Early on CRTS were way better than LCDs for people that do graphics. Nowadays technology seems to have helped LCDs seriously improve. What monitors would you recommend for a person that does a lot of 3d?? :) For example, say on a Mac. I saw the 17in Apple LCD display today at a J&R store- it's a beauty! Crisp clear graphics even when I moved to the side of the monitor. But it costs $699. Do you guys know any other LCD displays around that price that either cost less, or are larger? And have the same picture quality?

I wouldn't recommend anything other than a CRT for serious graphics use. There are several reasons: Native resolution. You generally won't find a very high res LCD monitor for anything other than very silly money. Most of 'em have a weird aspect ratio, too. Bit depth. AFAIK, there is no LCD monitor capable of true 32 bit colour depth. Close maybe, but certainly not on a par with a good CRT. Dropped pixels. All LCD monitors will in time lose a pixel or two from the image and you'll be left with a stray black (or even more annoying) bright green dot somewhere on your image.

SamTherapy's comments are all true, but it depends on how "serious" you are about your graphics. I am just a "dabbler" and I have no complaints whatsoever about my LCD. I use a Samsung 191T. It has a great aspect ratio, very wide angle-of-view, and I think most importantly, a high (500:1 I believe) contrast ratio. I have used it extensively for just about a year now, and have not experienced any lost/dropped pixels. It cost me around $700 dollars late last October (with some pre-holiday season rebates, promotions, etc. - retail price was $900 at that time). A year later, you should be able to get the same level of monitor for around $500. I love the 19" LCD, it has about the same amount of screen "real estate" as a 21" CRT. For those long posing sessions in front of the computer, an LCD also creates significantly less eyestrain. An LCD does have a "native resolution" and you are pretty much stuck with that resolution. I.e. my 191T has a native resolution of 1280x1024, and if I vary that resolution, I get a noticeably degraded picture. So, if you want to do final renders at a higher resolution than what your LCD is, you'll want that old CRT available at that stage. The comment above concerning color depth is spot on. I find with the LCD I don't quite get the true color until I print a hardcopy or view the render on a CRT, and sometimes a little tweaking/touch up is required. In order to get the best of both worlds, I think an LCD is ideal for the "grunt work" of posing/positioning, etc. and is probably all you need if your just mucking around for fun or creating web-level graphics. But to tweak the final render for somethng better, you'd probably want a trusty old CRT available. - Drew

I myself would consider a Veiw Sonic or a Sony for a LCD if I had the money to buy right now. The picture quality is crisp and clean on the ones I've seen at Best Buys. I spend a lot of time working on graphics on and off. My absolute dream LCD if I had the cash would be the Critiq offered by Waacom. It also doubles as a pressure sensitive tablet and it would idea for image editing.

Drew - the resolution on your monitor is exactly what I mean about a weird aspect ratio. The standard size on a CRT would be 1280 x 960.

Well if you have $4,300.00 lying around (I love those ING commercials) you can spring for a Sharp LL-T2020B. 20.1" (diag) screen, 10-bit gamma correction, native 1600x1200 For more details http://www.sharp.com.sg (Stats courtesy of Maximum PC Magazine Sept 2003 issue - [Dream Machine 2003 - which costs $10,985]).

Do LCDs still have a serious problem with latency (ghosting or streaks in fast-moving images), or has that been solved now? As an animator (and someone who habitually watches his DVDs on the computer monitor), I'm curious.

You guys do know that the monitor does not effect the actual bit depth render, right? When you render in 16 bit mode or 32 bit mode that is irrelevant to Poser's internal storage of the image. Poser just translates that to 16 bit when showing you the image on the screen. Poser still stores the data internally at either 24 or 32 bit. At least I hope they do since they are doing software render and not relying on a video card. You should be able to render anything on a crappy monitor. It'll just look crappy on that monitor. It should still be created and saved off to disc as the full version.

Yep, Mason, that's the truth - but as someone who kinda relies on his monitor for an indication of how the image looks, I tend to like the screen to be more or less accurate in colour reproduction. Apart from which, I don't just do Poser stuff; I do a fair bit of PS only work, too.

I bought a Sony 17" LCD monitor about six months ago, and I love it. I'm not technical enough to tell you the model and I can't turn it around at the moment to check because of all the clutter on my desk, LOL, but it's been working beautifully for me. Melanie

Little Dragon - I watch DVD's all the time on my Syncmaster 191T, with no ghosting. I am also an avid gamer and have never been dissatisfied with the video presentation in high-end 3D games. The LCD has a 60Hz refresh rate, and your basic TV refreshes at about 30Hz (it varies between NTSC, PAL, and other TV formats). Mason - Your comments get at what I was trying to say about printing a picture and having it look a little different than it did on the LCD - while the LCD may not display perfect 32-bit color depth, especially in some ranges, the data is still there in the file, and the printer (or a CRT) may show the "true colors". SamsTherapy - I know what you mean by saying a "standard" resolution is 1280x960 (1.33:1), based on the old idea that 640x480 is the "standard". However, virtually all new video cards (and most CRT's) support 1280x1024 (1.25:1) - I'm not sure why this resolution is a detractor. I think where people might have an issue would be using a "standard" CRT with a 1.33:1 "native" aspect ratio and setting it to a 1.25:1 aspect ratio - in which case the shape of the pixels is slightly squashed to fit the new size picture to the full screen (keeping the pixel shape the same would necessitate black bars at two edges). If your display, however, is built at a native ratio of 1.25:1, then setting it to a 1.33:1 ratio is going to have a similar result. Hmm, that is about as clear as mud :( - Drew

I use a Samsung 213t lcd. 1600x1200 32bit color.

Well all lcd's are expensive i, have been using a BIG (dunno how many inches) sony lcd, it has been great, i dunno if u have pc, but if you have try sony vaio ones.

I have a Mac... Should I look at flatscreen CRTs?

Caly, the Maximum PC crew love the Sony F520. It has been THE MONITOR for the past 4 years for them and their Dream Machine Series. $1,700.00. Http://www.sonystyle.com

I love my Samsungs :-) I've got 3 of em now and finally got rid of the last of my CRTs - I think LCDs have definitely gotten better, and can equal or beat any moderately priced CRT BUT they are still not as good as a high-end CRT ($2000+).

I looked into a LCD when my old 19" Mag started going, but they are pricey in the bigger sizez, and I could never go back to a smaller display. I think they also (still) don't have the contrast range of a CRT, eithee. I would up with a 21" Philips, incidently, which I'm VERY happy with, about the best image I've ever seen (I mostly use 1600 x 1200), plus it has the smallest 21" case around, only very shightly bigger than my 19" Mag. Price was around $400, if I recall. I remember when 21" monitors cost like six times that!