Your DISPLAY is too important to skimp!

[CyberDyneSystems]

Preaching mode on.....

The single most efective upgrade anyone can make to there computing experience is to upgrade there display.

For a Site the revolves around digital imaging I would assume this was understood.

And yet I keep reading about those that have 17" monitors,. requests for others to shrink the resolution of there posted images,.. etc.

I'm not knocking anyone,. I just want to shed a little light here.

In one of the many Lens discusions (to end all Lens discussions :) ) someone used the analogy that the lens is like the loudspeaker in a great sound system. (thanks lightchaser) To invest in Nakamichi CD player,. Krell amps etc. and run it through radio shack speakers,... doesn't make sense.

Well your display is your speaker,.. it is your lens for your computer.

Dump that dusty 17" shadow mask and get a 19" minimum Aperture grill monitor and a card that will drive it to at least 1280 X 1024 resolution at 85hz refresh rates.


This will be the single greatest upgrade to your PC you have ever made. I guarantee it.

By the way,. I run Dual Sonys.

An FW900 24" and a G500 21" side by side. I'd give away my PC in a heart beat for the chance to get the latest bells and whistles,. but the monitors leave over my dead body!

[Leighow]

Well I had not thought about this too much -- primarily because my income does not allow me to keep up with the latest gear.!

For example, I paid big bucks for a synthesizer 10+ years ago. Today it is obsolete -- as is all my wind surfing gear!).

Even so, I admit that as I begin better understand color management issues in PS, the monitor is clearly key.

Godd thought.

[PacAce]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
Preaching mode on.....

...And yet I keep reading about those that have 17" monitors,. requests for others to shrink the resolution of there posted images,.. etc.


Wise crack mode on....

Hmmm, how about, could it be possible that maybe some people still have a dialup connection and don't have the patience to wait for the high resolution pictures to dowload, maybe???

I guess a DSL or a cable modem connection is in order then... sort of like the gold plated Monster cable in the hifi analogy. :)

[CyberDyneSystems]

lol Pac Ace,..

Yes of course Dial up is a good reason to request smaller file attachments! :)

I wasn't meaning to start any controversy at all,. nor would I argue with anyones request for a smaller file attachment on this or any other forum.

I just have to admit that as a very new member here, of all the forums I visit, with the subject matter involved,. digital imaging,.. i assumed that this would not be an issue.

We all have a budget of course!

For me I am waaaay behind in the lens dept. and will be for a while,. My tax return got me an SLR,. now I am hampered by a mediocer lens untill I can spend again.

What I did not realize when I started (by buying an SLR ) was that the Lens is in the end a more important investment than the camera in many cases. Certainly anyone with a bag of good Canon glass will place a higher value on that than the bodies which are both (for the most part) easier to replace and ,.more to the point,. upgraded regularly. Some people only owned Canons state of the Art D30 for a year,. then promptly upgraded to D60 and 10D as they came out. But there high end glass you would have to pry from there cold dead hands! :)

All I am saying is that in the many years of PC Graphics I have been involved in I have found that the Display is the LENS of the PC system.

PCs are a dime a dozen but a good display will last easily 7 to ten years. Try keeping a PC for 7 years :(

And yet people will easily spend over a graqnd on a PC and then tether it to a $140.00 "Gem" or KDS" dark shadow mask with poor contrast and color.

Like the high end glass,. your dislay is a better long term investment than your PC, and thus you should consider that you should only buy a monitor Once for evey four or five PCs you own.

Lastly, again I will reiterate,. you can upgrade memory,. hard drive capacity, and even CPU speed and you will have a certain level of satisfaction from each of these upgrades.

None,. nor even all of those upgrades combined will have as large and satisfying an impact on your use of a PC,. especially where digital imaging is involved,. as switching from a 17" shadow mask to a 21" Aperture Grill!

It is absolutely remarkable!

[PacAce]

Hi, CyberDyneSystems,

I agree with what you are saying and will not offer an argument. However, I would like to offer another view on the subject matter...

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
I just have to admit that as a very new member here, of all the forums I visit, with the subject matter involved,. digital imaging,.. i assumed that this would not be an issue.

