Monitors for Arch Viz

[F J]

hey u guys, i was wondering what kind of monitors y'all use..

is everybody using LCD's these days?

i've been trying to find a nice 19" CRT but it doesnt seem to be so easy..

i've read that the quality gap between LCD's VS CRT's isnt as great as it used to be, but that still CRT's should be the choice for graphics professionals, or even medical professionals..

anybody with both of these monitor types to share his experience?

[F J]

sooooooo,

looking thru some LCD's/TFT's i see they all got 16.7Million colors (which is 24bit color), whereas the CRT goes for 32bit color depth (which is over 4 Billion distinct colors).

i also see other things that seem to favor the CRT's like smaller Dot Pitch (which has an impact on whether the geometry looks jagged or not, right?) n much higher Refresh Rates (which prevents eye strain).

also, regarding the best conditions for graphics professionals, the LCD's r said to work best at its Native Resolution, which basically means that if u change its resolution it will result in less sharper images, so u'r stuck with whatever that LCD's Native Resolution is.

i've only had CRT's so far, so i dont really have any experience with LCD/TFT's..

 

anybody that maybe made the CRT/LCD transition wanna share some pointers?

[Tommy L]

CRT causes cataracts. Its throwing radiation at you. It takes up loads of room. Its more expensive for professional grade (I think). Clients think they are old fashioned. They are heavy. They are less green.

 

I prefer LCD, as you can tell. Why? because absolute color correction is only important for going to print. I send all my finals via a retoucher, who does the cmyk conversion etc.

 

Day to day, I just make sure that my workflow doesnt go a million miles out of gamut and everyone is happy.

[F J]

It takes up loads of room. Its more expensive for professional grade (I think). Clients think they are old fashioned. They are heavy. They are less green.

 

heh, none of those seem to have a bearing on the actual display quality n accuracy..

 

CRT causes cataracts. Its throwing radiation at you.

 

It has been claimed that the electromagnetic fields emitted by CRT monitors constitute a health hazard, and can affect the functioning of living cells.[14] However, studies that examined this possibility showed no signs that CRT radiation had any effect on health.[15] Exposure to these fields diminishes considerably at distances of 85 cm or farther according to the inverse square law, which describes the propagation of all magnetic radiation.

As the coils in a CRT monitor are extremely inefficient antennas, there is little electromagnetic field radiated.

 

i guess i've been looking at CRT's for 20yrs now n i've never had any of those issues

i might have had some eye strain in the early days due to poor Refresh Rates, but these days my screen is set @ 85Hz.

Edited June 8, 2009 by F J

[F J]

i've found an interesting article about what u wanna look for when buying an LCD (questions u might wanna ask the vendor):

 

www.pchardwarehelp.com/guides/lcd-panel-types.php

 

the TN Panel seems to be the most common type available in stores everywhere, which turn out to be of the Low-End category (thats y they'r so cheap).

 

Seems like in many cases the manufacturer doesnt even mention the Panel Type of the LCD's they'r selling. Which might explain y most ppl simply buy their monitors solely based on price/screen size.

 

After reading thru, it becomes clear that the LCD-IPS Panel is what im looking for, regarding image quality for working in Arch Viz.

 

wish me luck

[SandmanNinja]

I was in tech support for Compaq Computers (remember them?) yeeeaaaarrs ago.

I had to watch a Health and Safety video where they had this geiger counter kinda machine and one of their big CRT monitors.

 

"Always keep your head in this Zone"

(waves the geiger counter - a few beeps)

 

"Never out of this Zone"

(moves the geiger counter out of the Zone - it goes ballistic)

 

That always stuck in my head.

[BOXXLABS]

CRTs will probably always have better contrast, deeper black levels, and more/more balanced color saturation.

 

But obviously, it's a moot point because CRTs are essentially "dead".

 

Any decent IPS LCD panel will be more than adequate for your needs.

 

[Jeff Mottle]

CRTs will probably always have better contrast, deeper black levels, and more/more balanced color saturation.

 

But obviously, it's a moot point because CRTs are essentially "dead".

 

Any decent IPS LCD panel will be more than adequate for your needs.

 

 

Hey Adam,

I see you guys have a new monitor series that you are selling. Any chance you could send me a review unit to review on the site? Would be interested to see how it compares.

[Jeff Mottle]

On the CRT vs LCD debate. If it tells you anything, all of the top display vendors sell LCDs only (Eizo, LaCie etc) for their graphics flagships. The only time you really still see CRTs being used is for medial imaging as they require the extremely high contrast ratios. Of course these are not standard CRTs. These units are VERY heavy, I think well over 100 lbs if I recall someone telling me.

