CRTs vs LCDs

[TWM]

How many people are using LCD monitors for post processing. If you do, do you get accurate enough color to get good prints etc.? I think my Sony CRT is going and I'd like to have a LCD but not at the expense of accurate color.:lol:

[pjd83]

I prefer CRT to LCD.

I've got Sony Flat screen CRT thing. Multiscan E250. Its great and I chose it as its higher resolution than the lcd counterparts. This I think has its uses in digital photography.

[J.A.F. Doorhof]

I use a 20" LCD from Iyama, I used a 22" CRT before but I love the sharpness of 1600x1200 LCD.
I must say that's it's a VERY good LCD, I have seen others that made my eyes tear :D.

[pierrot]

Never use a LCD if you intend to post-process your shots for printing. They are simply unable to display the colour range needed. Professionals don't use LCD for at least this single reason.

Being fully analog, CRT display as many colours as the graphic controller can produce and code on 24 or 32 bits (or more, if needed). LCD are limited to displaying 22 bit colours, which is at least 4 times less (colours) than the graphic card they are plugged on, and this factor can racise up to 1024 (with 32 bits controllers).

[J.A.F. Doorhof]

@Pierrot,
Did you ever see one of the high-end TFT models ?
I have calibrated my entire workflow and the printouts are the same as my monitor shows, again I repeat that the TFT I use has a proper SPMTE/CIE readout, most have not.

It al depends on how much money you are willing to spend, I have worked with 22" CRT's and you can buy 3 of them for the price of a high-end TFT.
The only REAL drawback of the TFT is the blacklevel, the detail in blacklevel is almost as good as the CRT at this end but the blacklevel (0IRE output) is higher, so pitch black is not possible, when used to this you can also do end work on a TFT.

[gpocock]

Hello

Just as digital is taking over from film so will TFT take over from CRT. It may not be there yet but with a top end TFT monitor plus something like a Gretag-Macbeth EyeOne to calibrate it one can get very good results. Also, it depends on what else you do. I do a fair bit of desktop publishing and can turn my Eizo FlexScan through 90 degrees to see a complete A4 sizep page. And it is more restful on the eyes.

How many of us are real professionals? I would guess that more than half the people subscribing to this Group would be more than happy with a TFT monitor.

Yours

Geoffrey Pocock

[iwatkins]

I use a TFT, my prints come out exactly as on screen. The End. :)

[cmM]

the higher end LCD have amazing abilities as far as color. One of the only issues remaining these days with LCDs are viewing angles.
I have a dual monitor setup and use a CRT for image viewing/editing, but the LCD comes pretty close.

[EricKonieczny]

I use a 20 inch Apple Cinema Display on a XP system, calibrated with Spyder2.

It has given me great ressults.

I have an old 17 inch CRT, but only use it to check the size and layout of pages for design.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

I use my laptop which has a UXGA LCD display and it is incredible. 1600x1200 resolution is great. CRT Monitors suck.

[J.A.F. Doorhof]

Hummm, well that is not the truth, I have never seen a laptop with a good display :D.

[RAitch]

My Toshiba has a nice display and I use it all the time. It's better than some CRT monitors that I've seen.

If you're going to argue that those must be some pretty crappy monitors.... then I'd respond "Sure were, but you must have been looking at crappy LCDs."

[J.A.F. Doorhof]

:D
I own a TFT for my photowork :D
And I have used CRT's very much.

[Longwatcher]

I consider this issue to be like medium format film versus 35mm format digital.

A high end CRT, while bulky, will outperform a high-end LCD/TFT, but a high-end LCD will perform equal to or better then a mid-range CRT and take up a lot less space. When talking high end the LCD prices are higher then CRT.

Just what I found out from some image scientists I worked with.

I use a mid-range LCD right now and get great prints. Although strangely I like my older (by two years)LCD more then my newer LCD.

[Moody Blues]

I have been using a 23" Apple HD LCD for 1 month now. The accuracy is simply amazing. Better than any CRT I have ever seen.