Although a majority of the members of this forum may own a digital camera of one sort or another, I think I'll be safe in assuming that not all of them are making a living out of it. A small group are, and a larger group are probably serious hobbyist. But the rest probably own a digital camera because they want to take snap shots of family, friends and places to keep in their "albums", just as they've been doing since the early Kodak Brownie days. For those people, an expensive, high quality, big screen monitor is not really required. Heck, with the way one can simply hook up the camera to a good printer these days, even a PC isn't required, let alone a monitor!

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
All I am saying is that in the many years of PC Graphics I have been involved in I have found that the Display is the LENS of the PC system.

Your line of work requires that you have nothing but the best in terms of the monitor you hook up to your computer. But I can't say that that statement would necessarily apply to those people who don't make a living working with graphics, digital imaging or video editing. For them a good 17" monitor will more than suffice. Yes, a 19" or bigger monitor would be nice, but so would a Porche in my garage. (BTW, I DO have a 19" monitor but no Porche in my garage. :) )

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
PCs are a dime a dozen but a good display will last easily 7 to ten years. Try keeping a PC for 7 years :(

OK, I lied. I AM going to argue this point! :p
Yes, there are PCs that are a time a dozen but the same is true of monitors. But there are also fast and expensive PCs with multiple processors out there, too. And for people who DO make a living that requires a fast PC, that is #1, not the monitor which, for them, is just a means of displaying the data they've just number crunched on their fast and expensive multi-CPU PC.

And that, my friend, is a look from another perpective. I must admit, though, that I envy your dual monitor set up. I've been meaning to get myself another monitor, a high contrast LCD monitor like maybe one of the Apple Cinema monitors but 1) they're a little out of my price range right now considering I just spend a fortune on my cameras, lenses and accessories, and 2) it doesn't seem like I can use the Apple Cinema on my PC because, as I understand it, there's a program (driver?) that needs to feeds control data to the monitor via a USB port and I doubt Apple has a PC version of that software. I guess it's this software that brings out the best of the Apple Cinema monitor.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Fair enough :)

But it does not need to be too expensive either,.

A while back Sam's Club was selling the now out of date Sony G-400 19" Flat Aperture grill for $279.00

I bought one as a birthday gift.

This was the best looking monitor I had ever seen at the time! It was the reason I dumped my top of the line Viewsonic P 115 21" for a used Sony G-500 21" (the FW900 24" was later and is used as well)

If you buy new,. Sony's "E" series uses the same tubes as there pro "G" and "F" series,.. just reduced electronics etc. Even a Sony 21" can now be had for about $400.00 or less.

Again that is a pretty good price for something you are practically guaranteed to not need replacing for at least 5 years.

A good place to get used monitors online;

http://www.merkortech.com/index.asp

..like a 20" Sony/ SGI @ $179.00!!!!

..or an NEC 22" .25 AG at $289.00 :)

[PacAce]

Man, those CRT monitors really have come down in price, haven't they? I guess we can thank the LCD monitors for that.

It's really tempting for me to go out and get one me a bigger screen CRT monitor but I just don't have the real estate on my computer table for one. My 19" is already taking up a lot of space. That's the reason I'm looking into an LCD monitor (for the PC), primarily to be used for imaging and video work. Any suggestions?

[CyberDyneSystems]

For LCDs?

I'm no expert,. I stick to CRTs for there versatility and overall performance, but some of the LCD models that consistantly seem to get better revues are not the ones you'd expect.

Personally I don't recomend LCDs fro graphics work,.. but these are some of the names that stick out.

Sharp? Allways top of the class. Supposed to be the absolute best.

Samsung is a great bargain, there monitors all look good but there LCDs are supposed to be a great value.

Viewsonic seems to depend on specific models,. (they don't make there own screens,. they buy and repackage so maybe they get diferent manufacturers LCDs)

In any case,. as allways Unless you allready KNOW the model or manufacturer,. (like me and the Sony AGs :) ) try to see one in person before you buy. This can be very difficult however as places like CompUSA never seems to have even there best monitors set up correctly in the display properties.

You are correct that LCDs are driving the CRT prices down. I bought my first "high dollar" screen for $800.00,. the 21" Viewsonic some years back and it was a REFURB! it was about $1,200.00 new at the time so $800.00 was a deal.

