OK, dont respond, but you are not going to get away with the bad eyes comments and me not respond. I have excellent vision and this monitor is truly exceptional for a CRT of it's size.
This isnt my sole opinion. Everyone who has seen it makes the same remarks, they cant believe how clear the fine details are INCLUDING fine text, compared to typical CRT monitors. Even when I run test patterns on it, virtually everything looks nearly perfect, including convergence, grayscale, geometry, etc. I cant speak for motion, I dont use it for gaming or video, but even that may be good too. I am not trying to say my monitor is worse/good as/ better than yours, All I am trying to say is, that given a good monitor, 1600x1200 is not only possible, I AM RECOMMENDING IT for photo and general purpose use over 1280x960. The extra resolution and workspace is extremely useful/beautiful. Your comments regarding it cant be done or isnt recommended by the mfgr are not simply not real world (anymore, at least) given really good monitors. jco -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Markus Maurer Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 5:16 AM To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Subject: RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... Hi Jco This turns into one of the communications I don't want to participate in. You must have the eyes of an eagle or a mole. Just a last puzzle for you: What does T in an Eizo's monitor name stand for? I'm back to Pentax topics and will not respond to that thread anymore. Greetings Markus -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of J. C. O'Connell Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 7:58 AM To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Subject: RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... Secondly you post makes no sense, 1280x960 cant EVER have the sharpness of good 1600x1200 image, no matter how good the CRT. You know how sharp this particular sony is?, I saw things on FONTS that I never even knew existed with this CRT for the first time in many years of computing, and that was with normal size fonts displayed at 1600x1200. Thats SHARP. its way better than all previous monitors I have ever owned, none of which were trinitrons I will admit and I thought they were all good until I got this one, only now I know they were all garbage compared to this one....This monitor is so good that I bought two of them ( they were being closed out brand new in box, super cheap) , one is a spare, not even being used at this time.... jco -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Markus Maurer Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 1:32 AM To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Subject: RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... An 19" Crt is optimized for a maximum resolution of 1280x1024 pixel and not more JCO, ask the manufacturers. Your Sony can't display 1600x1200 absolutely flicker free and without reduced sharpness in the edges. If you use anything else than a Matrox graphic card at such high resolutions I would not want to work with that setup even for a short time. I use Eizo/Nanoa monitors with Matrox cards which are among the highest quality you can get and could easily display 1600x1200 85 hertz pixel on the 21" but for my eyes 1280x960 at 100 hertz is much more comfortable for text reading. I use 2 monitors to have quite a large working space in Photoshop. Greetings Markus -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of J. C. O'Connell Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 7:00 AM To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Subject: RE: Web Gallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... huh? I bought my video card for $35 new and got the Sony 19" CRT monitor for $135 new old stock on ebay. This stuff THAT I USE isn't state of the art or expensive, your stuff is just very out of date. I suggest you upgrade to higher resolution if you are into digital photography as its NOT expensive to go to 1600x1200 today by any standards, especially if you compare to the cost of digital SLRs and lenses, etc. I cant recommend it high enough, especially if you are still using 1280x960 or less, as it really makes a big difference in viewing and editing photos.... The reason I dont post the photos any smaller than 1200 pixels wide is I DONT LIKE THE WAY THEY LOOK reduced any smaller. Thats not "elitest", thats called artistic integrity. ( although these particualar phots are more documentary than artistic, they still benefit from a minimum image quality to be appreciated IMHO). jco -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Celio Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 12:39 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Web Gallery :Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... JCO wrote: >I guess I didnt make this clear enough, I dont > do "lowest common denominator" web photos, if your > screen cant show them fully as I want them to be seen, > then you simply dont GET to see them. Even reducing > them to 800 pixels wide "ruins" them IHMO. Don't you think that's being rather elitist? Hell, why share photos at all if the only people who can view them are those with large and expensive monitor setups like yours? If this is how you always operate, I don't think I'll bother viewing your photos, even though, as I said, the ones I looked at were very nice. John -- http://www.neovenator.com http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
