Tim: >>> If you do any graphic work, LCDs are crap. The colours/shading/etc >>> change radically depending on your angle of view. Dean S. Messing: > This is true of older Twisted Nematic LC panels but false for > many modern panels. > > The viewing angle problem has been dramatically reduced in the past 3 > years, esp. on high-end panels like (for example) Sharp Corp. makes. > For example, Multi-domain Vertically Aligned (MVA) technology has very > nice angle properties---at the expense of LC response time. (No free > lunch.) Every LCD screen that I've seen, from the cheapies to the horrendously expensive, has that issue. Just in differing amounts. The average LCD screen someone buys from the local retailers are still bloody awful. The $7,000 LCD TV set is about the time when things start to approach being as good as other display types. > The statement that LCDs "are crap" for serious graphics work is simply > 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 will > 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. CRTs far exceed them in all the things you just mentioned. 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. -- (This computer runs FC7, my others run FC4, FC5 & FC6, in case that's important to the thread.) Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists.