[BOXXLABS]

Hey Adam,

I see you guys have a new monitor series that you are selling. Any chance you could send me a review unit to review on the site? Would be interested to see how it compares.

 

Hiya Jeff,

 

These monitors sell for close to $20K each after adding the standard options. This is the price for the 23" unit.

 

My guess is that few in the architectural visualization space have a need (or the budget) for such a display.

 

These displays are strictly designed for facilities involved with providing primary and final color grading on feature films (and for some national television spots/programs).

Edited June 24, 2009 by BOXXLABS

[Ernest Burden III]

When my beloved Sony CRT began to give me trouble, I asked Chris Nichols what people are using in his circles. He pointed out that Sony Dreamworks grabbed the last manufacturing run of the monitor I was using. The rest of us can't buy them, except for 'new old-stock'. But its still big and very heavy and blasts you with an electron gun.

 

Chris recommended a high-end Eizo LCD, which I bought. I got the 24" version and I think it was around US$1700 The Sony CRT, which I loved, was probably about $450 or so, for comparison. So $1700 to approach the quality of the $500 model. Ah, progress.

 

Having said that, I love the Eizo. It is a 16:9 format to the CRT's 4:3, it turns on instantly and doesn't produce fluctuations in my local gravity. I do have to be careful about my view angle, as the brightness appears different at off-angles. That I do not like. The Eizo has special tech to even the brightness across the entire display, not just the usual edge-lighting. It's nice. Wall-E looks great on it.

[Jeff Mottle]

Hiya Jeff,

 

These monitors sell for close to $20K each after adding the standard options. This is the price for the 23" unit.

 

My guess is that few in the architectural visualization space have a need (or the budget) for such a display.

 

These displays are strictly designed for facilities involved with providing primary and final color grading on feature films (and for some national television spots/programs).

 

Wow, ok, I did not realize they were that much! I did not even realize there were displays in that price range anymore.

[Ernest Burden III]

I did not even realize there were displays in that price range anymore.

 

It makes coffee. So it's worth it.

 

What is the difference between a good graphics-pro LCD monitor like the Eizo I bought and this $20K one? Where's the extra coin going? And if it's not for the arch-vis market, then who is the target customer?

[John Dollus]

I'm curious if anyone's tried the DreamColor LP2480zx by HP. It's a 30 bit LCD but haven't seen one in person myself to compare.

At home, i have a 22" LCD paired with a 17" Sony Trinitron CRT as my second monitor using BNC connectors. I prefer the real estate of the LCD but the color rendition of the CRT and it really annoys me to try and edit video on an LCD though I don't do that nearly as much these days

[BOXXLABS]

...then who is the target customer?

 

The cinemage B series displays are for :

 

• Production
  
• Post Production
  
• Color Pre-Visualization
  
• Telecine
  
• Digital Intermediate
  
• Color Grading
  
• Blu-ray Authoring
  
• DCI Authoring
  
• Quality Control and Assurance
  

 

(from the cine-tal website)

[Ernest Burden III]

I'm curious if anyone's tried the DreamColor LP2480zx by HP. It's a 30 bit LCD but haven't seen one in person myself to compare.

 

I saw it at Siggraph last year, it looked nice. The problem is, it requires the Quadro card that is one gen past what mine is. Those things aren't cheap, I afford the cost of a new Quadro PLUS the HP 30bit monitor.

 

The cinemage B series displays are for :

...visual work...

(from the cine-tal website)

 

Well, I do a lot of those things, or want to. So what separates these monitors from other pro-grade LCDs?

[F J]

thx everyone for joining in..

 

this can get quite frustrating.. almost feels like i need to go get me some engineering degree to sort out which monitor i should get..

 

I'm curious if anyone's tried the DreamColor LP2480zx by HP. It's a 30 bit LCD but haven't seen one in person myself to compare.

 

- eventho that DreamColor is an IPS Panel it puzzles me how that particular model can have lower contrast n brightness compared to the standart LCD panels out there (unless im interpreting the numbers wrong n less means better)..

- looking at that Response Rate it feels like this monitor is more suitable to work with still images alone, rather than video editing, as higher response rates will cause motion blur in fast paced videos (i've noticed some of those Eizo's with the light protection around 'em can go for 16ms response rate)..

- "1920 x 1200 @ 60 Hz" - those 60Hz look a bit odd cuz we all know what happens when we set a CRT to 60Hz.. i suppose we cant compare those numbers toe to toe since LCD's have pixels refreshing individually, whereas CRT's have to do a full-screen sweep.. but still it feels like it should be a bit above 60Hz (maybe im wrong)..

as for the 1920 x 1200, thats a 16:10 screen format, which can cause some issues if u watch/work with some Full-HD content on it, like stretching or distorting images to meet Full-HD signal, or creating visual interference like adding black bars on top n bottom..

