Interesting. I just read a couple reviews of the 213T and, at a
contrast ratio of 500:1, it's a good cut above the more typical 400 or
450:1 and much above the 300:1 that LCD's were producing a couple of
years ago. Looks like an excellent monitor and excellent value for an LCD.
However, a good CRT can do 700:1 on the contrast ratio and still costs a
lot less. But it looks like it's getting close to time to reconsider.
Chuck Norcutt
Tom Scales wrote:
> I have a Samsung 213T, which is a 21" LCD. It is amazing and my primary
> editing monitor. Crisp, clear, high res, every thing I wanted.
>
> Best value in a large monitor out there.
>
> Tom
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chuck Norcutt" <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 8:19 PM
> Subject: [OM] Re: RAW
>
>
>
>>I don't think the dynamic range of LCD's has caught up with CRT's yet.
>>The only one I'm really familiar with (since I have to use it
>>occasionally) seems to be subject to moire patterns popping up much more
>>so than a CRT. I suspect that it's the very discrete nature of the
>>pixels on an LCD screen. Just a guess but I think CRT pixels are
>>"softer" due to the analog and slightly imprecise nature of the signal
>>which allows them to bleed into each other a bit.
>>
>>I've never seen a really expensive LCD but so far I've not seen anything
>>that would make me want to give up a CRT for photo editing.
>>
>>Chuck Norcutt
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|