Concerned about getting color representation out of a flatscreen. I know they aren't good for moving/motion type stuff but for still color...should a serious (OK, OK, so I'm elevating myself...wink) Photoshop user rely on a flatscreen? Looking for thoughts from people who rely on accuracy for a living. Thanks in advance. PS: NOT looking for people to dig up searches on the I'Net for me...I can do that with my own time...just looking for comments from people in the know who can make a comment without having to expend any more time than what they have to type about what they know/believe.

I have a Planar Flat Screen LCD monitor that I absolutely love.

Yes, I depend upon accuracy with my CAD models and it is more accurate, in my estimation, than any Cathode Ray Tube I've ever used. I've been staring at computer screens since 1980; I'm 46 years old and suffer from symptoms similar to macula degeneration where the center of my vision is greatly diminished. Though I am not blind, I can no longer drive due to this condition which was caused by Cathode Ray Tubes (CRTs). Over the course of the last year my vision has actually improved because I no longer bombard my eyeballs with radiation from the CRTs.

Congress has outlawed the manufacture, sale, and importation of CRTs effective next year. This is why CRTs are so cheap right now, they are dumping their stock.

Televisions are included in this act.

Liquid Crystal Diode's (LCD) Displays use significantly less power which is what prompted the US Congress to ban CRTs. They produce better resolution results than any CRT including motion pictures.

You may be used to seeing the somewhat poor picture qualities of the lower lines used on Lap Tops. This has more to do with memory allocation and processor speeds than it does the actual resolution of the LCD Display itself. I play movies (from DVD) on my computer all the time, and the picture is by far superior to that of a CRT.

Cost considerations may make you wish to hold off on your purchase until this time next year or the first of 2006 when the prices are expected to drop on LCDs due to the ban on CRTs.

WOW, I didn't know that! Banned? Cost isn't really a big concern (though I always consider it). I read somewhere that sometimes, a pixel (or two, or more) goes out on LCD screens (because of the makeup of the technology). With CRT, the guns are bad (or not). Sharpness, I am not concerned with. More appropriate, I'm concerned about calibrating it so I can receive the needed relationship between my monitor and a print shop. Any other comments?

I would strongly recommend a flatscreen. I use a Hercules model something-or-other and the weight and size saving alone are worth it. I'd never want to go back to a CRT. It's got pinsharp resolution and great colour, and although I hear what you say about moving pics, I can play games just fine on this monitor. Next stop for me is a flatscreen TV!

Thanks, spedler. That's 2 votes for a flat panel (as I learned is the proper terminology in my searching around the I'Net..."flat panel" is the LCD and "flat screen" applies to the curvature of the CRT screen). BTW, didn't get many hits on "flat panel vs CRT" and similar worded searches.

Well, I suppose since we're splitting hairs (lol); I dumped my very old rounded screen CRT back in 1997 for a flat screen CRT.

Do you remember "Screen Savers?" The reason for them was that CRTs that don't have constantly moving pictures displayed on them (like a video or a game) have the tendency to get their "screens burned" in or "burn through," as it is often referred to. Somewhere between CRTs and LCDs was a display that used LED's (Light Emitting Diode). These made it into the televisions for a brief period and then were dumped. LED displays are better suited for Bill Boards, Stadium Displays, Traffic Lights, and Automobile Lighting (they will be replacing all the lighting within the next three years)and yes, they do burn out individually.

The flat screen was marginally better, but if you are looking for long term investment and quality, again I recommend the LCD Flat Panel Display. My flat panel LCD Display is on for days at a time with no screen saver, draws about a half a watt per day, can be hung on a wall like a picture, and the clarity between CRTs and LCDs is very good. Once you get one, you'll wonder what you ever did with out it.

Thanks, cryptojoe! I have one at work (finally gave in) but I swear I can see some white pixel bleed on some of the fonts displayed on the screen. It's crisp but it has the same sort of effect that applying the sharp filter has when it's applied to much (that weird "halo" around the edges of the images). I'm about sold on a 20-inch one from what I have read on the I'Net and from the responses here. I know there are a couple of other pros in here that I'd like to hear from, too. (perhaps they are too busy making money...grin).

I have a NEC LCD1715 that I bought about 6 months ago. I'd never go back to CRTs. This is very crisp and has good saturation. As to not being good for moving pictures, I think you may want to check into that again. I have a DVD drive and watch movies on this monitor all the time. It's easily as good if not better then my color TV. I have seen instances where clips in menus get a bit slow but in movie mode I've never had any problems with the refresh.

