Computer LCD question

[poker]

What is the minimum CONTRAST RATIO I should be looking at on a computer LCD? I think it is time to get rid of my old Sony CRT. I'm using it for editing pictures of course.

Any brand and model recommendations?

Thanks.

[poker]

Isn't 1280X1024 sort of the standard these days?

I'm using 2560X1600 on my Apple Display and love it!

Thanks for the response Penny. Here is the definition of contrast ratio:

"Contrast ratio: this is the difference in light intensity between the brightest white and the deepest black."

Higher contrast ratio provides better color but also increases cost. I was wondering what contrast ratio is good enough for digital photography.

[drg]

Contrast is only one factor and it really can be looked at as a combination of "static" and "dynamic" numbers. Static can be thought of as how black is black, and how white is white and the various grades of other colors in between in a still image when compared side by side. Dynamic contrast is more about the transition of colors at the refresh rate. If you are watching a sporting event and see color blurring behind a moving object or a banding in the image the the dynamic contrast isn't up to the rate at which the display can 'frame' or change the image. Contrast also determines how visible the difference in similar colors appears. CRT's are very good at this. LCD's can be, but there are a host of conditions that must be met.

Another VERY important factor with LCD display is Native Resolution. If the screen is a 1024 by 768 any other resolution is calculated from that one and the display will suffer. If you buy a 1280x1024 screen, use it as a 1280 by 1024 screen for photo editing. Don't change to another resolution even for convenience, the image will suffer.

I've been using a 19" Sync-master part of the time and it's O.K. It seems that profiling of the LCD's is far more important than any other single factor except incidental lighting which brings up the 'brightness' variants. The quick way to tell if a monitor is up to your needs is to make sure that in a displayed image the there's equal brightness in light and dark areas of the image or that separate light and dark images seem about the overall intensity to the eye. Images that have lots of browns and greens shouldn't appear darker because of the LCD than ones with yellow or reds.

For two monitiors with the same contrast ratio but a different brightness index, the brighter monitor should be better. The converse with a better contrast ratio and the same brightness may NOT be the same.

One final note, manufacturers haven't been very consistent or accurate in reporting the contrast numbers! Some report a number that is a combination of the dynamic and static and is weighted to get a higher number.

Look at a bunch of monitors in a store side by side with a known image loaded. Then when you purchase one, try the 'boxed' one out immediately. Profile and use consistent lighting in the work area. I am using True-light flourescent (those natural white/blue lights) only when I'm working on an LCD. It is not perfect yet. I've still got a 'stock' of CRT's.

I have seen 750:1 and 550:1 monitors side by side that once adjusted and profiled looked identical. That's for a still image carefully selected. If you can afford 1000:1 or more great. Otherwise the higher the contrast the better, higher 'nits' (brightness), use native resolution and profile. Best of luck!

[racingpinarello]

Hi Eric,

I would look at the Dell monitors with the Ultrasharp moniker. According to Rob Galbraith's seminar, the 2405 is identical to the Apple monitor (same guts).

Unless you can afford the Enzio monitors, I think Dell offers the best value with quality. I wouldn't buy anything else from Dell, but the monitors work.

My monitor has 400:1 and it works fine, but I do have it calibrated with Eye-One.

Loren

[Sebastian]

The contrast ratio isn't as important as the bit depth per color. To help speed up response times, manufacturers like to use 6 bit per channel processors. These monitors, as I have painfully found out, can not reproduce subtle gradations without banding and dithering. This is the primary reason I went back to my 19" CRT, I can't stand the banding. Unfortunately, manufacturers do not list the bit depth when they spec out the monitors, except when it is an actual selling point for them, as is the case with LaCie's and Eizo's high end units. It's not uncommon for these units to have 10, or even 12 bit panels. The panels themselves can not reproduce more than 8 bit, but they can process larger color spaces, allowing more accurate convertions from 32 bit color to the screen's 24. For us, that's overkill.

Loren makes a very good point about the Dells. Same panels as the Apple Cinema Display (at least when comparing 20 inch models), but with slightly inferior backlighting and case design, making for more uneven illumination across the panel. Having used one though, you don't see a difference unless the units are side by side and you're looking for flaws. Dells are half the price and have the added benefit of a slew of input options that the Apple lacks.

[Sebastian]

Forgot the link:

http://compreviews.about.com/od/mult...a/LCDColor.htm

[MarcusK]

I'll be completely honest...I'm a Mac Freak...ok....its out....

I'm in graphics, i use a mac and i'll say this, been constantly switching platforms for various reasons (i wish i didnt have to but its my unfortunate series of events)

Personally, i would say the best way to decide is to have a photo on hand, and calibrate according to that photo. In the end this is what you need. Calibration for correct color when printing. If it's only for web display, then regardless of how correct the contrast setting is, it will be different when someone else views it on their screen!

So if its for print, the best way is to print a "correct" image, and then compare it with what you view onscreen. The reason i prefer the mac setup is that their screens are calibrated by default (for macs, which is why taking it to a PC might cause a change) but there are many other LCD's that do just fine, i'm still using a sync-master with my mac, bought cause i couldn't really afford the Apple screen, and its doing just fine.....after some calibration of course...

I would suggest you go for the trial and error and compare method although its a hassle, but this will be the most accurate approach...IMHO...

Cheers,
Marc

[yogestee]

Hi Eric,,I have Samsung 19" SyncMaster 920N running at a resolution of 1024 X 768 pixels calibrated exactly to my printer's output...It works a treat for me..

Jurgen
Australia

[poker]

Thanks for schooling me with all this info. My 19" Sony 420GS needs a replacing and LCDs are getting so much cheaper these days. They have Viewsonic 19" for under $300 but I want avoid making a purchace based so much on price since the last 19" monitor I bought was so bad for graphics I gave it away in less than a month.

I brought up contrast ratio because all the LCDs at Best Buy clear specify them now which is new to me. Your comments bring my attention to other important things as well.

Thanks everyone.