 

ooooooh what to do, what to do.. lol

Edited June 25, 2009 by F J

[Ernest Burden III]

this can get quite frustrating.. almost feels like i need to go get me some engineering degree to sort out which monitor i should get..

 

What's your budget?

 

I also have a great consumer-grade LG that has about a 2ms refresh. You won't get sea-sick scrolling a webpage too fast. Ithink that one cost US$200 - 300. I was really surprised how much more the Eizo was for about the same size panel. But then the one Boxx is talking about is 10x that for the same size. For what, I wonder? I look forward to that answer.

 

The important issues for me are:

-color rendition--often expressed as a percentage of sRGB or NTSC spaces

-even brightness across the screen

-refresh rate

-price

[BOXXLABS]

thx everyone for joining in..

 

this can get quite frustrating.. almost feels like i need to go get me some engineering degree to sort out which monitor i should get..

 

 

 

- eventho that DreamColor is an IPS Panel it puzzles me how that particular model can have lower contrast n brightness compared to the standart LCD panels out there (unless im interpreting the numbers wrong n less means better)..

- looking at that Response Rate it feels like this monitor is more suitable to work with still images alone, rather than video editing, as higher response rates will cause motion blur in fast paced videos (i've noticed some of those Eizo's with the light protection around 'em can go for 16ms response rate)..

- "1920 x 1200 @ 60 Hz" - those 60Hz look a bit odd cuz we all know what happens when we set a CRT to 60Hz.. i suppose we cant compare those numbers toe to toe since LCD's have pixels refreshing individually, whereas CRT's have to do a full-screen sweep.. but still it feels like it should be a bit above 60Hz (maybe im wrong)..

as for the 1920 x 1200, thats a 16:10 screen format, which can cause some issues if u watch/work with some Full-HD content on it, like stretching or distorting images to meet Full-HD signal, or creating visual interference like adding black bars on top n bottom..

 

ooooooh what to do, what to do.. lol

 

 

The "big deal" about Dreamcolor is that it's a 10bit per color channel display (30bit). This allows folks with the right graphics card to see a wider color gamut and to see more detail in shadows the highlights of their scene. 10bit color also essentially eliminates the "color banding" effect when viewing images with regions of slight color gradiation.

 

Other than that, it's specs aren't much different than other high-end LCD panels.

[BOXXLABS]

ahh, refresh rate.

 

ok - here's the deal with reshresh rate/scan rate.

 

CRT monitors "refreshed" their screens with an electron beam that "scanned" left to right, line by line - which caused phosphorus compounds coating the back side of the screen to very briefly shine with a particular color & brightness. This scanning rate of your CRT could be adjusted (by your graphics card) to range anywhere from 30Hz or 40Hz up to over 100Hz.

 

(a Hz means one cycle per second, etc)

 

It was this "scanning" that could cause the "flipping" effect when set to 60Hz. This is because your monitor was "fighting" (slightly offset) with the incansescent and flourescent lighting in the room -also "refreshing" at 60Hz. (the electricity in your wall is 110 volts at 60Hz). It was this scanning that also caused the more pronounced eye fatigue associated with some CRT settings.

 

The more saturated colors achieved by CRTs are based on the electro-chemical flourescence of the screen. The better black levels associated with CRTS are also the result of the black coatings that were used insiude the screen -- which also "flouresced" momentarily as they were hit with the electron gun.

 

 

LCD panels work differently from CRTS in almost all regards. In an LCD panel, all the "pixels" are independently, electronically addressed by it's internal electronics -and controlled discretely by GPU. The pixels in an LCS panel "refresh" (turn on and off) as fast as they can - all at the same time. And the entire display is "backlit" with a lamp.

 

This yields an experience that is easier on the eye (no "flipping" or rolling" effect) as well as the other obviousl benefits of LCD technology.

 

LCD's are much less bulky, cheaper to manufacture, much less toxic, much safer (in terms of UV levels) and use a lot less power than the CRTs they replace.

 

The down side is that LCD panels simply don't have quite as good contrast ratio, black levels or color representation as the old CRTS do. period. Even the $20K LCD panel can't compete against the good old CRT in these regards.

 

This is the nature of the trade-off we now make by using the new technology.

 

 

**BTW* An LCD monitor with a pixel refresh rate of 2ms yields a "scan rate" of 50Hz. (the math is a simple 1/x transform between time and frequency domains. (try it on your calculator)

 

 

Adam

BOXXlabs

Edited June 25, 2009 by BOXXLABS

[BOXXLABS]

...

The important issues for me are:

-color rendition--often expressed as a percentage of sRGB or NTSC spaces...

 

 

Most good, calibrated 8-bit (24bit total color space) LCD panel can display 100% of the rec709/sRGB color space.