Several US States have/are banning the DISPOSAL(!!), as garbage, of electronics containing a CRT. CRTs are considered the single largest source of lead in municipal waste, containing 5-8 pounds of lead per unit. Lead makes up approximately 20% of each CRT. The ban will keep toxic lead out of landfills and will increase the amount of materials being recycled. These products will need to be brought to an electronics recycling facility for processing once the ban takes effect. As far as Congress outlawing the manufacture, sale, and importation of CRTs.....RUBBISH.

Thanks, bushi. I appreciate the time you took to respond (as I do the others). I guess my main concern is being able to calibrate an LCD so that what I get on screen is as near as possible to what I can expect from a printer (be it mine or a print shop). I already have a hard enough time with that with my current CRT, so I guess an LCD would be no harder.

Nice play on words, SWAMP (smile). And a fitting comment from a name like, SWAMP. (pardon my attempt at levity) More good info. Power usage, effect on the environment, weight, and suitability to the Photoshop task seem to make the decision easy. Thanks again to all who took time to respond!

Hi Chuck, I have been using Apple 21" monitors for some years. Especially because I could rely on the fact that what I saw (and measured) on-screen, was what would be printed. After seeing the Apple Cinema Display (I just picked it up to look for the right name on the backside) on several ocassions, I wanted one. And my business partner too. So, before them taxes getting their claws on our money we bought two. I have never been happier! The distance between my eyes and the screen is larger, because the monitor does not need the ENORMOUS space the old ones needed. The color range is broader, I think. The screen is like a poster. No flickering at all. And what I see on-screen gets printed. It was a bit too expensive to buy one for home too, a Formac was much cheaper. But then the difference becomes visible. I would not recommend color-correcting pre-press material on a monitor like that. The contrast seems too high (especially the darker tones seem too dark) and the saturation looks too high. I think you should go for a flatscreen, but only if you have the money to choose the higher price range. I have no idea if the Apple screens are available for pc's, but I think inside it is Philips technology (or maybe Sony), so there must be products on the market that are equally good. Oh, and one more thing, if you can choose a Cinema-type screen (I don't know what it is called internationally, in Dutch it is similar to 'broad image', it represents the traditional cinema screensize of 16:9 closer), do it. It is a dream to have so much room to store all your pallets and see all of your documents. Ideally you should test the monitors you are looking at with a picture file you have a good print of, to hold side-by-side.

I recently bought the Dell 20" LCD screen with my new PC. Worth the money. Photoshop looks terrific on it. I use it for movies and games and no problems. I first had the LCD hooked up to the analog on my PC and I thought the picture looked really good but when I hooked it up to the digital out the quality of the image improved even more. Make sure you have a PC that has digital out. Another thing is I can rotate the screen 90 degree so I can paint in portrait mode. Also I can left the 20 inch monitor with one hand.

Funny you should mention that, notefinger. I just ordered a Dell (though a bit expensive over building your own...I've been getting Dell since about '92 or so and only had one problem with one item inall that time) with the 20.1 (I assume that's the one you're talking about) inch flat panel and the best graphics card offered with it. 4 GB of memory (had to do more searching to see if XP Pro could actually make use of it) and 800 GB RAID 0 (which gives me 400 GB of storage). After the assistance I received here coupled with a real lack of any concrete evidence that one can NOT effectively use LCD for serious Photoshopping...well, it seems to be a slam-dunk. And besides all that was said, there is one other irritating fact about CRTs...coming out of powersaver mode...I am impatient and LCDs come out within a second. Thanks again to all who took the time to make a comment!

Just remember to take some time to fiddle with the color settings in Photoshop, to make a profile that compensates for possible shortcomings (or an LCD that is to 'optimistic' in it's color representation of CMYK for instance). That can prevent dissatisfaction that is due to that instead of a 'bad' LCD screen.

I have only used the utility that came with Photoshop (Adobe Gamma?) to set my monitor up and my images came out with too much magenta on the printer. I remember not knowing what to do so I over-corrected on the image on the monitor (by adjusting the hue) so that the printer color wouldn't have too much magenta. Anyone have any good suggestions for an app to use?