Now you can get top of the line Sony's used for under $300.00 and new "E" series Sony 21" for about $400.00

And of course the 19" models are a steal at $300.00 or less. (you can get a crappy no name 19" for about 150.00 ) The Quality 19" seems to be the best deal out there.

[henkbos]

CRT all the way. I have both laptop and home setup with CRT and TFT. There is a huge difference in brilliance and viewing experiene. Most of the time I don't even bother to comment on colors when viewing on the TFT.

As for the budget: that's always a consideration. If you don't can/want to shell out the money for the best, accept it and move on.

[Fried]

Well,
I nearly always use my Dell 8200 Notebook to work on my pictures. The 1600*1200 display is very sharp, colors are not too bad.
I try to squeeze and tweak a little to get the best print on the HP5550 (I like this more than Canon or Epson's).
For travel photo, a CRT ist to bulky anyway, but franly I have yet to see one that is THAT much better.
To judge your photos, I think a good TFT is ok if you have some experience in interpreting the result, which in my case is print anyway.
I have not yet tried outsourcing the printing to much, my first experience was not very good.
Fried

[perfectpixel]

I've been thinking of switching to LCD as well. I hear the 18" Dell Ultrasharp is prety good. But everyone always puts down LCDs for graphics.
Just a thought though, if LCDs are so bad for graphics, why are those "digital picture frames" so popular? Certainly those things are not as sharp as the high end LCDs.
I'd like to move to an LCD from my 20" Viewsonic G790 for the same reason as everyone else, space on the desk and eyes that are not so tired after a 3 hour PS session.

[PacAce]

unstuck wrote:
I've been thinking of switching to LCD as well. I hear the 18" Dell Ultrasharp is prety good. But everyone always puts down LCDs for graphics.

I've read rave reviews about the Apple Cinama lcd monitors for graphics and imaging use. I'm wondering if there's an equivalent monitor for the PCs, whether it's made by Apple or not. Anyone?

[perfectpixel]

I have not heard of the Apple Cinama lcd monitors. Do you have any links? I'll look for it's specs. If lcds can work on mac platform for graphics, you not pcs too?!

[PacAce]

unstuck wrote:
I have not heard of the Apple Cinama lcd monitors. Do you have any links? I'll look for it's specs. If lcds can work on mac platform for graphics, you not pcs too?!

Here's the apple link where you can buy one:

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/71002/wo/P91BB5ziTVrU2t9bABe1cy1kZvU/0.0.5.1.0.5.9.0.AppleProductsListTile.1.3.0.7.7.1. 1.0

and here's one review of the Cinema monitor:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/displays.shtml

As I understand it, the reason why you just can't plug the Cinema monitor to a pc and expect to get the same quality image as when connected to an Apple is because the monitor, in addition to connecting to the video board via a DVI connector, also needs to plug into the USB port so that the monitor can "talk" to the driver software. And I don't know if there's any port of the required driver for PCs.

[CyberDyneSystems]

The Apple Cinema display was based on monitor technology from an LCD made by SGI. (which was PC compatible) so there are other LCDs the same size and quality that are PC compatible.

[Rudi]

PacAce wrote:
Man, those CRT monitors really have come down in price, haven't they? I guess we can thank the LCD monitors for that.

It's really tempting for me to go out and get one me a bigger screen CRT monitor but I just don't have the real estate on my computer table for one. My 19" is already taking up a lot of space. That's the reason I'm looking into an LCD monitor (for the PC), primarily to be used for imaging and video work. Any suggestions?

Yep! I just bought the Samsung Syncmaster 191T. It's a 19" TFT flat panel with a 170 degree viewing angle, 500:1 contrast ratio, will accept both analogue (RGB) and DVI video connections, and calibrates easily and accurately with my Colorvision Spyder with PhotoCAL.

Here is it, next to my 17" Mitsubishi Diamond View CRT (which acts as a second screen in a dual monitor setup), and my networked laptop with a 14.1" screen is on the right:

http://home.pacific.net.au/~rudiphoto/demo/CRW_0662C.jpg

[Rudi]

henkbos wrote:
CRT all the way. I have both laptop and home setup with CRT and TFT. There is a huge difference in brilliance and viewing experiene. Most of the time I don't even bother to comment on colors when viewing on the TFT.


