I don't think the dynamic range of LCD's has caught up with CRT's yet.
The only one I'm really familiar with (since I have to use it
occasionally) seems to be subject to moire patterns popping up much more
so than a CRT. I suspect that it's the very discrete nature of the
pixels on an LCD screen. Just a guess but I think CRT pixels are
"softer" due to the analog and slightly imprecise nature of the signal
which allows them to bleed into each other a bit.
I've never seen a really expensive LCD but so far I've not seen anything
that would make me want to give up a CRT for photo editing.
Chuck Norcutt
Wayne Harridge wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>C.H.Ling <chling@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>>I think you really have to look at the latest better LCD (not necessary
>>the
>>expensive one), most people do not use CRT monitor (or TV) today, they
>>are
>>going plasma and LCD. The LCD is especially good for text, it is very
>>sharp
>>and clean. I don't know why you have problem, may be you got a really
>>bad
>>one or the pixel is not properly sync.
>>
>
>
> I bought an LCD screen for my wife to use a few weeks ago, the bloke who sold
> it to
> me said to always use it at the native resolution of the screen, if the
> resolution is set
> differently the quality will be severly reduced. When I installed it I tried
> several
> resolutions and the salesman was right, the quality was best when set to the
> native
> res of the screen, at other resolutions text in particular was much worse.
> On a CRT
> monitor the change to the res doesn't seem to effect the apparent quality as
> much.
>
> ...Wayne
>
>
>
> Wayne Harridge
>
> http://lrh.structuregraphs.com
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|