Monitor Tech Question - DPChallenge Forums

01/28/2010 10:23:35 PM · #1

Hi.

I have a dual monitor setup. The main monitor is a CRT (19" NEC MultiSync FE992 aperture grill) with a d-sub connection. My secondary monitor which is an LCD (15" IBM ThinkVision, el cheapo 1024x768 max) with a DVI-I connection.

Why, do photos look phenomenal on the el cheapo LCD monitor and only "ok" on the CRT?

Both monitors are calibrated by hardware measure.

Photos viewed on the LCD have much bolder colors, they are much crisper, and I can see more distinct differences on the contrast bar. The white is pure white, the blacks are pure black.

Photos viewed on the CRT are slightly smoother and colors don't pop out as they do on the LCD. I can see differences in the contrast bar, but not as distinct.

Can someone please give me a sound, technical reason as to why?

Thanks,
apul

01/28/2010 10:25:14 PM · #2

The phosphors on the CRT tend to wear out over time and no longer react as strongly to getting zapped with electrons. Normal CRT performance. LCD displays weather time better.

Message edited by author 2010-01-28 22:25:47.

01/28/2010 10:42:08 PM · #3

How much time? The CRT monitor is 3 years old.

01/28/2010 10:50:06 PM · #4

That could be enough. It's a slow degradation. How many hours a day is it on? Perhaps there are some internal adjustments that could be made to the CRT, but it may not be worth it with cheap LCD's selling for just over $100 at times.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 16-85 f/3.5-5.6G ED VR

01/28/2010 11:01:30 PM · #5

Its powered on constantly, with powersaving from the screen saver.

So, how about the crispness of the images?

thompp1

Nikon D500

01/29/2010 02:03:16 AM · #6

There are a number of thing that can change over time with a CRT. The shadow mask/aperture grill can distort, the components that control the scanning of the electron beam and the focus of the beam all will degrade as they age. The aperture grill is made of Invar, and can distort from the heat generated by the electron beams and can become magnetized, which will cause some deflection in the beam as it passes through the grill. The residual magnetization, is usually removed by a degausing coil which creates a brief alternating magnetic field on CRT power-up. If you aren't powering the CRT off, it's never getting the benefit of degaussing.
If you replace the CRT with a LCD monitor, but continue to use the analog (15 pin sub-D) signal, you will be less than satisfied, especially with text and line art, so plan on replacing the video card with one having dual DVI connections. Dual head video cards can be had fairly cheap.

one2one

Olympus E-5

Olympus 7-14mm f/4.0 Zuiko Digital Zoom

01/29/2010 08:05:56 AM · #7

Your CRT is low quality, it isn't a Trinitron. It isn't even a flatscreen, only a regular tube with a flat piece of glass in front of it. I'm sure it reproduces colours well for the price you paid though. The LCD may look better because of the contrast ratio and the general crispness of LCD screens even though it isn't necessarily the best quality screen either. LCDs are brighter too.

01/30/2010 02:10:13 PM · #8

Thanks for the information.

I do degauss regularly. It seems though, that even if this monitor was out of the box new, I would be disappointed in comparison to the LCD.

Its so different of a comparison I'm tempted to swap monitors and use the LCD as my primary, even though the max resolution is only 1024x768.

I think my video card is fine (of course I say that now) since I'm not into hardcore gaming, I think the DVI and d-sub duo is good. The secondary monitor essentially is a workspace for tool bars in photoshop, and other non-essential windows I may have open at a time.

Too bad too, since my CRT is still good (in the sense it works). But, if I was to shop, what would be a good target monitor:

DVI-I or DVI-D (or other)
Contrast ratio?
Response time?
Anything else?

Thanks.

01/30/2010 03:25:41 PM · #9

Originally posted by PGerst:

Contrast ratio?

Dynamic contrast ratio is a meaningless marketing term. It represent the difference between the brightest and darkest the monitor can display, but not at the same time. The static contrast ratio is a more meaningful figure if you are comparing products.

Originally posted by PGerst:

Response time?

This is how quickly the LCD crystals can change state. Most monitors these days, even cheap ones, should be capable of 5ms or less. This spec won't really make much difference unless you are doing video editing or gaming. For photo editing and general usage, this is not a spec to really worry about, except to stay away from anything that has a much higher number.

Originally posted by PGerst:

Anything else?

I have a Dell monitor at work with USB ports built into the side of it. Certainly not vital, but quite convenient.

