Which monitor do most consider better...

[Nozkan]

1. Excuse me, there are others but this is totally Off-Topic.

2. CRT is a really old fashioned technology, UV radiation, sharpness problems, tiresome for eyes... I would go for LCD.
3. What is the third alternative (something else ?)

Thanks...

I am getting a new computer system and was wondering what the feeling
is on the best moniter, for editing and working with photos would be?
CRT or LCD? Or is there something else I should consider? What
about flat
screen?
J

 

[ChrisKrueger]

Forgot my other question: what is the longevity of these good
CRT's. I know my previous average one is still running and is 3.5
years old.

I don't know, but my 21" Sony Trinitron lasted 4 years under pretty normal usage ( 4 hours a day, power saving after 60min). The last year or so it got noticeably dimmer. The image still looked great; sharp, good colors, and good contrast (ie: the brightness scale on dpreview's site still looked great), but the maximum brightness fell off. Where I had it set at 50 out of 100 for brightness initially, by the time it died it was maxed out at 100 and still wasn't as bright as when I bought it. Not scientific, but I don't have any calibration equipment other than my eyes and test patterns.

Another forum-goer with roughly the same monitor had the same experience, as did other people with similar monitors. I think the warranty on the monitor was three years, so you can probably figure you won't get more than five out of a monitor unless you don't use it much. I DO have an old Samsung 17" (7yrs), a generic 14" SGVA (9yrs), and a 14" VGA (10+ yrs) that still work fine, but none are used very often these days. All of them were used heavily for a couple years, then relegated to the basement or a server. And the 14" SVGA has a slowly-shrinking picture... it's probably closer to 12" these days.

I would budget for three years and hope for five. Besides, in three years LCDs will probably have much better color reproduction. You'll probably toss your CRT out the window when LCDs finally reach parity.

---
http://www.pbase.com/ckrueger

 

[ChrisKrueger]

1. Excuse me, there are others but this is totally Off-Topic.

Not as off-topic as soliciting votes for American Idol.

2. CRT is a really old fashioned technology, UV radiation,
sharpness problems, tiresome for eyes... I would go for LCD.

Yes, CRTs emit radiation. Do you use a cell phone? You're going to get more radiation from that. Unless you stick your head directly behind the monitor, possibly.

As for sharpness, there are as many poor LCDs as CRTs.

And as for eyestrain, set your CRT for 85Hz. If you can still perceive flicker at 85Hz, you are in the top 1% of eyeballs. I run mine at 100Hz and side-by-side I can't tell the difference between it and an LCD.

I don't really get the "old fashioned technology" thing... you could also say LCD is an "immature technology" in this application, as its image quality isn't up to CRT standards yet.

---
http://www.pbase.com/ckrueger

 

[ncuthbertson]

I have to thank you all for your thoughts on this topic.
But I guess since we all use PS or another image editing program,

monitors are of great importance to most of us. I feel that if we are spending the money on good digital cameras and lenses in hope of taking good pictures,we need to view them on a good monitor or we are defeating the purpose.
J

1. Excuse me, there are others but this is totally Off-Topic.

Not as off-topic as soliciting votes for American Idol.

2. CRT is a really old fashioned technology, UV radiation,
sharpness problems, tiresome for eyes... I would go for LCD.

Yes, CRTs emit radiation. Do you use a cell phone? You're going
to get more radiation from that. Unless you stick your head
directly behind the monitor, possibly.

As for sharpness, there are as many poor LCDs as CRTs.

And as for eyestrain, set your CRT for 85Hz. If you can still
perceive flicker at 85Hz, you are in the top 1% of eyeballs. I run
mine at 100Hz and side-by-side I can't tell the difference between
it and an LCD.

I don't really get the "old fashioned technology" thing... you
could also say LCD is an "immature technology" in this application,
as its image quality isn't up to CRT standards yet.

---
http://www.pbase.com/ckrueger

 

[ChrisKrueger]

I have to thank you all for your thoughts on this topic.
But I guess since we all use PS or another image editing program,
monitors are of great importance to most of us. I feel that if we
are spending the money on good digital cameras and lenses in hope
of taking good pictures,we need to view them on a good monitor or
we are defeating the purpose.

Happy to help.

Do you really want to spend a lot of money on the perfect monitor, however, or is it better to just get one that can do the job well enough? If your output format is print, I'd sooner spend $500 on a decent monitor and $500 on an awesome printer than $1000 on an awesome monitor and $200 on a decent printer. Especially if CRTs are an option, because you can get a very nice 21" monitor for $500.

---
http://www.pbase.com/ckrueger

 

[ncuthbertson]

Thanks for your ideas Chris. You are likely right.
I have a HP photosmart 7550 that I really like and seems to print

good pictures. What are your thoughts on this printer? Do you have better printer suggestions?
J

I have to thank you all for your thoughts on this topic.
But I guess since we all use PS or another image editing program,
monitors are of great importance to most of us. I feel that if we
are spending the money on good digital cameras and lenses in hope
of taking good pictures,we need to view them on a good monitor or
we are defeating the purpose.

Happy to help.

Do you really want to spend a lot of money on the perfect monitor,
however, or is it better to just get one that can do the job well
enough? If your output format is print, I'd sooner spend $500 on a
decent monitor and $500 on an awesome printer than $1000 on an
awesome monitor and $200 on a decent printer. Especially if CRTs
are an option, because you can get a very nice 21" monitor for $500.

