LCD monitors

I'm thinking of getting a 17" LCD monitor, which will be used in large part
for digital camera work. Most of the 17" monitors--in fact all that I've
seen--have a maximum, and presumably optimal, resolution of 1280x1024.
Obviously this 5:4 aspect ratio means non-square pixels, and this concerns
me. I've tried viewing digital photos at 1280x1024 on my present CRT
monitor, and while they don't look too bad it's obvious that they are
slightly squashed vertically, when compared to square-pixel settings.

So my questions a

1. Do 17" LCD monitors generally take well (or at all) to be used at a
non-standard 1280x960?

2. If not, do those of you who use such monitors find this to be a problem?

don't see the 5:4 aspect as a problem at all. LCD monitors have one setting
that they prefer.

My graphics department has 3 out of 4 people using LCDs right now while they
all agree it is not quite as sharp as a high quality CRT they all feel the
quality is sufficient for what they do which is all different kinds of
artwork using Adobe Illustrator, Canvas and digital photo editing with
Photoshop all for the MAC. They even do some digital editing such as adding
people to a group shot or getting rid of a parked car!


If you wan to save space and other pluses a LCD offers go for it if not get
a high quality CRT

Wayne


"Nostrobino" wrote in message
m...
I'm thinking of getting a 17" LCD monitor, which will be used in large
part
for digital camera work. Most of the 17" monitors--in fact all that I've
seen--have a maximum, and presumably optimal, resolution of 1280x1024.
Obviously this 5:4 aspect ratio means non-square pixels, and this concerns
me. I've tried viewing digital photos at 1280x1024 on my present CRT
monitor, and while they don't look too bad it's obvious that they are
slightly squashed vertically, when compared to square-pixel settings.

So my questions a

1. Do 17" LCD monitors generally take well (or at all) to be used at a
non-standard 1280x960?

2. If not, do those of you who use such monitors find this to be a
problem?

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 00:12:16 GMT, "Nostrobino"
wrote:

I'm thinking of getting a 17" LCD monitor, which will be used in large part
for digital camera work. Most of the 17" monitors--in fact all that I've
seen--have a maximum, and presumably optimal, resolution of 1280x1024.
Obviously this 5:4 aspect ratio means non-square pixels

Okay, I'm going to try and avoid confusion with the following
statement.

1) The "picture elements" or pixels on a monitor don't change shape.
They are physically locked by the design of the monitor and changing
aspect ratio has no effect on their shape.

2) The "picture elements" or pixels of the file can be changed, but
don't need to be to "accommodate" a particular monitor resolution.

Using most image viewing programs you can zoom in so that one pixel of
the image file uses hundreds of pixels of the monitor to display it.
My point is so that the difference between hardware pixels and image
pixels is understood and we don't confuse the two.

So if I have a picture that is 1280x960 and I want to display it on a
monitor set to 1280x1024 I have a couple of options.

Option# 1: Alter the aspect ratio so that the 1280x960 image gets
stretched out to fill a 1280x1024 screen. Obviously this will distort
the image.

Option# 2: Display the 1280x960 image AS a 1280x960 image which would
result in some "letterboxing" (empty space at the top and bottom of
the 1280x1024 screen) but would not distort the image.

and this concerns
me. I've tried viewing digital photos at 1280x1024 on my present CRT
monitor, and while they don't look too bad it's obvious that they are
slightly squashed vertically

I think it's possible that you changed the resolution of the picture
somewhere, maybe you set something to "fill screen" or similar. When
I view a native 1280x960 image on my monitor set to 1280x1024 I get an
image with the correct aspect ratio (1280x960) that is "letterboxed"
on the screen (I.E. has some blank space at the top and bottom).

, when compared to square-pixel settings.

So my questions a

1. Do 17" LCD monitors generally take well (or at all) to be used at a
non-standard 1280x960?

Some better than others but I'm pretty sure that the resolution
setting isn't your issue.

2. If not, do those of you who use such monitors find this to be a problem?

I use twin 17" LCD monitors set to 1280x1024 resolution. The set I
have are pretty high end so the color cast/balance is very good. The
blackpoint is a bit odd, but I'm used to it now so my brain just
automatically compensates.

Of course I also have another bias. For whatever reason nearly all
CRT monitors give me a headache after a fairly short period. None of
the LCD monitors do that (except maybe the crappiest, fuzzy, low end
ones), thus I would never go back to CRTs even if my LCD screens
weren't as nice as they are. Of course YMMV.


Drifter
"I've been here, I've been there..."

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 00:12:16 GMT, "Nostrobino" wrote:

I'm thinking of getting a 17" LCD monitor, which will be used in large part
for digital camera work. Most of the 17" monitors--in fact all that I've
seen--have a maximum, and presumably optimal, resolution of 1280x1024.
Obviously this 5:4 aspect ratio means non-square pixels, and this concerns
me. I've tried viewing digital photos at 1280x1024 on my present CRT
monitor, and while they don't look too bad it's obvious that they are
slightly squashed vertically, when compared to square-pixel settings.

I'd say get a good CRT and forget the LCD for now. I have a top of the line
graphics quality NEC 19" CRT and the picture is awesome! No LCD comes close! AND
I paid half of what an 18" LCD would cost!


