Re: 20" Cinema Displays 1024x1600
Re: 20" Cinema Displays 1024x1600
- Subject: Re: 20" Cinema Displays 1024x1600
- From: Pete Carter <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 21:44:56 +0000
>
> Problem is: all the
>
> new screens have a too high native resolution. Unlike the CRTs, the
>
> LCDs
>
> cannot use a lower resolution without displaying a less optimal image.
>
>
You're working under that assumption that CRTs don't have an optimal
>
resolution, but they do, and even then it's not that optimal.
>
>
There's a finite dot pitch determined by the shadow mask or the
>
vertical wires and phosphor dots. So at best there is one resolution
>
at which each virtual pixel lines up with each physical trio of pixel
>
generating holes in the mask. But even that isn't optimal, because
>
each virtual pixel on a CRT is represented by three (or more?) phosphor
>
dots, and even then they're not lined up exactly except in one
>
resolution. And, most CRTs don't have a regular dot pitch across or up
>
and down the screen, meaning the dot pitch can vary from the center to
>
the left and right sides, and often the vertical dot pitch is different
>
than the horizontal dot pitch. I followed this line of thought a few
>
months ago when I was considering buying an Eizo versus a flat panel,
>
weighing the pros and cons. The variable resolution of the CRT was a
>
big pro for me until I realised the above, and started looking closely
>
at some of my favorite CRTs like the 17" Studio Display (the CRT
>
version that used a Mitsu Diamondtron tube). It's a great tube, really
>
crisp, but in up close comparison to my flat panel it's nowhere near
>
the crispness. An LCD at native resolution shows absolutely perfectly
>
square and regular pixels, and you just cannot acheive that with a CRT.
>
In practice I agree that an LCD at a non-native resolution is not as
>
clear as in the native resolution, but you have to compare that to the
>
behavior of a CRT in which there is no comparable ideal resolution.
>
There may be an optimal resolution for a CRT, but no ideal resolution
>
giving perfect pixels. The LCDs appeal to me on this obsessive
>
perfectionist basis. And in practice they look great.
>
>
---
>
John Gnaegy
>
_______________________________________________
>
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.
Ive have to explain at times about the misconception of work space when
customers purchase these new generation 17/18" LCDs.
Looking at the resolutions that they provide could perhaps make some people
believe they no longer need a large 21' monitor any more and rush out to buy
a snazzy new display that looks really cool.
Ive had people complain that when you are working on a document at 100%, it
isnt 100% at all, more like 70%. When you explain that if they wish to see
like for like, size and scale and adjust the resolution to say 1024 x 768,
theres a look of disgust when they see the picture turn to something as if
you9ve just thrown a bucket of paint stripper over it!
LCDs are great at their native res and at best, awful at every other
resolution.They may as well not even have the option to change. Hopefully
this will improve in time.
The simple remedy of course is to view an A4 at 140% or thereabouts if the
software will allow.
This only seems to apply to page layout types and irrelevant to photo work.
Pete
_______________________________________________
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.