[pcasciola]

The 20" Dell Ultrasharp Widescreen LCD (2005FPW I think?) uses the same exact LCD panel as the Apple Cinema Display. I read a review comparing the two where the Dell actually outperformed the 20" Apple display, and if you time it right with the Dell coupons, it can be purchased for $395 shipped. That's a steal for an LCD of that caliber. I don't see myself ever going back to CRT, but I don't think I'll ever attempt to use a low end LCD for image editing either.

[EricKonieczny]

The 20" Dell Ultrasharp Widescreen LCD (2005FPW I think?) uses the same exact LCD panel as the Apple Cinema Display. I read a review comparing the two where the Dell actually outperformed the 20" Apple display, .

Not to question you, but I originally bought the dell widescreen with my dell machine and did not care for it. It was not sharp. I returned it and bought the Apple and it is hands down way sharper and better.

I know Apple's prices are somewhat inflated, but it justifies being more than the Dell.

[pcasciola]

Not to question you, but I originally bought the dell widescreen with my dell machine and did not care for it. It was not sharp. I returned it and bought the Apple and it is hands down way sharper and better.

I know Apple's prices are somewhat inflated, but it justifies being more than the Dell.You must have had one of the older Dell's (November 2004?), were using the analog inputs, or maybe just got a bad one. It's pretty common knowledge now that they use the same exact panel (LG.Philips part#201W01). There were some reports of the original Dell's having some issues, mostly related to using the analog inputs which I don't think Apple even provides. Hook both up with DVI and there is virtually no difference.

Heres the review:

http://anandtech.com/displays/showdoc.aspx?i=2400

[RAitch]

I love these "my apple is better than your orange" debates.
You're not going to get a definite argument... so you'll either have to buy one and try it... or find somebody that has one that you want and try it out first.

I think any reasonable LCD will do fine for what most people need... if you're willing to pay for the other advantages.

There are WAY TOO MANY monitors and LCDs to try to compare. You'll need to find ones that you want and check out the tech specs.

I would think most people buying an LCD for photo work would be concious about colour and thus wouldn't buy a crappy one. Do the same and I'm sure you'll be happy.

[Mernya]

The "No Professionals Use LCDs" line is not accurate. CRTs do produce a range of colors better over LCDs, but like color space arguments, it isn't always about the math of the gamut.

For example, some people may prefer working in LCDs because of the saturation and vividness. Some newer LCDs may have better stats than the older CRTs that people are upgrading from.

Ultimately, if your workflow is set up correctly and you have color management in place, you'll be fine with either.

[lostdoggy]

I use 19" LCD Display and I love the fact I got my desk back from ny old 19" CRT. Won't turn back. How close you get to match that depends on how good your eyes are??? To say Pros don't use LCD is over generalizing.

[Pekka]

I just switched from 21" Eizo CRT to 2 19" Eizo L768 LCDs. I calibrated both with Spyder 2 Pro and the colors are very accurate (at 70% brightness), just like the CRT had - I do not see any jagged gradients or other anomalies. Only thing that needs "time" is that for photo work it is important to look straight to monitors, even if promised viewing angle is about 180 degrees - from side colors are ok, but luminance changes too much.

I have no regrets!

[montreal]

I don't mean to hijack this thread, but I'm actually in the market for a new LCD screen. I want the extra space on my desk. I could pay up to 700$ CAN.

What would be the minimum contrast ratio I should go for? I see Pekka's has 1000:1 but it's more expensive than what I can afford.

[DwightMcCann]

I just hooked up a new ACD 23" LCD. It is a different ratio (like HDTV) than I am used to but looks super on first inspection. It was pricey, about $1500 from B&H. I also expect to take Pekka's advice and get the Spyder 2 Pro. If I like it well enough, maybe I'll put two of them on my desktop ... that would about cover it! Oh, and viewing from the side does not have nearly the change in luminescence that my Viewsonic 19" did ... I used to lean to the sides to see if there was detail in the shadows! :-)

[pcasciola]

Good luck with the 23" ACD, Dwight. That's an awesome display.

I'll second the recommendation for the Spyder 2 Pro for LCD calibration too. I just calibrated my 19" Viewsonic LCD with it, and it's light years better than it was before. I went for the PrintFix studio which also adds a small scanner for generating custom calibrated printer profiles. It's $399 for the PrintFix Suite at B&H, which includes the Spyder 2 Pro.

