Advice On A New Monitor.

[helensilverburg]

You're forgiven

LCD stands for Liquid Crystal Display - these are the new, thin, flat,
energy-efficient monitors that you see for sale everywhere now.
You're probably more familiar with this type of display from using a
laptop & notebook.

CRT stands for Cathode Ray Tube - this is the type of monitor you're
probably most familiar with and are using now. It uses a tube as the
display like a traditional tv. Its large, bulky, heavy, produces a
lot of heat and uses about 2/3rds more energy than the LCDs.

is my biased obvious yet?

Let us know what you go with and what you think, helen. Good luck!

Oh I'll definitely let you know what I go with, and thanks to all of
you for your help. You've all been very kind!
Helen

 

[larry moe 'n curly]

I'd buy an LCD monitor only from a place that doesn't charge
restocking fees on returns because LCDs seem to fail more than CRTs,
and some manufacturers charge more for extended warranties on their
LCDs than their CRTs, $60 vs. $30, in the case of Envision..

If you want to buy a wide screen, I strongly recommend actually
looking at one in a store because some people learn later on that a
wide screen monitor is noticeably smaller than a regulsr width monitor
with the same diagonal size. So if a 19" regulsr screen is what you
want, you'll have to get a 22-24" wide screen.

 

[helensilverburg]

I'd buy an LCD monitor only from a place that doesn't charge
restocking fees on returns because LCDs seem to fail more than CRTs,
and some manufacturers charge more for extended warranties on their
LCDs than their CRTs, $60 vs. $30, in the case of Envision..

If you want to buy a wide screen, I strongly recommend actually
looking at one in a store because some people learn later on that a
wide screen monitor is noticeably smaller than a regulsr width monitor
with the same diagonal size. So if a 19" regulsr screen is what you
want, you'll have to get a 22-24" wide screen.

Thank you very much for that info.

 

[GT]

You may have me wrong here but so far I haven't found any $400-700 20" LCD
is worth enough to replace my CRT yet, so I am still using CRT for my
photo
retouching.

I second that. Still using my IIyama 19". I have a big corner desk, so no
need for a thin space saving, lower resolution LCD. I'll stick with the CRT
until there is a reasonably priced LCD that can get colours spot on.

 

[GT]

You're forgiven

LCD stands for Liquid Crystal Display - these are the new, thin, flat,
energy-efficient monitors that you see for sale everywhere now.
You're probably more familiar with this type of display from using a
laptop & notebook.

CRT stands for Cathode Ray Tube - this is the type of monitor you're
probably most familiar with and are using now. It uses a tube as the
display like a traditional tv. Its large, bulky, heavy, produces a
lot of heat and uses about 2/3rds more energy than the LCDs.

You missed the part about CRT tubes being better at colour reproduction and
generally have better resolutions and are generally cheaper.

is my biased obvious yet?

and mine??

 

[helensilverburg]

I am in need of a new monitor. I've been told a flat screen monitor
is the way to go. Could anyone advise me of a good one? I don't want
to spend a lot of money on one. I have no idea how much they cost,
but I was hoping to spend approximately $400. and under.
Thank you all in advicance.

Thanks everyone for your help and advice. I'm going to go tomorrow,
Saturday, to check out some great ideas you guys gave me here. I'll
let everyone know how it went!
Thanks so much!
Helen

 

[Joel]

Sorry for being ignorant on the subject but what is the difference
between LCD and CRT?

I see other member already answered your question with more detail than I
can. Also, for most people LCD seems to be a good choice as it takes up
very little desk space, but since I am a photographer and photo retoucher I
often have to zoom in 100-200-300% to work on small detail, and LCD display
just not my type.

I read there are professional LCD monitors for photo work, but they cost

 

[Joel]

You missed the part about CRT tubes being better at colour reproduction and
generally have better resolutions and are generally cheaper.

Cheap is what I can enjoy, but the most important part that none of
average LCD (from $300-800+) can match for beauty of CRT displaying. So I
now can benefit from cheap and better displaying for my work.

Else, I won't mind to pay $500-700 for a good LCD monitor which was the
price I paid for many of my CRT monitors (years ago). Now I can get around
less than $100 (onsale) up to around $250 (usually online as it's hard to
find any local store carries good CRT)

 

[Joel]

I second that. Still using my IIyama 19". I have a big corner desk, so no
need for a thin space saving, lower resolution LCD. I'll stick with the CRT
until there is a reasonably priced LCD that can get colours spot on.

Here I have no choice because since I use monitor for photo retouching and
I just can't stand the displaying of LCD. With CDT monitor we hardly be
able to see the tiny dots (screen) comparing to LCD they are 10-20+ times
larger, or they look like human skin-textxure when I zoom in 200-300% to
repair damaged skin.

 

[kony]

Cheap is what I can enjoy, but the most important part that none of
average LCD (from $300-800+) can match for beauty of CRT displaying. So I
now can benefit from cheap and better displaying for my work.

Apples and oranges. If you're comparing a good quality CRT
to get best visual performance, it's not any cheaper than an
LCD.

I don't know if anyone has noticed but most of the CRTs now
made are junk, as the better manufacturers have scaled back
if not entirely stopped CRT production and many which were
once made in Japan are now made in China or another less
*expensive* country.

Else, I won't mind to pay $500-700 for a good LCD monitor which was the
price I paid for many of my CRT monitors (years ago). Now I can get around
less than $100 (onsale) up to around $250 (usually online as it's hard to
find any local store carries good CRT)

Some LCD are better than others, same as with CRTs.
Certainly CRTs on average have better color reproduction,
but the world is managing to get by using LCDs, it is only a
matter of time until you too learn to adjust.

 

[kony]

I see other member already answered your question with more detail than I
can. Also, for most people LCD seems to be a good choice as it takes up
very little desk space, but since I am a photographer and photo retoucher I
often have to zoom in 100-200-300% to work on small detail, and LCD display
just not my type.

Zooming in is exactly where an LCD is substantially superior
because it has per-pixel precision instead of blurring
pixels boundaries together.

I read there are professional LCD monitors for photo work, but they cost
between $2000-4000+ a pop which is little too much for me <bg>

Like everything else, LCDs were in their infancy and get
better every year. Finding one unsuited for your use is not
a fair indictment against all LCDs. You might search for
LCDs suited for the work instead of just those advertised
for it, as anything advertised as a specialty item tends to
cost more even if no longer a modern competitive product.

It's not that I'm trying to talk you into using an LCD, but
a high, (fixed) contrast display which is accurately
calibrated to the output medium should be sufficient for the
work.

 

[kony]

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 07:59:37 -0700,

Thanks everyone for your help and advice. I'm going to go tomorrow,
Saturday, to check out some great ideas you guys gave me here. I'll
let everyone know how it went!
Thanks so much!
Helen

Remember that while in-store viewing is critical to judge
between different LCDs, it is also important to remember
that these displays may not be properly calibrated which can
make quite a difference in perceived image quality. It has
also been suggested that some stores might spend less time
on, or not even do any calibration on lower priced panels to
make the higher profit models seem more desirable.

Something good to do is write down the models of any you are
considering and then do some online research. Many of the
best panels per size are reviewed and compared to reasonably
equivalent alternatives unless a very new model. There is
something to be said for choosing a newer model as LCDs get
better over time and each generation in general, but not
always.

Having written this much, to some people a few of the
potential quirks of LCDs such as small contrast differences,
a little light bleeding in around the edges, or utmost color
accuracy is not as important as getting a larger panel
(screen) size for the same budget. Lots of uses simply
benefit more from the larger size and higher resolution than
the other aspects... but I would be hesitant to buy a
generic brand in order to get a larger size unless it was
VERY reasonably priced. For example about 18 months ago I
found a "HannsG" 19" LCD that compares poorly to most
popular name-brand 19" LCDs, but since it was only $100
after a rebate and the particular computer was mostly used
for text, internet surfing and email, etc, it was a
reasonable value.

Even if it broke tomorrow I feel it has served it's purpose
and the user got $100 worth of value out of it, but so far
it has held up fine... sometimes buying an LCD is a lottery,
even with good brands you may come across one that is
defective so it is good to buy from someplace that has a
good return policy (and further, that their return policy is
not especially limiting for LCD monitors compared to other
products as some places vary the return policy for certain
tech items like this).

Something else less often mentioned is to be sure that the
monitor has the height and angle adjustments you will need
based on your (desk?) worksurface height, chair height, and
your eye-level height. A monitor that is too short might be
put on a pedestal of some sort but ideally not. If the
angle adjustment can't allow a direct 90 degree angle from
your eyes to the screen surface, it can significantly effect
contrast on many LCDs so having a large enough viewing angle
for your use might be critical.

 

[helensilverburg]

Remember that while in-store viewing is critical to judge
between different LCDs, it is also important to remember
that these displays may not be properly calibrated which can
make quite a difference in perceived image quality. It has
also been suggested that some stores might spend less time
on, or not even do any calibration on lower priced panels to
make the higher profit models seem more desirable.

Something good to do is write down the models of any you are
considering and then do some online research. Many of the
best panels per size are reviewed and compared to reasonably
equivalent alternatives unless a very new model. There is
something to be said for choosing a newer model as LCDs get
better over time and each generation in general, but not
always.