---
http://www.pbase.com/ckrueger

 

[banzai]

What are your thoughts on this printer? Do you have
better printer suggestions?

I know a lot of people like to do everything in-house and have things fully under their control, but I don't think any home printer can beat a glossy 8x12 on Fuji Crystal Archive paper ("real" photographic paper, same as film prints) from Costco. Especially not when they cost US$1.99!!

For that incredible quality and ridiculously cheap price, I'm happy to wait the 24hrs and not have to mess with buying inks and papers.

--banzai
http://www.ebanzai.com/

 

[ChrisKrueger]

Thanks for your ideas Chris. You are likely right.
I have a HP photosmart 7550 that I really like and seems to print
good pictures. What are your thoughts on this printer? Do you have
better printer suggestions?
J

I'm no printer expert, but I always had my eye on the Canon s9000, as it can print 13x19 and can use replaceable ink. Ink cost is my biggest complaint with my HP printers (932c and 110).

I think if I had a few hundred dollars to spend I'd look for a printer that could do 13x19, use fillable ink, and do edge-to-edge on at least 8x10's. The s9000 was $200, but it has been discontinued, and its replacement is $400. :/

---
http://www.pbase.com/ckrueger

 

[ChrisKrueger]

What are your thoughts on this printer? Do you have
better printer suggestions?

I know a lot of people like to do everything in-house and have
things fully under their control, but I don't think any home
printer can beat a glossy 8x12 on Fuji Crystal Archive paper
("real" photographic paper, same as film prints) from Costco.
Especially not when they cost US$1.99!!

For that incredible quality and ridiculously cheap price, I'm happy
to wait the 24hrs and not have to mess with buying inks and papers.

I'd love to do that, but there is no Costco even remotely near me (Madison WI, 90 minutes West of Milwaukee).

---
http://www.pbase.com/ckrueger

 

[ncuthbertson]

I also have the 932c, great printer too, but I agree with you that
the ink cartridges don't seem to last long and are pricey.
J

Thanks for your ideas Chris. You are likely right.
I have a HP photosmart 7550 that I really like and seems to print
good pictures. What are your thoughts on this printer? Do you have
better printer suggestions?
J

I'm no printer expert, but I always had my eye on the Canon s9000,
as it can print 13x19 and can use replaceable ink. Ink cost is my
biggest complaint with my HP printers (932c and 110).

I think if I had a few hundred dollars to spend I'd look for a
printer that could do 13x19, use fillable ink, and do edge-to-edge
on at least 8x10's. The s9000 was $200, but it has been
discontinued, and its replacement is $400. :/

---
http://www.pbase.com/ckrueger

 

[banzai]

I'd love to do that, but there is no Costco even remotely near me
(Madison WI, 90 minutes West of Milwaukee).

Hmm. Surprising. Costcos are taking over the country so it's only a matter of time!

You could always hang up the cheese-head hat and move on down to Chicago (my hometown). Just leave the Packers jersey behind...

--banzai
http://www.ebanzai.com/

 

[CDunlop]

Hehe, Sound silly but I use three displays! I primarily use my Sony 17" Panel. I use this for the majority of my photo editing and detail work, and some color correction. It's just a bundle easier on the eyes, and the color isn't horrible. I slide the image over to my Viewsonic CRT to verify the colors. I also use a well calibrated and restored Commodore 1701 monitor, mostly to check for NTSC color if I'm doing DVD output.

I am getting a new computer system and was wondering what the feeling
is on the best moniter, for editing and working with photos would be?
CRT or LCD? Or is there something else I should consider? What
about flat
screen?
J

 

[ncuthbertson]

I have thought about that too. LCD for your everyday stuff and CRT for
photo editing.
J

I am getting a new computer system and was wondering what the feeling
is on the best moniter, for editing and working with photos would be?
CRT or LCD? Or is there something else I should consider? What
about flat
screen?
J

 

[ChrisKrueger]

You could always hang up the cheese-head hat and move on down to
Chicago (my hometown). Just leave the Packers jersey behind...

I actually considered that at one point, but the cost of moving was too high. I didn't realize that to get across the border you have to sell your soul!

I doubt we'll be getting a CostCo soon... Milwaukee doesn't even have one yet, so I'd give it at least five years. :/

---
http://www.pbase.com/ckrueger

 

[ChrisKrueger]

I have thought about that too. LCD for your everyday stuff and CRT for
photo editing.

A lot of the new video cards from Nvidia (and I imagine ATI as well) can simultaneously drive their DVI and VGA outputs, so you can even do multimonitor with a single run-of-the-mill video card these days. A friend of mine even got a DVI-> VGA adapter and is driving two 21" CRTs off a single Nvidia AGP card.

---
http://www.pbase.com/ckrueger

 

[ZX6R223601]

CRT by a long shot. I still don't get the big deal behind the LCD monitors. IMHO they are horrible for photo editing. The pictures don't look their natural best and I think its just an all around bad choice for working with images, let alone video editing. LCD may be compact but I will always preffer CRT for editing.

I am getting a new computer system and was wondering what the feeling
is on the best moniter, for editing and working with photos would be?
CRT or LCD? Or is there something else I should consider? What
about flat
screen?
J

--
When Diplomacy Fails, CRUSH'EM!!!