I've also been thinking about replacing my Viewsonic with the Dell UltraSharp 24" widescreen LCD which can be had for around $900 with the current Dell coupon deals, but I can't afford to be blowing any money right now on luxury items like that since my full time consulting contract was not renewed, so I am on the beach for the time being (literally and figuratively). ;)

[DwightMcCann]

Pcasciola,

Now that I am not blinded by it there appears to be some yellow tint near some of the edges, although so gentle that I don't think it'll make much difference to me ... I mostly need to be able to see the shadow detail and have plenty of real estate.

I will probably take your advice and go with the PrintFix Studio ... sounds just like what I need.

[DwightMcCann]

Casciola, it looks like there is a $75 mail in rebate on that PrintFix Suite!

[robertwgross]

I just switched from 21" Eizo CRT to 2 19" Eizo L768 LCDs.

And I thought I was the only one still using that brand (same as Nanao).

This Nanao FlexScan F550i must be quite a few years old now.

---Bob Gross---

[pcasciola]

Casciola, it looks like there is a $75 mail in rebate on that PrintFix Suite!I just sent mine in, but I'm a little skeptical which is why I didn't mention it. B&H printed it out for me at the register, but it's worded like this:

For new owners of Colorvision Spyder2PRO Studio, purchase one of the following: Colorvision PrintFix or Colorvision SpectroPro.

Since I purchased the ColorVision PrintFix Suite which includes Spyder2Pro Studio and PrintFix in a bundle for $399, I'm not sure it qualifies, but we'll see.

[Inspired Photography]

I use a 23" HD Apple Cinema display.

The accuracy is fantastic. Anything less than this quality/res though, and i would probably advise against LCD.

Rob

[FlyingPete]

I am on the fence on this issue. I avoid using my Laptops (HP Evo N800) screen for editing, as it is no where near accurate enough, also Ihave noticed that slight (and I mean slight!)variations in viewing angle affect the birghtness and contract of the image. The results I get from my Philips 109S CRT are far better and far more accurate.

With this in mind, do the good LCD's overcome this issue, or do you always have to look at them almost dead straight on?

[foxbat]

Being fully analog, CRT display as many colours as the graphic controller can produce and code on 24 or 32 bits (or more, if needed). LCD are limited to displaying 22 bit colours, which is at least 4 times less (colours) than the graphic card they are plugged on, and this factor can racise up to 1024 (with 32 bits controllers).Oh boy is that a naiive statement or what!? Pierrot would do well to research the term "monitor gamut".

Fast-forwarding a bit, I can personally recommend the Dell 2405fpw (A samsung panel I think). After Spyder calibration my prints = my display. Can't ask for more than that.

[Nabil-A]

I used to lean to the sides to see if there was detail in the shadows! :-)

I have this problem now. Do you think a spyder pro will solve this?

[DavidW]

Calibration may well help a lot with lack of shadow detail, as it should calibrate your monitor accurately to a given gamma figure (2.2 is universal on PCs). In the absence of a colourimeter based solution, Adobe Gamma can help, but usually gives very poor results on LCDs. If you care about your photography, it's worth calibrating your monitor and doing what you can about accurate white balance (I'm going to order a WhiBal once Michael Tapes has worked a couple of glitches out of his new shopping cart system that he's aware of).


I've got a Monaco OPTIX XR Pro kit here for monitor calibration, which seems to review very well. Overall, I prefer the X-Rite approach to colour management (X-Rite bought Monaco, the Monaco brand is used for their lower end product), especially when it comes to scanners and printers - not that I have that part of their system yet.

One thing the Monaco (and Gretag Macbeth) colourimeter products can do that I don't believe the Spyder can is to evaluate the ambient light.


Printfix only works with specific printer models. Monaco EZcolor works by supplying you with an IT8 target, which you use with a flatbed scanner. You can create a profile for your scanner using the target, or create a printer profile by printing out from EZcolor, attaching the IT8 target in the indicated position, and scanning both (it's important to defeat the scanner's automatic colour management - on higher end HP scanners, this is usually done by manually setting the exposure black point to 0 and the exposure white point to 255).