Having written this much, to some people a few of the
potential quirks of LCDs such as small contrast differences,
a little light bleeding in around the edges, or utmost color
accuracy is not as important as getting a larger panel
(screen) size for the same budget. Lots of uses simply
benefit more from the larger size and higher resolution than
the other aspects... but I would be hesitant to buy a
generic brand in order to get a larger size unless it was
VERY reasonably priced. For example about 18 months ago I
found a "HannsG" 19" LCD that compares poorly to most
popular name-brand 19" LCDs, but since it was only $100
after a rebate and the particular computer was mostly used
for text, internet surfing and email, etc, it was a
reasonable value.

Even if it broke tomorrow I feel it has served it's purpose
and the user got $100 worth of value out of it, but so far
it has held up fine... sometimes buying an LCD is a lottery,
even with good brands you may come across one that is
defective so it is good to buy from someplace that has a
good return policy (and further, that their return policy is
not especially limiting for LCD monitors compared to other
products as some places vary the return policy for certain
tech items like this).

Something else less often mentioned is to be sure that the
monitor has the height and angle adjustments you will need
based on your (desk?) worksurface height, chair height, and
your eye-level height. A monitor that is too short might be
put on a pedestal of some sort but ideally not. If the
angle adjustment can't allow a direct 90 degree angle from
your eyes to the screen surface, it can significantly effect
contrast on many LCDs so having a large enough viewing angle
for your use might be critical.

Excellent points you brought up and I will definitely keep that in my
mind. I don't know the first thing about calibrating a monitor, so I
do hope a manual comes with it and that it will help me with it. The
monitor would sit on my desk. It won't be moved around.
Thank you kindly for your help.
Helen

 

[kony]

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 13:07:41 -0700,

Excellent points you brought up and I will definitely keep that in my
mind. I don't know the first thing about calibrating a monitor, so I
do hope a manual comes with it and that it will help me with it. The
monitor would sit on my desk. It won't be moved around.
Thank you kindly for your help.
Helen

For casual use there are online pictures and software to
aide in calibrating a monitor. On the other hand, a proper
calibration tool will seek to preserve as much brightness
differentiation as possible, AKA greyscale. This can help
you to see more detail in pictures, including color pictures
as greyscale is a bit of a misnomer, it just means the color
values aren't being considered for the particular
calibration but rather brightness extremes and graduations
of change in brightness. Some people feel their monitor
looks better when it is not properly calibrated, if they
have a less serious use they might find that adjusting the
contrast higher will make things more vibrant, even more
colorful than things would appear in real life. Some
studies even show people prefer these over contrasted,
oversaturated images on first glance, but sometimes a first
glance is not enough to really decide.

If you are/were a graphic professional, the monitor should
instead be calibrated by a tool designed for the job or even
better, against the output device. For example if you do
photo work, distributed as print on a printer or in a
magazine, the produced work would be compared against the
monitor and the monitor adjusted to match the final output.
Sometimes the output device also has calibration options but
one way or the other a professional needs the two to match.

 

[helensilverburg]

For casual use there are online pictures and software to
aide in calibrating a monitor. On the other hand, a proper
calibration tool will seek to preserve as much brightness
differentiation as possible, AKA greyscale. This can help
you to see more detail in pictures, including color pictures
as greyscale is a bit of a misnomer, it just means the color
values aren't being considered for the particular
calibration but rather brightness extremes and graduations
of change in brightness. Some people feel their monitor
looks better when it is not properly calibrated, if they
have a less serious use they might find that adjusting the
contrast higher will make things more vibrant, even more
colorful than things would appear in real life. Some
studies even show people prefer these over contrasted,
oversaturated images on first glance, but sometimes a first
glance is not enough to really decide.

If you are/were a graphic professional, the monitor should
instead be calibrated by a tool designed for the job or even
better, against the output device. For example if you do
photo work, distributed as print on a printer or in a
magazine, the produced work would be compared against the
monitor and the monitor adjusted to match the final output.
Sometimes the output device also has calibration options but
one way or the other a professional needs the two to match.

Ah, I see now. Thanks so much kony for that valuable info.

 

[Joel]

(e-mail address removed) wrote:

Excellent points you brought up and I will definitely keep that in my
mind. I don't know the first thing about calibrating a monitor, so I
do hope a manual comes with it and that it will help me with it. The
monitor would sit on my desk. It won't be moved around.
Thank you kindly for your help.
Helen

Monitor calibrator is a hardware device (there are some software but I
don't know much about them) which you can find for around $150-200 which is
usuable, if you have more $$$ to spend then you can go for the $1000-2000
which I don't own to know the difference.