No longer true with the high-end LCDs, Henk. I was all set to buy the Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 22" CRT, then saw the Samsung 19" LCD! Wow! Less than an inch in actual viewing area difference, 23kg lighter, colours as good as the CRT! No kidding, check one out!

The difference between my laptop TFT (a late model Toshiba with what I thought before was a great laptop display) and the Samsung TFT is night and day!

[henkbos]

May be I should refine my comment as "laptop with TFT and desktop with CRT/TFT". I'm sure the stand alone TFTs are better than the ones in laptops.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Rudi,. the Samsungs are brilliant,. and there are definately some great LCDs out there. But the truth is they still haven't acheived the kind of color rendition or clarity that the best CRTs can supply.

Don't get me wrong,. LCDs have come a long way,. but unless you are comparing them to a run of the mill bargain brand CRT, then the CRT still wins the contest.

[Rudi]

Well, I looked at both the Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 22" CRT model and the Samsung. They were NOT calibrated (it was at the shop), and there might have been a (very slight) difference, BUT...

The CRT was HUGE, HEAVY (30kg), and not "night and day" different from the LCD.

I have noticed that no one markets a "Pro Graphics" line of LCDs, yet almost all manufacturers market such a line in CRTs. I also notice that Apple are no longer using CRTs, and are marketing their new Cinema display LCDs as graphics capable.

The difference between my LCD and a pro CRT is much less than the difference between what two different but calibrated Fuji Frontier machines can put out (in the real world). That's good enough for me! :)

[perfectpixel]

Yep! I just bought the Samsung Syncmaster 191T. It's a 19" TFT flat panel with a 170 degree viewing angle, 500:1 contrast ratio, will accept both analogue (RGB) and DVI video connections, and calibrates easily and accurately with my Colorvision Spyder with PhotoCAL.


that's a great to hear about your LCD.
Any idea how the dell ultrasharp 1800FP would compare with your LCD? (18", 1280 x 1024, 0.2805 350:1 contrast ratio, 15-Pin D-Sub and 24-Pin DVI-D Input Connectors)
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=320-0469

I think if I move to LCD, my eyes wont be so tired all the time (current monitor Viewsonic 20" G790 Graphic series Not calibrated)

[Masabo]

I just read that Viewsonic is coming out with a 19" LCD monitor with a 600:1 contrast ration, 170-degree view angle for $699. Viewsonic VP18b. Sounds very interesting. Wonder how it'll perform?

[Rudi]

AFAIK, the Viewsonic LCD panels are actually made by Samsung. My Samsung Syncmaster has 500:1 contrast ratio and 170 degree viewing angle. Best thing I ever bought! :)

[oliver]

Anybody out there own a Sony PREMIERPRO 23 Wide Flat Panel LCD (SDM-P232W/B) ? I just ordered one and will give you an update. Comparing the specifications, this monitor is almost identical to the the apple cinema series.

[stopbath]

Two comments on the analogy that the monitor is the lens of the PC.

I disagree. The Digital camera is the lens of the PC. The monitor is the framed photo of the PC. (Frame meaning final presentation - be it stuck to the fridge, or actually framed.)

A loudspeaker presents the listener with sound.
A lens on a camera presents the view with nothing. It is the framed photo that presents the viewer with an image.

When photographers frame their photos, they usually choose 5x7, 8x10, 11x14... up to poster size. 8 x 10 or 11 x 14 are popular. Equate them to 17 or 19 inch monitors. Perhaps 5 x 7 is 14 inch monitor. and 4 x 6 is a 12 inch.

Exactly like monitors as you get larger, photos are more comfortable to view, and it's easier to see detail. Eventually, though it becomes hard to see up close, and you need to move back...


Also, I think tossing up a full sized image onto the net is wastefull. Not only can some people not view the entire image, but some are lost behind a chugging slow Internet connection.

Using smaller images produces images that are easy to view, not a long time to down load through the Internet, and (this is bonus) due to the lower resolution may deter some people from using the image for their own use (not to say it happens here...)

[CyberDyneSystems]

The fact that some people were saying that the image was to large for there monitor,. that was what I was responding to so many months ago when I pposted this.

If you read further in the thread I go on to explain that I was not arguing that we should be posting huge files,. ....it was just this peice of information that was being repeated concerning screen size that allowed me to realize that many here involved in graphics and imaging on there PCs have the wrong tools for the job.

