Good colour reproduction and definition in an LCD display

[Fathom1990]

I have a friend who's into digital photography and he hasn't been terribly happy with the way colour in displayed on his current LCD monitor. Don't really know much more than that, but can you guys reccommend a monitor that will make him happy - a 17" or 19" LCD.

 

[VinnyTAMU]

I don't really know of any monitors to recommend, but when selecting your monitor I would look for a couple of things:

Choose a monitor with 16.7 million display colours.

Purchase a monitor calibration device (hardware)

Choose a good monitor with 16.7million colours, 8ms time and use the calibration device and you should be good to go.

 

[larva]

Just stay away from the fast referesh ratings. The panel technologies used in 12ms and below rated panels often blows the color accuracy all to hell. My Dell 2005FPW is awesome in its color accuracy. It is a 16ms-rated unit. And honestly, the motion performance is great, and doesn't improve radically with faster-rated panels.

I've looked at a Viewsonic VX924, a 4ms-rated unit. Motion performance simply isn't any better than my 2005fpw, but the color rendition is comical in comparison. Colors are hugely over-saturated and come from an obviously restricted pallete. This is typical of the fast-rated panels.

The color rendition on the Dell 1905FP isn't quite as good as the 2005, mainly because it's just too damn bright. You can turn the brightness all the way down (as I do with the 2005), but it's still too bright. This tends to blow out the highlights and de-saturate the colors. I don't know if the new 1907FP is better or worse.

Unfortunately the 2005fpw has been replaced by the 2007. I would not assume it delivers the stunning color performance the 2005 does. In most cases that wouldn't allow the desired spec sheet psuedo-knowledge for people to latch on to. Until the 2007's color reproduction (and banding issue with the DVI input) is better understood, the only safe bet I know of is to hunt up a 2005.

 

[larva]

I don't really know of any monitors to recommend, but when selecting your monitor I would look for a couple of things:

Choose a monitor with 16.7 million display colours.

Purchase a monitor calibration device (hardware)

Choose a good monitor with 16.7million colours, 8ms time and use the calibration device and you should be good to go.

Most 8ms panels use a 6-bit color space to get it, and as such cannot render 16.7 million colors. If the panel is good and you are using the DVI input, there is no need for a calibration device. These are always required to get anything approaching color accuracy with a CRT (unless the feature is integrated into the CRT), but are simply unecessary with a well designed 8-bit LCD panel using the DVI input.

 

[tom10167]

If you're that hardcore in to digital photography:
Get a CRT
Don't get a 19" monitor

Just my 2

 

[VinnyTAMU]

I've looked at a Viewsonic VX924, a 4ms-rated unit. Motion performance simply isn't any better than my 2005fpw, but the color rendition is comical in comparison. Colors are hugely over-saturated and come from an obviously restricted pallete. This is typical of the fast-rated panels.

I would have to disagree with you on this. I have owned the 2005fpw, VX924, and VX922 monitors. As far as colors are concerned the 2005fpw as you said the 2005 wins in this category, but as far as the difference in motion performance to me the VX922/VX924 are noticably improved. The biggest difference is when I play games like Counter Strike, where I use fast twitch movements. With the 2005fpw I noticed alot more tearing than with the the VX922/924.

 

[Fathom1990]

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/acatalog/Online_Catalogue_19__LCD_Monitors_276.html

I found a couple on there that have 16.7 million colours AND an 8ms response time, I'm guessing that this provides the bonuses of good colours and a fast response?

 

[tom10167]

I doubt it. I think all monitors are 16.7 million colors. I think it has more to do with how well the colors are reproduced. I could be completely wrong

 

[VinnyTAMU]

No all LCD's are not 16.7 million colors.

 

[Droban]

I have a vp191b, its a viewsonic 19inch(1280x1024) 8ms, and 16.7 million colors. The colors are great, I do get ghosting in certain transitions though(gray colors). I have been thinking about getting a vx922 for gaming, but I am worried it won't look as nice as my vp191b.

 

[JRW]

I believe black levels or at least the lower end of the grayscale is important w/ photography? in which case its going to be tough finding an LCD that'll satisfy this kind of work , I'd look into a CRT myself .. CRTs are capable of Infinite colors (due to being analog) only limited by the videocard itself, Plus CRT's have unbeatable black level performance.

 

[Prodigious]

Number of colors isn't important to look for since most decent lcds are rated for 16.7 million colors. It's the way they are reproduced. A LOT of fast response time LCDs use dithering to produce a "virtual" color range. Basically, they blend colors with several pixels to achieve the effect of a particular color in a certain area. however, it is not the same as each individual pixel being able to display a wide range of colors, and it's very bad for things like media production where color accuracy is crucial.