Also, instead of wasting energy on thing you may not need (I would say
90-99% computer users don't ever need monitor calibrator), but spend more
time on monitor. And like I said, if you use monitor for photo retouching
then I would suggest to go for CRT, if just for normal use then LCD would be
fine. They are real cheap these days to use up all your researching energy,
but go ahead to spend $250-300 to get over with.

 

[~misfit~]

Somewhere on the interweb "kony" typed:


[large amount of snippage]

Something else less often mentioned is to be sure that the
monitor has the height and angle adjustments you will need
based on your (desk?) worksurface height, chair height, and
your eye-level height. A monitor that is too short might be
put on a pedestal of some sort but ideally not. If the
angle adjustment can't allow a direct 90 degree angle from
your eyes to the screen surface, it can significantly effect
contrast on many LCDs so having a large enough viewing angle
for your use might be critical.

Kony, what is the accepted wisdom as to monitor/eye level? I remember
reading once that you should have to look up slighly to your monitor for
best posture/long-term comfort. That anything below eye-level is bad for
posture etc. I have my monitor on a large up-turned wooden bowl so that it's
higher than desk height. However, eye level is still not the center of the
screen, more like the top quarter.

What say you? <g>

Cheers,

 

[Guest]

Kony, what is the accepted wisdom as to monitor/eye level? I remember
reading once that you should have to look up slighly to your monitor for
best posture/long-term comfort. That anything below eye-level is bad for
posture etc. I have my monitor on a large up-turned wooden bowl so that it's
higher than desk height. However, eye level is still not the center of the
screen, more like the top quarter.

Maybe you should ask in one of the medical or physical fitness forums,
but during physical therapy for my arm I was told the monitor height
was probably acceptable if my neck didn't hurt after 8 hours of use.
A tower case on its side gives almost the perfect height, but don't
put a CRT monitor on top of one since few cases made now are sturdy
enough to carry the load. On the other hand my vintage-1985 IBM
horizontal case (modified for ATX form factor) is built like a tank
and has no with a 24" CRT monitor atop it, and it actually takes up
less desk space than a tower, despite its 21" width.

 

[kony]

Somewhere on the interweb "kony" typed:


[large amount of snippage]

Something else less often mentioned is to be sure that the
monitor has the height and angle adjustments you will need
based on your (desk?) worksurface height, chair height, and
your eye-level height. A monitor that is too short might be
put on a pedestal of some sort but ideally not. If the
angle adjustment can't allow a direct 90 degree angle from
your eyes to the screen surface, it can significantly effect
contrast on many LCDs so having a large enough viewing angle
for your use might be critical.

Kony, what is the accepted wisdom as to monitor/eye level? I remember
reading once that you should have to look up slighly to your monitor for
best posture/long-term comfort. That anything below eye-level is bad for
posture etc. I have my monitor on a large up-turned wooden bowl so that it's
higher than desk height. However, eye level is still not the center of the
screen, more like the top quarter.

What say you? <g>

Cheers,

At one point I thought the recommended ergo position was
that the eye level be slightly above the center of the
monitor, but that it was not critical as a person who's
going to slouch will have to instead maintain proper torso
and neck alignment regardless of whether their eyes have to
look a few degrees up or down, but it should be eyes instead
of neck bending to make up the difference and so I tend to
agree a slightly above-eye-level monitor would tend to
promote better posture. How many people really have good
posture all the time though? I would suspect it's more
common in an office than home environment but that due to
the typical monitor and desk heights in the market, most
people are looking downward a bit and placing too much
stress on their neck unless semi-reclining in their chair.

As D.N.S.M. mentioned, having no discomfort after the
required usage period is a reasonable sign the height is ok.

 

[~misfit~]

Somewhere on the interweb "(e-mail address removed)" typed:

Maybe you should ask in one of the medical or physical fitness forums,
but during physical therapy for my arm I was told the monitor height
was probably acceptable if my neck didn't hurt after 8 hours of use.

Good point.

A tower case on its side gives almost the perfect height, but don't
put a CRT monitor on top of one since few cases made now are sturdy
enough to carry the load. On the other hand my vintage-1985 IBM
horizontal case (modified for ATX form factor) is built like a tank
and has no with a 24" CRT monitor atop it, and it actually takes up
less desk space than a tower, despite its 21" width.

I bemoaned the change in form-factor when PCs stopped being built in desktop
cases and went to towers as I always kept my monitor on top of my case. In
fact I've kept a few sturdy desktop cases and used them as monitor stands,
even not-working ones. (Multi-PC household).

Thanks for the input.