Attached Link: Googling always helps (to get things complicated)

What you did is kind of what a good profile does. On my Mac system there is special color management software integrated in the system, so that is probably different. *starts google-ing* I think Adobe Gamma is good for monitor calibration, or the program Wyziwyg by praxisoft (you can guess their site). But your printer has to be color managed too, so you do not have to watch [insert name of nice pin-up] like he/she has been too long in the sun, on your monitor. In the Google results there is a link to Micro$oft, where they explain how you can use color management, which seems to be integrated in the system too. I think it is as easy as selecting the monitor and printer you use and using that profile in Photoshop.

LOL @ "Hoof". I shall now be accused of the terrible deed of having "forced" a Mac user to lower himself into the depths of "Windows Hell" in order to help with a problem (wink). I am forever sorry for that. What I DO appreciate, though, is the explanation you gave...I often wondered just how it was that "tuning" your monitor somehow made it "get in step" with a printer. And thanks for "googling" for me (though I do NOT post requests for assistance iin order to get someone to do something for me that I can do for myself). What I was hoping for (though the thread has "made a slight turn down a different road" than the subject would indicate) was that someone would offer personal experience with calibration software they have personally used. Thanks again!

I did understand that, but I wanted to see if there was an equivalent to the system I have learned to use. There are long articles written on color management, but if it is as easy as choosing the right hardware in some dialog box (or maybe downloading the profile of your printer/monitor/scanner), then that is good news foe everyone. And I regret the formulation of my link caption, I did not mean in anyway to portray you as being unable to Google yourself ;-) I just was happy I found something useful (and I could not copy the link from the Microsoft site, it was several Apple Cinema Displays long and contained strange characters and seemingly endlessly repeated URL's. Strange. But I am not going to comment on that...). Good Luck wit it! Hoof

Go to pricegrabber.com or pricewatch.com to find a deal. Find out what kind of monitor you want then price them at Best Buy, etc... You can find monitors and almost everything else electronic cheaper on the net and sometimes don't have to pay tax or shipping. I have a Viewsonic Flat Screen and love it, plus it's easy to move, nice and light :)

Just another vote for LCDs. I now notice the flicker on CRT monitors and I never want to go back. I do a lot of Photoshop work on my LCD and while I don't make a fulltime living through my Photoshop work, I do some professional work and so far, no complaints.

Perhaps I am too late with this info, but I'll give you my $0.02 anyway.

On a personal note...

I am an engineer by trade (and programmer/CG artist by hobby) so I spend inordinate amounts of time in front of a monitor. I find the flat panel displays to be friendlier on the eyes than a CRT.

Also, as far as the (1)motion blur, (2)sharpness, (3)color representation, and (4)dead pixel issues go:

(1)blur used to be a BIG issue for LCDs, newer materials and manufacturing methods have seriously levelled the playing field over the last few years. (It used to be that a hard-core gamer wouldn't be caught dead with anything but CRT...now many--if not most--use LCDs.)

(2)an LCD should be razor-sharp when run in its native resolution (interpolating can get a bit messy sometimes, but is usually not a real problem)...however, pay attention to dot pitch when selecting your "dream screen" (sometimes the LCD matrix can be a bit distracting...although newer monitors are pretty good in this area)

(3)as with blur, color representation used to be up in the air, but should not be much of an issue anymore with a quality screen from a reputable company (do your homework on independent sites like Tom's Hardware for color gamut tests...don't take a manufacturer's/distributor's word for it). For the most part, if you find a monitor with good brightness and contrast, you should be able to calibrate it to fit your needs without incident. As for calibration programs, I have use a combination of a gamers utilities (can't remember what my favorite was called offhand but most are quite good for putting you in the ballpark), video-card settings (for more fussy fine-tuning), and Photoshop gamma tool and color profiles (for matching colors in specific situations...like your magenta printing issues).

(4)dead pixels remain an issue with some screen makers, but most are not very serious. Again, some homework on independent sites like Tom's Hardware about a manufacturer's dead-pixel policy are quite helpful. I remember reading a comparison a few years back on tom's hardware that specifically listed one manufacturer who had a Zero-Dead-Pixel policy (if one existed a screen was not shipped). Some manfuacturer's (at that time...not sure if this is still the case) actually allowed screens to be sold so long as the number of dead pixels was under .001% (7 pixels on a 1024x768 screen and 13 @ 1280x1024).

As with any purchase, doing your research is important; but I see no reason (as long as it's financially feasible) why you shouldn't go with a quality LCD display.

PHEW!!! That got quite a bit longer than I had planned.

~~Duk

I managed to dig up the specific article on dead pixels. The numbers I quoted were from memory (which was a bit fuzzy), but if you so desire, you can take a look at the article for yourself.