 

[larva]

I would have to disagree with you on this. I have owned the 2005fpw, VX924, and VX922 monitors. As far as colors are concerned the 2005fpw as you said the 2005 wins in this category, but as far as the difference in motion performance to me the VX922/VX924 are noticably improved. The biggest difference is when I play games like Counter Strike, where I use fast twitch movements. With the 2005fpw I noticed alot more tearing than with the the VX922/924.

Everyone perceives things differently, I guess. I simply have no issues with the 2005fpw's motion performance, even with 125fps Quake3 action. Perhaps others might. One thing is certain, though, anyone who even knows what color accuracy is will find the VX924's rendition unfaithful.

And those who say you need a CRT for this aren't living in the present. I teach a cartography class and work in the cart lab at school. Color accuracy is everything, and we use images to a great degree as well. My 2005 and my boss' 30" Apple so blow away every CRT for this usage we cannot stand to use the CRTs anymore. We have a bunch of 21" Mitsubishi Diamondtrons but they simply are no match for the 2005, much less the 30" units.

Yes, CRTs do have advantages in the blacks, but LCDs in most cases totally dominate on all other colors. And as mentioned earlier, without proper calibration no CRT can in any way be considered an alternative. D-A conversion, either for the sake of a CRT or a LCD without a DVI input, eliminates color accuracy. Unless you dial it back in with an (expensive) calibration device, you won't get it. Adding up what a quality CRT and calibration unit costs, you exceed the cost of a very good LCD very quickly. And when you put the two side by side, the text will be crisper on the LCD, the geometry better, and color accuracy better (with a good panel). Concerns about black reproduction are more theoretical than practical, and LCDs have enormous practical advantages. Take it from somebody who must have color accuracy.

 

[LtBlue14]

I haven't seen the very latest LCDs, but the black level on my Viewsonic VP912b is really disappointing when you put it beside my old CRT. The colors are great, but the blacks just don't compare. I've found that to be the case with every LCD/CRT comparison.

 

[JRW]

Well Ive had my share of LCDs and none of them dethroned my 24" Sony GDM-FW900 CRT (which I still use as my primary monitor) However my main concern is gaming & movies so I look for motion blur / input lag etc. I also find LCD's black levels atrocious for playing dark games (Fear / Doom 3 / HL2 etc.) and watching movies (especially at night with the lights out.) It cracks me up when people take black level performance so lightly , In fact the 2005FPW is very poor in this area. Instead seeing all the intricate details you can see in CRT's you see more of just a black area without noticing the little details.. kind of like looking at a finger but not seeing the fingerprint, again very noticeable with a CRT sitting next to it displaying the same content.

Also LCDs that appear to be free of motion blur are still no match for a CRT when it comes to framerate smoothness (very noticeable when running them side by side with a game @ 60fps) and as mentioned above the faster panels have color banding / dithering.

Top that off with the fact most LCDs are stuck at 60hz which means running without Vsync really isnt an option ..unless you dont mine ugly screen tearing.

I also find LCD's overbrightness / excessive contrast to have a "Fake" look instead of the natural look on CRTs, I believe this, combined with the weak black levels, is why movies look so bad on LCD which is a common complaint in LCD reviews.

I've always found text to be sharper on any LCD I've had but Ive never actually had a problem reading text on my CRT ,In fact I've been running this one at 1920x1200 desktop resolution since I bought it (via BNC cables).

LCDs may be the "present" and CRTs are become more extinct everyday, but I dont plan on replacing mine until a worthy alternative comes around.

Just my .02 cents

 

[Richard]

It really depends on the application. I've expressed the same misgivings about LCDs as what JRW is writing. LCDs are disgustingly bad at reproducing dark colors. Forget about watching movies or playing dark games. While some users may be able to tolerate LCDs for these purposes; they're giving up quite a lot.

LCDs make up for their horrible dark reproduction with excellent brightness, intensity, and sharpness. There's really no comparison in those departments. LCD wins hands down. However, a person really needs to be careful about which LCD they purchase. As Larva pointed out, a "fast" LCD will trade color accuracy for speed. And when I write, "trade" - I mean it. I have an L90D+ and VX922, and the color accuracy is atrocious. Sure, it's fine for the cartoonish color palette found in most games, but it's a completely different story when viewing high-resolution photographs.

When it comes to LCDs, a person really needs to consider what they'll be using their PC for. If high speed gaming (first person shooters) and watching movies is something that a person does quite often; an LCD is an inferior choice. As much as I wish that wasn't true (after using an LCD for common tasks)... It is what it is.

 

[VinnyTAMU]

Back on topic though, Fathom1990

I like larva's suggestion of the 2005FPW, the colors as I remember were incredible on that monitor. Just make sure when you get one (probably used) that you check for backlighting issues. Other than that it is a awsome monitor.

 

[tom10167]

colorblind FTW