Dean S. Messing wrote:
> : > The statement that LCDs "are crap" for serious graphics work is
> : > not true any more. High-end LC panels _far_ exceed CRTs in every
> : > category (e.g., brightness, colour gamut, tone scale, MTF, dynamic
> : > range) except response time, and with "overdrive" and the new
> : > "flashing backlight" techniques on the horizon, even that barrier
> : > soon be gone. CRT technology, like the vacuum tube in general, is
> : > essentially dead.
> : Where I work, in television, where they do buy horrendously expensive
> : monitors, they will not touch LCDs for anything other than monitors that
> : aren't paid close attention to.
> That's because studio people are notoriaously
> worked with them extensively at Tektronix. Trying to get them to use
> digital scopes in the beginning was like pulling teeth. At one point
> we had to put a circuit into one of our products to make the noise
> floor "look analogue". It was entirely artificial but it made the
> studio engineers happy.)
I will agree with you. They prefer tools that they are familiar with.
Don't like change. Heck, some would still be using U-matic recorders if
they could get a new portable one. :)
> : CRTs far exceed them in all the things
> : you just mentioned.
> This is simply false. You don't appear to have
> the specs in a while.
I have looked at the specs as I am trying to purchase a new computer
system for my work. I have yet to see a LCD monitor that provides all
the specifications that meet the present CRT that I am using. The
killer is the static contrast. I have seen a few that promote 5000:1 or
8000:1 contrast but when you read the fine print, this is only for
dynamic contrast. Some of them have static contrasts in the 300:1 to
500:1 range. Pretty low for working on static images.
> : The contrast range of the LCD is inferior, and
> : that's the basis of all the other measurements. With a poor contrast
> : range, you can't get the full colour gamut.
> Again, you don't appear to have looked at the specs
recently. At the
> last CES, I saw LC displays with contrast ratios exceeding 10000:1 made
> by every major manufacturer except Phillips.
I have yet to see one LCD monitor that provides a static contrast of
1000. The high contrasts specified are all dynamic contrasts done by
changing the intensity of the backlight. Can you provide one
manufacturer that makes a high contrast (Static) LCD monitor? I may be
interested in purchasing it.
The best CRTs (measured in a dark room) don't usually don't
6000:1. And a new generation of LCD is already being introduced by
nearly every manufacturer that uses so-called dynamic backlight
modulation. These have contrast ratios exceeding 100K:1
I need high contrast in static images for my work. This dynamic
backlight is useless when comparing individual frames from highspeed
cameras looking for a subtle change in the contrast to see shock fronts.
> Then there's brightness. Can you show me a CRT that
> brightnesses exceeding 12000 cd/m^2 ? Modern High Dynamic Range LCDs
> always do. (They use modulated LED backlights).
> Colour gamut? Are you kidding? With RGB LED backlights,
> phosphor fluorescent backlights, the LCD gamut completely engulfs the
> CRT gamut. Indeed LCDs in the laboratory are now competing with OLED.
> Are you going to claim that CRT gamut exceeds OLED? (And yes I'm
> aware of the relationship between gamut and max brightness.)
> MTF? CRTs have _never_ been close to LCDs.
> It's no accident that traditional CRT manufacturers
> (e.g. Sony, Sharp) have shut down their manufacturing lines.
> Since this has drifted entirely off of Fedora, let's
> discussion off-line if you wish. I doubt anyone else is interested.
I think it is useful to allow others to learn. There are some people
that can learn from these discussions. Marked OT is a good idea though.
In this thread I have learned about RGB LED backlights.
FWIW, I just read a forum post about laser driven monitors that are
supposed to be shown in January. Could be even better than OLED or SED.