01/30/2010 03:49:34 PM · #10

Thanks. So what contrast ratio is best? Yes, I know more is better, but in terms of photo editing, what is a reasonable target? How do LCD contrast ratios compare to legacy LCDs?

I do some video editing. If 5ms is good, what would a target be for video editing?

Thanks again!

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

01/30/2010 03:56:13 PM · #11

One other note, I notice that the high refresh rate on the CRT does impact the cripness of the image. Any ideas?

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

01/30/2010 05:32:06 PM · #12

As far as image quality on an LCD, nothing is more important than the type of LCD panel. Most very inexpensive panels are the TN type. Mid-priced panels are usually PVA, and top-end panels are some variety of IPS. You'll be happy with a modern PVA panel or an IPS but stay away from TN. they have terrible gamma shifts when viewed anything but straight on.
It can be difficult to determine what type of panel is used in a monitor. One key is to look at the specification for viewing angle. Monitors that specify "178Â°" are probably using an IPS panel.
As far as contrast, some of the best monitors for photo work only have contrast of 1000:1, or even 700:1. It doesn't matter. Neither does response time. TN panels have very fast response time, so gamers love them. Photographers hate them. Horses for courses.

Edit for typo

Message edited by author 2010-01-30 17:32:22.

01/30/2010 05:35:40 PM · #13

My monitor has a 1000:1 static ratio. ~~More is always better, but also more expensive.~~ Looks like Kirbic knows more about that than I do, so listen to him on that spec.

LCD displays do not have a refresh rate. The refresh rate is how many times per second the image is drawn on the screen with the electron gun. With an LCD display, everything is displayed at once. On a CRT, if the refresh rate is under 70hz, it will usually be perceived as monitor flicker and can be unpleasant for long periods. A higher refesh rate results in more frames per second displayed, and the perception of a crisper image. If you've ever seen a video where a television in the scene is shown with scrolling bands, you have seen the result of a monitor that was slightly out of sync with the camcorder.

Message edited by author 2010-01-30 17:37:59.

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

01/30/2010 05:47:39 PM · #14

Oh yes,I know. That is one of the reasons I bought a monitor and a card to support 100 Hz refresh. I notice the flicker even with 85 Hz. The problem is, that instead of a crisper image at 100 Hz, I observe the opposite effect.

In fact, if I set the monitor to 75 Hz, it comes closest to the sharpness of the LCD. Interesting....

Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:

On a CRT, if the refresh rate is under 70hz, it will usually be perceived as monitor flicker and can be unpleasant for long periods. A higher refesh rate results in more frames per second displayed, and the perception of a crisper image.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

01/30/2010 06:05:44 PM · #15

Originally posted by PGerst:

...In fact, if I set the monitor to 75 Hz, it comes closest to the sharpness of the LCD. Interesting....

That might indicate that the problem is at least partly with the cable. Remember that as you increase the refresh rate, you have to push a higher frequency signal across the (analog) cable between the card and monitor. The cable may well be degrading the signal.
This is the reason that a digital connection to the monitor is greatly preferred. DVI-D, or the newer DisplayPort are digital connections. The old 15-pin D-sub "VGA" connectors are analog.
If a refresh rate below 85Hz bothers you, you are one of those uncommon folks who easily perceive faster flicker rates. Most folks (myself included) simply do not see flicker when it is faster than about 70Hz. You definitely would benefit from getting a decent LCD monitor. Look for something with a PVA panel in the 22-inch range (1680x1050 is the standard resolution for these monitors). They are inexpensive, and are a great value. The next step up is the 24-inch range, where you will get 1920x1080 resolution. Finally, at the top of the heap are 30-inch monsters that offer 2560x1600.

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

01/30/2010 09:14:14 PM · #16

Thanks, that helps quite a bit. I didn't realize that there were few people who can see the flicker...that would explain the discussions I had at Christmas time when I said there were a set of lights (some LED brand) that were flickering, and no one else could. :)

Which is better, DVI-I or DVI-D ?

After this, I'll start to research all the options....tax time is coming which means my loan to the government is over. :)

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

01/30/2010 09:23:05 PM · #17

Originally posted by PGerst:

Which is better, DVI-I or DVI-D ?

DVI-I carries both analog and digital signals, DVI-D just the digital. I don't really know if there are any monitors that use the analog signal in a DVI-I connection, and in fact I don't ever recall seeing anything but simply "DVI" specified on monitor specifications. I think you can assume that if a monitor has a DVI connector, it will use the digital signal.
For video cards, if you ever want to drive really high resolution monitors, look for support for DVI-DL (Dual Link DVI).