There are HUNDREDS of posts on this forum where people are told that you get what you pay for with lenses,. that attaching a cheap lens to a fine DSLR defeats the purpose of owning a fine DSLR. Hundereds!

When I realized that there are 10D and G3 owners trying to work on there images with an old 15" Shadow Mask... I had the same reaction.

You are shooting yourself in the foot by investing in the equipment, and more so investing in the time and effort to take great photos,. and then trying to work on them in Photoshop or what have you on a substandard monitor.

Once again.

The single greatest upgrade you can do for you PC is to upgrade the Size and quality of your Display.

I have been in the PC industry for years,. and no upgrade I have done to a customer's PC, including an entirely new one, illicits the same satisfaction from customers as switching from a generic small monitor to a really nice display.

[stopbath]

I fully agree about upgrading the screen to the largest you can afford (money and desk space)

But display size is not truly that important compared to need to get good quality shots to start with, or to manipulate those images. A sizable working screen image is also secondary to the final image (the printer.)
I would rather have a great camera, lots of memory, and a great printer than have a great monitor and fuzzy or low grade prints.

On to the analogy that the monitor is the lens: This in my opinion, is just silly. The monitor equates more to the speakers of a stereo system or the print size of a photo, then to the lens of a camera. The monitor is not the source of the image. It is but a device for display. You could use it for input by doing a screen capture, just like you can use loudspeakers as a microphone but, they are best served as output.)

The lens of the digital imaging system is but the lens of the camera used.

[John_T]

I can't help but make a comment here. Nobody has mentioned the graphic card. A good graphic card will make any monitor look better. A professional monitor will still look lousy with a lousy graphic card.

I'm running dual 1600 X 1200 at 100 Hz and one billion colors on two Sony GDM-F520 21" monitors. A Matrox Parhelia graphic card makes this possible. The screen quality and accuracy is stunning. Naturally the rest of my rig matches the output to use it effectively.

What I am saying is that components work as a team, and whatever the price range you operate in, you need to see that your components are well matched.

To go out and buy a top monitor thinking you are going to upgrade a mediocre rig is likely to end in disappointment.

My rig:
Matrox Parhelia PH-A128R/Titan CUV2AB+RAM sinks + slot cooler, P4 3.06/Thermalright SLK900/Enermax 92mm fan, Northbridge/Titan CUV2AB, 1 GB 1066 RDRAM, Gigabyte GA-8IHXP 533FSB mb, 120GB Raid 0 +120GB+160GB USB hd, SB Audigy Platinum int, Megaworks 510D, 2 x Sony 21' GDM-F520 + Eizo T57s, DVD/CD/Burner, Fritz! ADSL, Lian Li PC70 w/550W ADP BlackNoise psu, Papst fans, Noiseblocker, WinXP Pro - plus

[CyberDyneSystems]

You are right on the money there John!

A man after my own heart,..

...and yes Matrox makes the best 2D cards available,. (If i didn't sya that in this thread than shame on me :( I know I say it a lot elsewhere! )

I have a few PCs hooked up to my G-500 and FW-900 monitors.

The main PC uses an expensive (nearly $300.00) Nvidia Geforce 4 with dual outputs and 128 MB ram.

You know what card looks better?

The 16 MB Matrox G-200,

Oh and also the 8 MB Matrox Millenimum PCI!!!!!

Yes,. they both look better,.. AND a 16 MB Matrox G-400 will run photoshop faster than a 128 Megabyte Nvidia Geforce 4!!!!!!!!

So,.. when we say "your Display is too important to skimp",. we mean The Whole Display,. Monitor, Graphics Card and settings.

:D

[Rudi]

Funny you should say that, CDS. When I bought my 19" flat screen Samsung, I also upgraded to the Matrox Millennium G550 video card. I went from 64MB video RAM to 32MB, but I gained dual-monitor support, and the picture quality is so much better. What a difference!

Now I'm sold on Matrox cards for Photoshop work and photo display.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Rudi,

I had browsed your galleries some time ago,... .. and just clicked on the link again,..

You do really nice work :)

[Rudi]

Thanks CDS! Visit again soon, I am in the throes of upgrading my web pages (hopefully will be finished in a week or so... :)).