you cannot make prints look like images on the monitor: they have a different gamut and their appearance depends on illumination and many other factors. Making prints look correct requires a lot of skill and experience and monitor calibration is not sufficient (it's not even necessary, actually, if you know what you are doing).

Color accuracy? (1)

Britz (170620) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130354)

I don't know about graphic design all that much. I have 3 friends (that don't know each other) that all work in this field. I have never heard any one of them complain/talk about this topic.

For work a graphic designer has to have the printer in mind. Every printer/printing machine works different and therefore has a slightly different output to the same intput as far as I know. So one has to adjust to the machine e.g. be able to adjust colors on the monitor. So this would be more about being able to adjust colors.

Also this might be about viewing angle since lcds change colors (every slashdot user that has access to a laptop can check this) depending on the viewing angle. This is being worked on. So I imagine this new machine to have more stable colors as the viewing angle changes.

Re:Color accuracy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11131165)

I think part of the reason they never talk or complain about color accuracy is most likely because they simply don't think about it. It amazes me the number of students coming out of school these days with graphic arts degrees and no concept of color control or workflow. Sad really...

Wide Gamut LCDs (4, Informative)

new500 (128819) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130423)

. . . .

Hmm, the screen reviewed is quite reasonably priced, IMO. Below is a edited and amended copy of a posting i wrote elsewhere.

CRTs require lots more calibration. Geometry just complicates things. Guns get out of alignment quickly. They lack luminance, which means that even a *poor* LCD _can appear_ to out-perform a top CRT. Apple wag on about this for their "cinema" displays, which honestly aren't in the same ballpark as a Eizo CG21. So _any_ LCD will *appear* to show a wider gamut than a CRT. But you *just don't* get to replicate that luminance on a print.

CRT is EOL everywhere (save for the Mitsubishi WG CRT), so over a few years, expect problems with support, parts and gun alignment. Yeah, sure, serious CRTs allow you to align the guns and all sorts through firmware, but they're comparably priced to the CG21 I currently use.

The article references Wide Gamut LCD's .. .

OK, I have been in contact with all the relevant product managers over the past six months regards ordering these for my company.
Some pretty solid facts I have learned :

1. Expect NO availability of WG monitors until H2/05. Both Eizo with the CG210 and Mitsu' are sorting out pre- production and *will not* release a half- assed product to beat time - to - market.

2. Forget the WG Mitsu' CRT. Same price almost as LCDs in pre-production now, and is supported in Asia - Pacific only. Correct that, Mitsu' will support you, but it won't be convenient.

3. WG LCDs almost require 10bpp DVI-D input. I am not aware of a graphics card which supports this right now. I sense that Matrox will support this with a new PCI-E Parhelia next year.

4. Cost. Cost. Cost. You need a real justification for the Wide Gamut monitors. Intro prices will be quite a bit >5K$.

5. Barco appear to have chickened out on this market. So says the grapevine anyway.

6. Mitsu' appear to me at least to have some better technology for WG monitors. Possibly also for normal calibrated LCDs, but I am very happy meanwhile using a Eizo CG21 . .

7. You probably don't need one of these unless you are planning to One Time Only scan - to - archive - digital of loads of Kodachromes,, or need to soft proof for Aniva or 4+ ink presses.

8. LaCie is not IMO in the same game. LaCie filled the Radius gap in Mac pre-press environments. They DO NOT manufacture their own components, as do Eizo, Mitsu'. I've not been impressed at all by any of their products. For that matter, for my uses, I wasn't impressed by Apple's cinema displays . .

9. Whatever you do, if you're editing photos or critical color ; Get a monitor hood. Think like lens shades. Control flare. It's much worse on a LCD, IME.

10. Viewing a CRT properly requires a darkened environment. See above.

Component burnout is a fact of life. All the new calibrated Mitsu' / Eizo LCDs are very thouroughly tested and heavily guaranteed / supported. But they will likely wear out in a few years or so. To combat this both Mitsu' and Eizo run luminance below max levels.

Also, if I get my facts right, the only reason Mistu' released the WG CRT is because Japanese printers actually do use the current abilities of their presses properly. Just like DOF scales, SWOP and EuroScale are so outdated people just waste the capabilities of their output media.

Some annoyances with the article :

"as a rule, a DeltaE value of one is considered a perfect calibration i.e. there is no difference between the CIE L*a*b* colour space and the colours reproduced by the monitor."

No, not a perfect calibration, just delta 1.0 is about the threshold of your capacity to distinguish tones.

There will definitely be a variation between what you see and the L*A*B co-ordinates, notwithstanding the delta value as the L*A*B space is theoretical.

"In addition, it's worth noting that a quick browse through some of the literature from NEC reveals that a test report from an independent colour consultant using Altona's Test Suite, recommends that the SpectraView 1980 is more suited to good reproduction of RGB images, but less suited for pre-press soft proofing with the CMYK colour space. "

The Altona Test suite is designed for *print* output : http://www.eci.org/eci/en/031_altona_test_suite.ph p

Free to download but almost useless if you don't know how to wield a densitometer, without reference output for comparison, which is not cheap . . .

So what are they using it to test a RGB device for? There would be no point, CMYK space is far smaller than Adobe or eciRGB, which are likely your working space in photoshop. Oh, and to display Adobe RGB, you'll have to wait for one of these wide gamut displays sometime next year. The Altona suite is excellent for calibrating proofing workflow - that's its purpose, but in such a workflow the monitor is only one component and you close the feedback loop very specifically to your environment. That Mitsu report that test at all is good, but it is not very trivial to interpret results or use such a test effectively. IME such tests are worthless in lab conditions, they are designed to fix your issues not give absolute values.

'kay the article is slashdotted again, so i'll make some coffe now . .

== Idle Random Thoughts - Usual Disclaimers Apply ==

S-IPS LCD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11130498)

Nothing new here. The screen got a S-IPS LCD which has better colors. Thats it.

Urban Myth... LCDs are great for design (1)

Cycline3 (678496) | more than 9 years ago | (#11130519)

I think this is one of those things that can be called an urban myth. The early LCDs were very poor comapared to todays models - especially high end ones that come in Apple Cinema displays and similiar.

Personally, I do design for a living and I LOVE LCD as I get no headaches like CRT used to give me. Staring at an LCD all day everyday is just easier on the eyes. Add to that 23" of flat widescreen real estate and it's a no brainer. I switched a long time back and would never, ever consider going back to CRT.

Re:Urban Myth... LCDs are great for design (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11130767)

I think this is one of those things that can be called an urban myth

It's not an urban myth if LCDs look cruddy to my eyes.

Last I've looked at is Apple's 30". Uhhh all I can say is nice size, pity about only being able to see a bright spot three fourths the size of the monitor. The corners look dead black. Obviously most people see the nice flat color as shown in photographs and marketing material. That, or there are plenty of people willing to lay down thousands for something just based on size and screw any semblance of image quality.

Not everyone's perception of LCD panels is the same as yours. That sucks, because I really like the size and flatness of LCD's.

Re:Urban Myth... LCDs are great for design (1)

BandwidthHog (257320) | more than 9 years ago | (#11131322)

Amen.

What's the point of a properly calibrated monitor that uncalibrates your eyes?

LCD vs CRT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11131041)

You have the same quality difference with LCD as you do with CRT. I have a $900 Sony LCD .21 dot pitch. Never had a problem at all with brightness, its currently on 22 of 100 during the day. You have 4 temperature color settings and using DVI input. Picture perfect. My only gripe is the 25ms delay time for gaming, making images blurred if you are turning fast. Its a small price to pay to save my eyes and avoid radiation from CRTs.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>