It's not perfect - a flatbed scanner isn't a spectrophotometer, and there may be problems with metamerism and similar, but it seems to hold up well, especially as you can manually tweak the profiles. This works for any printer - I don't have a printer that Printfix covers, and EZcolor is the only scanner based solution that uses a calibrated target.


If you're not bothered about the higher end features of OPTIX XR Pro, you can buy EZcolor with the OPTIX XR colourimeter as a bundle. If you want the OPTIX XR Pro software later, you can buy it as an upgrade, but it's not cheap.

For now, I decided to go with OPTIX XR Pro, and may add the EZcolor software / target later (they're always bundled together - you need a Monaco reflective IT8 target to make any use of EZcolor unless you only want to calibrate scanners scanning transparencies - in which case you need a transparency IT8 target bought separately). I don't have any particularly good photo printers - it may well be that I choose to send anything I want really good prints of to a digital lab that respects profiles.

With a calibrated monitor, I know that what I'm seeing on screen is 'real' colour, so I'm not wasting ages in Photoshop working on a picture that nobody else can display or print as I'm seeing it.


So far as CRT versus LCD, I'm about to retire my last CRT. Even though I'm serious about my photography, the 'bread and butter' work for all my PCs is textual, and LCDs are the only display that makes sense for that. I'm also working on limited sized desks - the difference in space taken between a 19" Dell P990 CRT (the very old CRT I'm about to retire) and a 17" Dell 1703FP is amazing - but the actual picture size is only a few mm different at 1280 x 1024. The panel is very slightly smaller, but not by much.

Laptop screens aren't great for colour accuracy - I have a 1400 x 1050 Dell Latitude D600. OPTIX XR Pro can only get overall dE down to around 5, and the 'evaluate profile' option says that some of the test swatches are out of gamut. It's much better than it was uncalibrated, but I wouldn't use it for serious work. The (expensive, especially when I bought it) 1703FP doesn't share these problems - dE is below 2. I would expect cheaper consumer LCD screens to be not much better than laptop screens when it comes to calibrating.


I ordered a 2005FPW last week, which is going to go on my main workstation. I fitted a cheap GeForce FX5200 based card to my older desktop machine last week to give it a DVI output - the 1703FP will be displaced to that machine and driven using DVI (even though it's a couple of years old, it's way too good an LCD to drive using D-Sub, and the new card only cost me GBP35). The P990 - which was one of the highest end 19" Trinitron units available at the time - will either go on eBay or be junked. I don't have the room for it, and, being around 6 years old, it's unlikely to perform better than the modern high-end LCDs. CRTs do age.

If I was a professional photographer, I'd probably be considering one of the Eizo LCDs that has a gamut comparable to Adobe RGB (which is wider than sRGB) - those screens are the first LCDs that some hardened pros seem to rate as comparable to high quality CRTs.

I'm an amateur when it comes to photography, though, and such expense is not justifiable. The 2405FPW looks lovely, but it's just too big for my desk, also the graphics card in my workstation (which is a generation behind the latest, but I see no reason to upgrade it this year - a dual 2.66GHz Xeon box with 15krpm U320 SCSI HDs is no slouch, and I'm waiting to see if Intel come up with a dual core Xeon) isn't capable of driving such a large panel in DVI mode. I wouldn't dream of buying such an expensive monitor and hobbling by driving it via the D-Sub connector.

However, replacing my Quadro FX 500 card with something equivalent that's capable of driving the 2405FPW in DVI mode would not be cheap, and I don't want to pour a lot of money into an AGP graphics card (my Dell Precision 650 is AGP Pro 110) when the next machine I buy is bound to use a PCI-E graphics card.

I'm sure the 2005FPW will be a worthy jump up from the 1703FP. (I didn't see the point of the 19" LCD option when I bought the 1703FP - it was the same resolution as the 1703FP). I particularly look forward to being able to run Adobe InDesign CS2 with a two page A4 spread on screen, the palettes off to the side and 100% zoom, which I'm 99% sure is possible on a 2005FPW.

All I need now is Dell to ship my new monitor (it's been nearly a week in 'production').



David