So my questions a

1. Do 17" LCD monitors generally take well (or at all) to be used at a
non-standard 1280x960?

If you don't use an LCD in it's native resolution, it will suffer from
distortion in fine details. Also, the color has to be generated over multiple
cells and that can cause problems as well. Remember that an LCD monitor has a
cell for each pixel and is very precise that way, but a glass monitor can have
it's beam deflection size varied all over the place and still maintain perfect
color. It's easy on a CRT to adjust the picture size to the exact aspect ratio
you want - you don't have to display edge to edge just because it can! And top
quality CRTs have much finer 'pixels'.

2. If not, do those of you who use such monitors find this to be a problem?

"Nostrobino" wrote in message
m...
I'm thinking of getting a 17" LCD monitor, which will be used in large
part
for digital camera work. Most of the 17" monitors--in fact all that I've
seen--have a maximum, and presumably optimal, resolution of 1280x1024.
Obviously this 5:4 aspect ratio means non-square pixels, and this concerns
me. I've tried viewing digital photos at 1280x1024 on my present CRT
monitor, and while they don't look too bad it's obvious that they are
slightly squashed vertically, when compared to square-pixel settings.

So my questions a

1. Do 17" LCD monitors generally take well (or at all) to be used at a
non-standard 1280x960?

2. If not, do those of you who use such monitors find this to be a
problem?

You won't wan't to use your flat panel in anything other than it's native
setting.
That said, you may well have some pinched photos, though I have not found
this to be a real problem on my 20.1" 1600x1200 flat panel.

BTW--To those who automatically rule out flat panels for photo editing work,
I'll just say that I've never had a better time color-matching and printing
than with this flat panel.
Once you get used to judging sharpness (which can tend to look sharper on
panels) it's fabuloso.

Bob writes:

I'd say get a good CRT and forget the LCD for now. I have a top of
the line graphics quality NEC 19" CRT and the picture is awesome! No
LCD comes close! AND I paid half of what an 18" LCD would cost!

Did you have fun testing the 30" Apple Cinema display? That's an LCD,
so you must have checked against it to make such a statement. Right?

B

"Nostrobino" wrote in message m...
I'm thinking of getting a 17" LCD monitor, which will be used in large part
for digital camera work. Most of the 17" monitors--in fact all that I've
seen--have a maximum, and presumably optimal, resolution of 1280x1024.
Obviously this 5:4 aspect ratio means non-square pixels, and this concerns
me. I've tried viewing digital photos at 1280x1024 on my present CRT
monitor, and while they don't look too bad it's obvious that they are
slightly squashed vertically, when compared to square-pixel settings.

So my questions a

1. Do 17" LCD monitors generally take well (or at all) to be used at a
non-standard 1280x960?

2. If not, do those of you who use such monitors find this to be a problem?

I'd be less concerned about aspect ratio and more concerned
about the 20-30% color gamut you'll be losing by switching
to an LCD.

Rick

Kibo informs me that "Nostrobino" stated that:

[aspect ratio problems]

So my questions a

1. Do 17" LCD monitors generally take well (or at all) to be used at a
non-standard 1280x960?

You should never, ever use an LCD monitor at a non-native resolution.
Unlike CRTs, LCD panels are made up of an array of individual pixels, so
a non-native resolution requires the display to stretch the pixels from
your computer to cover the screen. Because they won't map 1:1, the
result is unbelievably ugly distortion.

2. If not, do those of you who use such monitors find this to be a problem?

I have both an LCD & a CRT monitor on this PC. I only use the LCD for
text work (such as reading Usenet , & use the CRT for photo work. LCDs
just don't have the colour/tonal resolution needed for working with
photos, even when calibrated. My advice is to stick with CRTs if colour
accuracy is important to you.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Kibo informs me that "Nostrobino" stated that:

[aspect ratio problems]

So my questions a

1. Do 17" LCD monitors generally take well (or at all) to be used at a
non-standard 1280x960?

You should never, ever use an LCD monitor at a non-native resolution.
Unlike CRTs, LCD panels are made up of an array of individual pixels, so
a non-native resolution requires the display to stretch the pixels from
your computer to cover the screen. Because they won't map 1:1, the
result is unbelievably ugly distortion.

2. If not, do those of you who use such monitors find this to be a problem?

I have both an LCD & a CRT monitor on this PC. I only use the LCD for
text work (such as reading Usenet , & use the CRT for photo work. LCDs
just don't have the colour/tonal resolution needed for working with
photos, even when calibrated. My advice is to stick with CRTs if colour
accuracy is important to you.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Kibo informs me that Bruce Murphy stated that:

Bob writes:

I'd say get a good CRT and forget the LCD for now. I have a top of
the line graphics quality NEC 19" CRT and the picture is awesome! No
LCD comes close! AND I paid half of what an 18" LCD would cost!

Did you have fun testing the 30" Apple Cinema display? That's an LCD,
so you must have checked against it to make such a statement. Right?

You can obtain 30" Apple Cinema displays for the price of an 18" generic
LCD screen? Impressive!

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------