A crt image will not be as sharp as a LCD image at the same resolution, but going up the the next size resolution with a good CRT will swamp that minor LCD advantage if the LCD resolution is kept constant...i.e I 1600x1200 on a good CRT is going to look more detailed than a 1280x960 LCD does. The CRT at the higher resolution also yields more workspace than any type of display device at ther next lower resolution. In other words, the sharpness advantage LCD has over good CRTS is only valid if they are both run at same screen resolution and at the native resolution of the lcd of course, jco
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Maas Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 5:51 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... Peter, I've seen high-end 19" monitors. Run them too (not for long, as I got a killer deal on my 21"). Yeah, they can be very crisp. But not as crisp as a good LCD running at native resolution off a digital signal (this is inherent to the designs, LCD's have physical pixels and there's always a hint of drift to a CRT's electron beam, softening the individual pixel). CRT's have some distinct advantages (deeper blacks, colour gamut). LCD's are crisper and brighter (the latter can be a disadvantage as well), as long as you're comparing equivalent quality (which would be a higher-end 20" widescreen panel compared to your high-end 19" monitor) Oh, and I'm extremely sensitive to flicker, far more than most people (I easily pick up 60Hz flicker off of fluorescent industrial lighting, and can see flicker at 75Hz on a monitor). Most people don't see any flicker at 72Hz refresh or higher. -Adam P. J. Alling wrote: > Jeez Adam, you've got to see a good 19" crt and video card sometime. > I'm using a Hitachi SuperScan Elite 721, with a GForce video card. I > run at 1600x1200 with nary a flicker. It blows away any LCD I've ever > seen for detail and at 1280x1024 is crisper than any LCD to my eyes. I > only wish I could duplicate the subtlety's I see on screen in a print. > I'm going to weep real tears when this baby dies and I have to replace > it with an LCD. > > Adam Maas wrote: >> Well, this is ironic considering this is coming from somebody using >> obsolescent display technology. >> >> Those 19" CRT's you're recommending people buy? They're hard to find >> these days. They've been replaced on the market by 19" LCD's. Almost all >> of which have a max resolution of 1280x1024. Why? because anybody who >> really needs more will buy a larger display (like a 20" or 24" panel) >> and 1280x1024 is the most generally usable resolution for a display that >> size. A good LCD at 1280x1024 is much crisper than the equivalent CRT, >> and higher resolutions on CRT's tend to have flickr due to the low >> refresh rate (You may be able to live with 75Hz, but it's clearly >> visible and headache inducing to me. I need 85Hz or better, or a >> flickr-free technology like DVI-driven LCD's) >> >> Analog CRT's are dead technology (a point which you made to me in the >> great HDTV thread). >> >> -Adam >> >> >> J. C. O'Connell wrote: >> >>> EXCUSE ME? this all started by a bunch of people >>> telling me what I should do, namely reduce the >>> quality of the images in that web gallery so >>> they would be easier to view with low spec displays. >>> So dont tell me I have a freaking attitude for telling >>> them what to do in reply ( which is upgrade their displays ) when >>> they started by telling me to degrade my images for their low spec >>> displays. jco >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >>> Of Shel Belinkoff >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 3:33 PM >>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> Subject: RE: >>> RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach.. >>> . >>> >>> >>> I think people don't like being told what they should do, what they >>> can afford, that they're stupid for not using the same or higher >>> quality gear that JCO uses, and so on. It's not just about JCO's >>> choice decision to post pics his way, it's his friggin attitude in >>> telling people what they SHOULD do, and discounting the needs and >>> personal choices others make. >>> >>> Shel >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> [Original Message] >>>> From: Bob W >>>> >>>> why is everyone getting so worked up about this? It's his website, >>>> he >>>> can post whatever he likes on it. Nobody is forced to look at it. >>>> People have pointed out the normal conventions for showing photos on >>>> the web, so due diligence has been done. JCO doesn't wants to stick to >>>> >>>> the convention. So what? If you don't like his website, don't look >>>> at >>>> it. Simple, and nothing to get worked up about, and no reason for all >>>> this e-bullying. >>>> >>> >> >> > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
