It may sound naive but I have found Dell monitors and after sales help very reliable. I bought a super 20 inch widescreen from Dell a couple of years ago, and after 11 months it started to look a bit purple. Yet with only a couple of weeks to go on the warranty Dell delivered a brand new one and took the earlier one away the next day, no problems at all. I am just a home user in the UK. The monitor is the best I have had in ten years.
"Quilljar" <N...@home.today> wrote: > It may sound naive but I have found Dell monitors and after sales > help very reliable. I bought a super 20 inch widescreen from Dell a > couple of years ago, and after 11 months it started to look a bit > purple. Yet with only a couple of weeks to go on the warranty Dell > delivered a brand new one and took the earlier one away the next day, > no problems at all. I am just a home user in the UK. The monitor is > the best I have had in ten years.
+1
Dell's LCD monitors are very fine things, if a little pricey. Good CRTs are vanishingly rare these days, so you may be left with no choice but to go for a (rather expensive, if you want to retain 1600x1200) panel.
On 6-Sep-2008, Rob Kendrick <n...@rjek.com> wrote:
> Xref: uni-berlin.de comp.sys.acorn.misc:313588
> Dell's LCD monitors are very fine things, if a little pricey. Good > CRTs are vanishingly rare these days, so you may be left with no > choice but to go for a (rather expensive, if you want to retain > 1600x1200) panel.
Unless you have very good reasons for not doing so I would suggest moving to a TFT monitor. However, in this case a 1600 x 1200 will be _much_ more expensive than a 1680 x 1050 (which will work perfectly with all the machines you mentioned. An even better alternative is a 1900 x 1200 which will still cost less than a 1600 x 1200 but might be a bit big physically and its natural resolution is too large for a RPC without Viewfinder.
> In article <4fda82fcecda...@orpheusmail.co.uk>, > Dave Stratford <da...@orpheusmail.co.uk> wrote: > > So I need a new one. What do people reccomend, given that I do a > > lot of photo re-touching and colour balance and accuracy is very > > important.
> Oh dear - then you're in trouble. Only a CRT monitor is good enough > for this for serious use.
You can buy panels with very very fine colour accuracy - equal or better to the best CRTs. Just be prepared to pay for it.
In article <20080906165629.3cad4...@trite.i.flarn.net.i.flarn.net>, Rob Kendrick <n...@rjek.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 13:07:42 +0100 > "Dave Plowman (News)" <d...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote: > > In article <4fda82fcecda...@orpheusmail.co.uk>, > > Dave Stratford <da...@orpheusmail.co.uk> wrote: > > > So I need a new one. What do people reccomend, given that I do a > > > lot of photo re-touching and colour balance and accuracy is very > > > important.
> > Oh dear - then you're in trouble. Only a CRT monitor is good enough > > for this for serious use. > You can buy panels with very very fine colour accuracy - equal or > better to the best CRTs. Just be prepared to pay for it.
My pals in vision in TV say not - regardless of cost they're still using CRT monitors for setting cameras. One of the main problems is knowing the true black level with a LCD. Of course a scope can help but at the end of the day picture matching is still done by eye - and with CRT monitors.
> B.
-- *Arkansas State Motto: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Laugh.
Dave Plowman d...@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.
> My pals in vision in TV say not - regardless of cost they're still > using CRT monitors for setting cameras. One of the main problems is > knowing the true black level with a LCD. Of course a scope can help > but at the end of the day picture matching is still done by eye - and > with CRT monitors.
Of course if you use LCD, you can't display black. Which is why I very carefully said "panel" :)
In article <20080906185507.10f3f...@trite.i.flarn.net.i.flarn.net>, Rob Kendrick <n...@rjek.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 18:21:58 +0100 > "Dave Plowman (News)" <d...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote: > > My pals in vision in TV say not - regardless of cost they're still > > using CRT monitors for setting cameras. One of the main problems is > > knowing the true black level with a LCD. Of course a scope can help > > but at the end of the day picture matching is still done by eye - and > > with CRT monitors. > Of course if you use LCD, you can't display black. Which is why I very > carefully said "panel" :)
Plasmas have other problems. They're not use either.
-- *Why is the time of day with the slowest traffic called rush hour?
Dave Plowman d...@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.
> In article <20080906185507.10f3f...@trite.i.flarn.net.i.flarn.net>, > Rob Kendrick <n...@rjek.com> wrote: > > On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 18:21:58 +0100 > > "Dave Plowman (News)" <d...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> > > My pals in vision in TV say not - regardless of cost they're still > > > using CRT monitors for setting cameras. One of the main problems > > > is knowing the true black level with a LCD. Of course a scope can > > > help but at the end of the day picture matching is still done by > > > eye - and with CRT monitors.
> > Of course if you use LCD, you can't display black. Which is why I > > very carefully said "panel" :)
> Plasmas have other problems. They're not use either.
Which is why I didn't mention them, either. They are not the only two technologies. And CRTs, of course, have their own problems.
> > > > My pals in vision in TV say not - regardless of cost they're still > > > > using CRT monitors for setting cameras. One of the main problems > > > > is knowing the true black level with a LCD. Of course a scope can > > > > help but at the end of the day picture matching is still done by > > > > eye - and with CRT monitors.
> > > Of course if you use LCD, you can't display black. Which is why I > > > very carefully said "panel" :)
> > Plasmas have other problems. They're not use either. > Which is why I didn't mention them, either. They are not the only two > technologies.
They're the only two mature ones, surely? Projection types aren't suitable either. Of course one of the emerging technologies might be.
> And CRTs, of course, have their own problems.
Indeed - I was just making the point that LCDs and Plasma aren't as wonderful as the ads make out if actual picture quality is the only parameter.
-- *Always borrow money from pessimists - they don't expect it back *
Dave Plowman d...@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.
> > Which is why I didn't mention them, either. They are not the only > > two technologies.
> They're the only two mature ones, surely? Projection types aren't > suitable either. Of course one of the emerging technologies might be.
There's OLED - you can actually get quite large panels now, and that gives you perfect black, excellent colour range and very very good contrast (ie, so good that it's tricky to find sources to take advantage of it.)
> > And CRTs, of course, have their own problems.
> Indeed - I was just making the point that LCDs and Plasma aren't as > wonderful as the ads make out if actual picture quality is the only > parameter.
There's no completely perfect solution. Much like loud-speaker designs, you can get close to the real thing, but there's always a gotcha.
On Sep 6, 8:10 pm, "Dave Plowman (News)" <d...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> Indeed - I was just making the point that LCDs and Plasma aren't as > wonderful as the ads make out if actual picture quality is the only > parameter.
Quite. SEDs hold out great hope, because their colorimetry characteristics ought to be as good as CRTs (after all they both use electron-excited phosphors). Indeed, my understanding is that the target market is exactly the kind of professional application where precise colorimetry matters:
The trouble with all technologies apart from CRTs and SEDs is that they need to re-matrix the RGB inputs to match their (usually very different) native primaries. This necessarily means the colour gamut is different, so there are some colours they simply can't display.
