That may be true, and really nice for display purposes, but I thought
the whole point of a monitor used in a photo processing program was to
help to show you what you are going to get. Seem to me even a cheap
LCD has more than enough range to do that. But I could be wrong. It is
certainly nicer to look at the better monitor.
One interesting thing on some other forums is that if you say something
good about LCD monitor quality you will be immediately attacked by a
semi-rabid CRT exponent. One pointed me to an online gray scale to
prove his point, but I was able to see not quite, but nearly the same
range of squares into the black as he said he was able to with a very
high end CRT. It seems like arguing over 6MP or 7MP to me. It makes
little practical difference.
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On Apr 29, 2005, at 9:02 AM, C.H.Ling wrote:
>
> A paper print's contrast ratio could be very low but are we expecting
> the
> monitor display just as good as slide viewing with light box? There is
> still
> way to go.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|