Have LCD's matched CRT black levels yet/Any place to get 24" CRT in Syd?

[darklegion]

Thought about a 32" IPS tv? I have one that ticks most of the boxes, but unfortunately it's black levels aren't fantastic. However, this was a 2010 model I believe and so they may have gotten better.

120hz in TVs is generally "fake 120hz" though, so you don't want to enable that feature with a TV.

[irR4tiOn4L]

Originally Posted by darklegion

Thought about a 32" IPS tv? I have one that ticks most of the boxes, but unfortunately it's black levels aren't fantastic. However, this was a 2010 model I believe and so they may have gotten better.

120hz in TVs is generally "fake 120hz" though, so you don't want to enable that feature with a TV.

No I haven't looked at those. I can handle boxes not being ticked, but I just don't know what to look for. I've managed to narrow down to the Catleaps/Dell 2711's/Apple Cinema displays as being very high image quality monitors, even if the resolution is extremely high. I don't quite understand how a $500 TN panel, 120hz 3d capable monitor looks by comparison, and why I would want the 120hz beyond 3d. I know even less about these TV's and whether to go IPS/LED/Plasma.

I'm going to do a bit more research and take a stab one way or the other and hope for the best. Can always get something else down the line.

[trackhappy]

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

I appreciate your help but it is worth pointing out that you have paid $700 and must still resort to warranty voiding alterations.

I have a 2311, and haven't taken the coating off yet. Even with the coating they're still amazing looking monitors.

If you really want to stretch, these are awesome. You can't go wrong. Otherwise if you're after something a bit smaller, the 2410's are currently on sale. A friend has one, and he loves it.

[irR4tiOn4L]

Originally Posted by trackhappy

I have a 2311, and haven't taken the coating off yet. Even with the coating they're still amazing looking monitors.

If you really want to stretch, these are awesome. You can't go wrong. Otherwise if you're after something a bit smaller, the 2410's are currently on sale. A friend has one, and he loves it.

Dells are great monitors no doubt, but the Catleap is almost as good for half the price (and 27" to boot).

I was also hoping for at least 27", because at 24" I might as well go looking for an FW900 CRT.

[NSanity]

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

because at 24" I might as well go looking for an FW900 CRT.

I wouldn't be investing in a CRT unless;

1. It was a top-end to begin with (like the FW900)
2. I was budgeting (and already knew where to get it done and how much it was going to cost me) for getting it re-furbed - thus getting a decent amount of life out of it.

The chances that you are going to get "as new" condition FW900 that doesn't need any kind of adjustment/calibration is quite unlikely.

[irR4tiOn4L]

Originally Posted by NSanity

I wouldn't be investing in a CRT unless;

1. It was a top-end to begin with (like the FW900)
2. I was budgeting (and already knew where to get it done and how much it was going to cost me) for getting it re-furbed - thus getting a decent amount of life out of it.

The chances that you are going to get "as new" condition FW900 that doesn't need any kind of adjustment/calibration is quite unlikely.

Sure, and I would do so, but my point was that I would rather have the FW900 than a 24" LCD. So if I am going to upgrade, I want to capitalize on the primary advantage of LCD - larger screen size.

[mtma]

Regarding the IPS LCD TV's I think your best bet is to look at the Panasonic IPS-alpha ones.

I forgot if we covered the whole TV thing, but important factors to watch out for when you look for a TV to use as a monitor is that it has a low enough settable brightness (otherwise it will water your eyes) and a 'game' processing mode which decreases the display lag sufficiently. The last one is that it actually displays full native resolution from a PC input but thanks to HDMI this is rarely a problem anymore.

Those should be the main differences which might make using an LCD TV an unpleasant experience.

[OldnBold]

Originally Posted by kambo_rambo

Except 10bit colour monitors are hideously expensive and nearly everything, save for photoshop, runs in 8bit depth - oh and his graphics card probably doesnt support it as it requires display port.

He has been talking about colour similarities to a CRT monitor. The Catleap and similar brands are crap IPS monitors. Have a look here:

http://www.photoshopessentials.com/essentials/16-bit/

[irR4tiOn4L]

Originally Posted by OldnBold

He has been talking about colour similarities to a CRT monitor. The Catleap and similar brands are crap IPS monitors. Have a look here:

http://www.photoshopessentials.com/essentials/16-bit/

If I never did an explicit 'wide gamut' photoshop or similar editing, and just ran my CRT through the standard desktop settings - was I running at 8bit colours?

I assume 8bit right, which is 16 million colours.

I would rather avoid the 260k colours of a TN panel, but then again, if it means messing with wide gamut settings, I don't need the 1 billion colours of a true 10bit IPS either.

Is the catleap et al going to the job my CRT did, great image quality at the standard settings used by games/image editing programs?

Also, that article (which is great btw) makes pretty clear that 8bit is more than we can discern and the only advantage of 16 bit over 8 bit is in limited applications with photoshop where frankly stupid design means that 8bit images lose their transitions (and suffer from banding) when crushed into a smaller band of colours by careless editing. While the article suggests using frickin raw in all your photography, it really begs the question - why not just convert the 8 bit jpegs to 16 bit before starting to work with them in photoshop? That way if you do silly crush and stretch routines on the colour bands of the image, it will still not lose detail because of the greater transitions in 16 bit.

Most of all though, if I can't see more than 16 million colours anyway, I don't see why I need a 16 bit, or even a 10 bit (1 billion colours) panel to take advantage of this photoshop trick.