 

10bit panels such as the Dreamcolor (or the Cinemage or other "grading" displays) extend the color gamut considerably beyond this range.

[Ernest Burden III]

Adam,

 

You still haven't said how your $20,000 24" LCD monitors differ from my $1,700 Eizo. I'm not suggesting there is no difference and Boxx is trying to pull a fast one, just curious what that difference is. for a factor of more than 10.

 

The Eizo I'm talking about is:

http://www.eizo.com/products/lcd/sx2461w/index.asp

 

EDIT

 

I looked at the specs through the Boxx site. Their monitor certainly has more input options that what I'm using. The differences probably come into play when you pair it with certain specialty video equipement, which seems to be the point. However, as a regular display, I don't think there would be much difference. So it's there when you need that extra ability, but less shockingly expensive options are out there, too.

Edited June 25, 2009 by Ernest Burden

[F J]

What's your budget?

 

I also have a great consumer-grade LG that has about a 2ms refresh. You won't get sea-sick scrolling a webpage too fast. Ithink that one cost US$200 - 300. I was really surprised how much more the Eizo was for about the same size panel. But then the one Boxx is talking about is 10x that for the same size. For what, I wonder? I look forward to that answer.

 

The important issues for me are:

-color rendition--often expressed as a percentage of sRGB or NTSC spaces

-even brightness across the screen

-refresh rate

-price

 

500€ sounds about right (for now), but i wouldnt mind going for 1000€ if the monitor is real kickass..

 

i was real tempted to get me on of these to work at a pimpin' 1280x1024 @ 85Hz, but as it seems these r running scarce so i might as well make the switch for 16:9 already, not only to facilitate accessing content in a format that everyone else is using, but also to facilitate producing content in a format that everyone else will be watching on..

 

so basically im lookin' for a 16:9 CRT *LOL*

 

regarding response rate, many low-end LCD's (read standard) got 2ms, which seems to only be good for fast-paced computer games (since it is said that anything below 7ms really makes no difference to the human eye).. so maybe factoring in video editing, i'd like to keep it below that margin..

 

my original fear in leaving the CRT behind was that i wouldnt be able to find an LCD with a just-as-good ability to represent non-jagged geometry..

 

lol i might be browsing thru all the LCD-IPS's i can find in the next few days.. i kinda get a feeling that it wont be easy to find some sort of a balance between "CRT-like" display quality n performance, since it seems the LCD's display quality goes higher in detriment of the response rates..

[BOXXLABS]

Adam,

 

You still haven't said how your $20,000 24" LCD monitors differ from my $1,700 Eizo. I'm not suggesting there is no difference and Boxx is trying to pull a fast one, just curious what that difference is. for a factor of more than 10.

 

The Eizo I'm talking about is:

http://www.eizo.com/products/lcd/sx2461w/index.asp

 

 

Hi Ernest,

 

Respectfully, if you needed a $20K monitor, the chances are pretty good that you would know it -and that you would know "why" it would have such a price tag.

 

Here's some of the technical specs:

 

 

• High performance, precision 2K, HD & SD monitoring
  
• 10 or 12 bits SDI, HDSDI, Dual Link & DVI-D inputs / outputs
  
• YCbCr, RGB and XYZ colorspace support
  
• 10 bit Wide Color Gamut display
  
• Calibration using integrated cineSpace™ technology
  
• Precision gamut control for Rec 709 and DCI color primaries
  
• Wide Gamut – consumer television emulation mode
  
• Display emulation with cineCube Visual™ (2)
  
• Quantitative digital video analysis and pixel data analysis
  
• Integrated waveform monitor and vectorscope
  
• 3D and 1D Look Up Tables (LUTs) for Color pre-visualization
  
• Frame capture/ store locally, to network file server or USB drive
  
• Seamless integration with existing equipment through web-appliance interface
  

 

If you don't know what these specs mean or how these capabilities can help improve your final product then you probably don't need them.

 

To answer your question, the electronic signal routing, processing and signal analysis circuitry is very expensive -and contributes to the bulk of the price tag.

 

 

Adam

[F J]

well, i was putting up quite a fight to avoid finally going the LCD way..

 

as i was just about to give in, it looks like i'll just let the LCD panel go by altogether

 

i just came across this baby !

i havent heard of OLED in quite a while..

look at that insane contrast (which btw allows for "true black" as there is no need for "backlighting")..

its also Full HD, with the best response time one could expect..

 

guess this August is my birthday again

 

EDIT: my bad! i thought this was an OLED monitor (Organic Light Emitting Diode) but its not..

its still an LCD, but with a different n recent backlighting technology (LED)..

still worth waiting for nonetheless, i think..

Edited July 7, 2009 by F J