Tim: >> 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. Dean S. Messing: > 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.) It's blatantly obvious to everyone's eyes in an A/B comparison that the LCDs are crap. The resolution is seriously inferior, as is the contrast range. >> 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. I have, and I've also seen the things in action. What I notice, quite frequently, is that manufacturers of LCD and Plasma screens LIE about the contrast, similar to manufacturers lies using PMPO for audio systems. It's horrendously obvious that they're do dithering patterns to try and fake a wider range of contrast than the device actually can. Just about all LCDs end up looking like bad JPEG compression (and this is from high quality uncompressed sources) or the use of Floyd Steinberg dithering on the old inkjet printers. When you take something like a broadcast camera, which has brilliant image generation, and do A/B tests on CRTs versus LCDs, you notice that a CRT has a very wide, and usable range, of contrast. LCDs, in comparison, look like we're playing with less than eight-bit DACs. You have to get ridiculously expensive LCD panels to compare to modest priced CRTs, and that's hardly a realistic test. A realistic comparison of vaguely similarly priced domestic sets shows, every time, that a $200 CRT set is vastly superior to a $700 LCD set. The same goes for computer monitors - cheaper CRTs producing better pictures than even more expensive LCDs than the CRT device. The attempt to pretend that LCDs are better than CRTs is just another case of the emperor's new clothes. > MTF? CRTs have _never_ been close to LCDs. When we have twenty year old LCD displays still going strong, I might believe that. Oh yes, CRT sets can have a long life. > It's no accident that traditional CRT manufacturers > (e.g. Sony, Sharp) have shut down their manufacturing lines. It's called marketing. The current technology trends, LCDs, digital video, etc., have been a step backwards in quality. For years the push was to improve the quality of devices, in more recent times it's been to see just how poorly things can be gotten away with (e.g. using the heaviest compression and lowest resolutions possible to get acceptable results). It takes a really crap CRT (and there are examples of that) to look worse than a LCD. -- (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.
