: 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. Tim, I'm not going to argue with you. LC flat panel displays (and CRTs---I worked in Tektronix Laboratories for 15 years in Video Research) are my expertise. Certainly LCD panels do not have a 180° "no variation" viewing angle. But current high-end models using MVA or In-Plane Switching cells are very good---perfectly acceptable for graphics work. We do demonstrations all the time for image and video processing experts (who have golden eyes) standing at various angles around the LCD panels. Very few problems. : > 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. That's because studio people are notoriaously over-conservative. (I worked with them extensively at Tektronix. Trying to get them to use digital scopes in the beginning was like pulling teeth. At one point we had to put a circuit into one of our products to make the noise floor "look analogue". It was entirely artificial but it made the studio engineers happy.) : CRTs far exceed them in all the things : you just mentioned. This is simply false. You don't appear to have looked at the specs in a while. : 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. Again, you don't appear to have looked at the specs recently. At the last CES, I saw LC displays with contrast ratios exceeding 10000:1 made by every major manufacturer except Phillips. The best CRTs (measured in a dark room) don't usually don't exceed 6000:1. And a new generation of LCD is already being introduced by nearly every manufacturer that uses so-called dynamic backlight modulation. These have contrast ratios exceeding 100K:1 Then there's brightness. Can you show me a CRT that has a brightnesses exceeding 12000 cd/m^2 ? Modern High Dynamic Range LCDs always do. (They use modulated LED backlights). Colour gamut? Are you kidding? With RGB LED backlights, or peaked phosphor fluorescent backlights, the LCD gamut completely engulfs the CRT gamut. Indeed LCDs in the laboratory are now competing with OLED. Are you going to claim that CRT gamut exceeds OLED? (And yes I'm aware of the relationship between gamut and max brightness.) MTF? CRTs have _never_ been close to LCDs. It's no accident that traditional CRT manufacturers (e.g. Sony, Sharp) have shut down their manufacturing lines. Since this has drifted entirely off of Fedora, let's continue the discussion off-line if you wish. I doubt anyone else is interested. Dean