260k colour TN panel vs 16 million IPS panel I can understand - stretching to a billion or trillion colours when I can't distinguish them? pointless.

EDIT: Then again, that article's implied claim that srgb/8bit colours represent the full spectrum of colours we can see is quite likely mistaken. It could be that we cannot distinguish some of the colours in that range, but others outside that range. In fact, based on a bit of reading, if i have this correct, srgb was in fact based on the capabilities of CRT. Most LCD's are in fact wider gamut (though not in the blacks) so are capable of producing stronger colours than the phosphors in CRT's. The problem for professional applications is not so much that LCD's cannot match the colours of CRT's, but that they have an inherently larger colour range but do not manage it effectively/imitate the fewer colours of srgb effectively. And, surprise, surprise, NEC's have an excellent srgb emulation mode and can be calibrated in their srgb mode, unlike other LCD's. It's probably the case then that while we find the more saturated colours of IPS/wide gamut LCD's more attractive than the srgb gamut of CRT's, it is actually an improper presentation of their wider colour gamut (but nice nonetheless).

So range of colours should really be understood as an advantage of LCD's that is not being utilized due to the legacy srgb system we currently use.
http://www.imagescience.com.au/kb/qu...Gamut+Monitors

Nice, but I'm still going to be using this monitor primarily for srgb applications. Now like everyone, I appreciate more saturated colours than is available on CRT/srgb, so a wider gamut IPS display will be appreciated. But I don't want to get something so wide in its gamut that it no longer works well with srgb.

So to answer my question, assuming that IPS LCD's like the u2711 REALLY DO cover 100% of the srgb range (Dell claims 100% srgb and 96% adobe rgb) and that CRT's do not exceed in normal operation the srgb range (which, if they did, would mean inaccurate and overblown colours in any case), then we can say that YES, LCD's HAVE matched CRT's for black levels.

But this just begs the question - if we are still measuring the black levels of modern monitors as less than CRT's, then are they really meeting the srgb scale? Or is the srgb scale not calibrated to an absolute, deep black colour like that found in the best CRT's?

[OldnBold]

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

So to answer my question, assuming that IPS LCD's like the u2711 REALLY DO cover 100% of the srgb range (Dell claims 100% srgb and 96% adobe rgb) and that CRT's do not exceed in normal operation the srgb range (which, if they did, would mean inaccurate and overblown colours in any case), then we can say that YES, LCD's HAVE matched CRT's for black levels.

Your statement is correct but as I have said above only certain IPS monitors, Dell, NEC can get there.

I have an NEC 26" monitor which is fantastic for color reproduction, used for photo and video editing btw.

[m3k]

I'd be worried about the residual radiation from a CRT, and tell you to go to a led back lit LCD with dynamic LEDs to keep blacks ... Sorta black ....

My Dell 30 has perfect srgb and almost perfect adobe rgb.. Most vivid and clear panel I've seen, shame about the poor blacks though.. Trust me it's not a claim... High end calibrators have reported 100% adobe rgb coverage lol... My eyes are impressed too.. Never going back to tn .... Even for 120htz

[irR4tiOn4L]

Thanks guys, I'm going to go for one of the Catleap variants - half the price and almost the quality of the Dell's, its a deal I can't pass up.

The Super P2700 variant is looking good.

[[KEi]SoVeReIgN]

Originally Posted by kambo_rambo

Catleap and apply cinema use the EXACT same panel. Dell use a similar LG panel but not the same. What is different is the PCBs. Your 99% sure is based on nothing, and information is all over the 25 page catleap thread in this subforum.

99% is based on the fact that 99% of 27" monitors are 1920x1080. I think you should re read my post before you get your panties in a twist.

I did some reading before I posted what I said, lots of talk out there in forum world about Catleap using only the panels that Dell, Apple and HP reject. :thumb up:

[irR4tiOn4L]

Originally Posted by [KEi]SoVeReIgN

99% is based on the fact that 99% of 27" monitors are 1920x1080. I think you should re read my post before you get your panties in a twist.

I did some reading before I posted what I said, lots of talk out there in forum world about Catleap using only the panels that Dell, Apple and HP reject. :thumb up:

Yes they are A- rather than A or A+ grade. But most people report zero dead pixels, flawless screens and stunning image quality that surpasses the Dell's with its AG filter.

You also hear talk of the newer panel on the Dell being 10 bit rather than 8 bit. That's very misleading. In fact, the Dell is likely still the 8 bit but with the addition of dithering is being called 10 bit - it is not a true 10 bit panel, however (and one of the Korean variants likely uses this panel anyway).

Would you rather pay $300 for such a monitor or $700 for a monitor that needs to have its AG filter taken off to match it? It sounds like you are justifying your skepticism. Fact remains that these Korean monitors use the same panels as some of the best IPS monitors on the market for a fraction of the price (and some amount more risk, it must be said).

[irR4tiOn4L]

How are NEC 2490WUXi's? I know they are getting a bit older, but this review site suggests that they are better than their replacements anyway (better blacks) and since they are regarded as reference IPS panels, they should be very high image quality compared even to the newer LG 27" (u2711, catleaps et al) panels right?

They seem cheaper than even the Catleaps on ebay and at that price I could get two or three and be laughing!

http://nec2490.blogspot.com.au/?zx=ed973c8f7528c62e