Re: LCD Tests
Re: LCD Tests
- Subject: Re: LCD Tests
- From: "Craig Payne" <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 00:07:08 -0800
- Organization: Craig Payne
I was wondering if there is a consensus on the current state of LCDs
compared to CRTs? Are they better for doing color critical work? I
have only used CRTs for color critical work so I don't have any direct
experience with the LCDs. I have made a list of pros and cons for LCD
displays. There are a lot of pros but the two cons are the reasons that
have kept me from switching to an LCD. Is viewing angle still an issue
for the new high end LCDs?
Pros for LCDs:
1. Brighter display (200+ cd/m2)
2. Better contrast
3. Less eye strain
4. Remains calibrated much longer
5. Lasts much longer than a CRT
6. Takes up less space on desk
7. Consumes less power
8. No warm-up period
Cons for LCDs:
1. Expensive
2. Viewing angle issues
Thanks,
Craig Payne
www.craigpayne.com
>
At 12.22 -0600 03-02-05, Ryan Thrash wrote:
>
>If I recall correctly, I think there were some tests going on
>
>between several of the frequently-mentioned LCDs on this list. Any
>
>final or preliminary results to post?
>
>
>
We are still evaluating the test results, but the preliminary report
>
goes like this. We tested the following LCD monitors:
>
Apple Cinema Display 23"
>
Apple Cinema Display 20"
>
Formac TFT
>
Eizo L985 EX
>
Eizo L685 EX
>
Nec LCD1920NX
>
Sony SDM-X82
>
Sony SDM-X202
>
Mitsubishi E85 LCD
>
>
We asked the distributors which LCD monitor they would suggest for a
>
photographer. These were what they sent us. We also got a monitor
>
from Samsung, but it's software didn't work on the Macs that we used.
>
>
These monitors were used on a Mac G4 with a ATI Radeon card, running
>
OSX 10.2.3, trying to use the DVI cable if possible. We calibrated
>
them with a EyeOne calibrator with the Basiccolor Display. The
>
evaluation was made by comparing the MacBeth card, placed in a Just
>
Lightbox, with the MacBeth image, which can be downloaded from Bruce
>
Lindbloom's site. We adjusted the brightness on the lightbox to make
>
the white patches match.
>
>
We've also displayed some images that we know well and a stepped grey
>
scale, together with some grey and color ramps. The monitors
>
different color spaces were compared in Color Think.
>
>
We think that the two Eizo monitors gave the best results, closely
>
followed by the Apple monitor. The Eizo monitors have many different
>
settings, which made it possible to adjust the monitors before
>
profiling them.
>
>
It was surprising to see how easy it was to get the Apple monitors to
>
match the target. Normally you expect that if you have more controls
>
and settings on the monitor, it would be easier to get a good match.
>
Here we just set the luminance to maximum, tried some different gamma
>
settings and decided to use a gamma of 2.2 and adjusted the white
>
point setting so we got a match of the white areas of the card. Then
>
we just calibrated the monitor and got a very good a result. For
>
those that don't want to fiddle with the controls, the Apple monitor
>
is a good choice. But all the different settings on the Eizo monitors
>
made it possible to get even better results.
>
>
As we were able to get a luminance on these monitors at around 200
>
cd/m2, it's easier to have a good match between these monitors and
>
the image in the lightbox than the CRT monitors that we used before.
>
Really don't like the results when I turn down the lightbox all the
>
way down to the low brightness levels I have to use if I'm going to
>
match CRT to lightbox.
>
>
Lars Kvhler, Sven Westerlund and Stefan Ohlsson
_______________________________________________
colorsync-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.