Re: [OT] things to look for in a flatpanel monitor
On 17/02/2008, Douglas A. Tutty <dtutty@porchlight.ca> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 08:22:03AM +0200, Dotan Cohen wrote:
> > On 17/02/2008, KS <lists04@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >
>
> > Could you elaborate on the 6-bit / 8-bit bit a bit? When I do finally
> > get an LCD (probably in another six months or so, if I can help it), I
> > want to know about this. One of the main functions of our desktop is
> > Digikam (photos) so quality photo reproduction is important to us.
>
>
> I've only seen a few professionals viewing images on a screen. None of
> them were using a CRT.
>
> I'm a CCU nurse. Sure, one can call up xrays on the normal desktop
> display, but if you want to see anything in detail and especially make
> any treatment decisions, you go over to the big CRT and call it up.
I've seen those super-high resolution B&W Rentgoen monitors at
hospitals. Very impressive indeed, though I don't think that they are
very practical for home use.
> I bought my 21" Intergraph CRT off-lease for $250. It has a slight
> aberration in one corner but I know its there and wouldn't retouch a
> photo in that section without panning away from it. Off-lease may be
> one options for you to get good image quality without breaking the bank.
>
> Think of the resolution of a camera. Kodak Kodachrome professional
> ISO25 slide film has always been the gold-standard. When you look at
> the grain density and do the math, it comes out to around 32 MPixel.
> A Nikon digital SLR is around 18 MPixel, with consumer-grade digital
> cameras lower still.
>
> Take an 8x10" glossy print made from that Kodachrom slide. 80 square
> inches for 32 MPixel (well, less since the paper isn't as good as the
> slide). That's 409.6 Kpixel per square inch. Square-root
> that and you get 647 dpi. So, you use a larger monitor. Think of a CRT
> at 1600 x 1200. That's 1.8 Mpixel. Double that to 3200 x 2400 and you
> get 7.3 MPixel.
>
> How tightly packed are those pixels? Large-screen flat-panels may give
> you large X x Y but at what size screen? How easy is it to edit a
> picture at 3200 x 2400 if the screen is 6 feet wide?
>
> Then you have to look at contrast, number of bits per pixel. My CRT is
> the standard X.org max of 24 bits/pixel.
>
> What is the source of the images you'll be editing? How may MPixels,
> how many bits/pixel? If its from physical media, what are the specs on
> the digitizer/scanner? What are the specs on the printer you'll use?
>
> Just some thoughts.
>
> Doug.
We're not doing any photo retouching, only looking at pictures shot
with 3-7 MP home cameras. However, as it is our primary way of viewing
the photos, we want something decent. I'm thinking about a minimum
resolution of 1600x1200 and the best colour possible.
Dotan Cohen
http://what-is-what.com
http://gibberish.co.il
א-ב-ג-ד-ה-ו-ז-ח-ט-י-ך-כ-ל-ם-מ-ן-נ-ס-ע-ף-פ-ץ-צ-ק-ר-ש-ת
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
Reply to: