Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Difference in brightness between LCD and CRT monit  (Read 22214 times)
mtrice
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« on: July 18, 2006, 06:23:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Hello,

I have a question regarding CRT verses LCD. I have two workstations, one with a Lacie electron 22 blue IV CRT, and one with a Dell 2405 fpw LCD. Both are calibrated with a Lacie blue eye vision. Before I calibrated the Dell I reduced the brightness all the way down and choose the sRGB color mode. Color wise the two appear very close. The Dell is a bit brighter than the Lacie. The density of prints from my Epson 2200 are a very close match to the Lacie 22. The prints are darker than the Dell.

Questions.
1 As a general rule are LCD monitors brighter than CRT’s.
2 If LCD’s are brighter than CRT’s will the brightness of the LCD become the new standard, meaning that the output of printers will be tweaked to match LCD’s.
3 Or, is what I am seeing a consequence of the particular pieces of equipment I own.
Logged

61Dynamic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1442


WWW
« Reply #1 on: July 18, 2006, 06:53:10 PM »
ReplyReply

1. yes. A CRT is an analog device so contrast (whites) and brightness (blacks) can be adjusted individually. LCDs are digital with the only analog adjustment being the brightness of the backlight. This means a luminosity must be found that gives the best compromise between white point and black point (120cd/m2).

2. No. Printers never matched CRTs in brightness and will never match LCDs. The brightness of a print is determined by the light shining on it. When soft proofing, a viewing booth with an adjustable dimmer lets you brighten up the print to match the display.

3. Yes. Dell monitors are always very bright (**Exception found, see below**) and are not ideal for color accurate work. Where the ideal luminosity for a LCD is 120cd/m2, Dell display typically run 180cd/m2 at minimum or more. At levels above 140cd/m2, the eye has a hard time adapting to the display. This can - and often does - trick the viewer into believing the image is far brighter than it actually is and thus compensating unnecessarily. In addition, it can lead to eye strain if the display is too bright.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2006, 08:38:19 PM by 61Dynamic » Logged
Serge Cashman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 200


« Reply #2 on: July 18, 2006, 07:16:30 PM »
ReplyReply

I agree with Daniel. Only I wouldn't blame Dell monitors specifically. Apple monitors and most mainstream monitors are similar in that respect. Monitor manufacturers use "Brightness" and "Contrast Ratio" as marketing tools. So from their perspective "the brighter the better". It will take a while until a more sensible approach becomes mainstream.

140cd/m2 is a distant past. Nowdays you're lucky if you can get below 200.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2006, 07:18:36 PM by Serge Cashman » Logged
Stephen Best
Guest
« Reply #3 on: July 18, 2006, 07:51:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I agree with Daniel. Only I wouldn't blame Dell monitors specifically. Apple monitors and most mainstream monitors are similar in that respect.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=71065\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Apple monitors (at least mine and others I've used) can have their luminance adjusted to a sensible value. Just because another monitor has the same panel doesn't mean it's identical. I never understood the reasoning behind those people who find out what the panel is in a respected monitor then go out and buy a cheaper one with the same panel (often a Dell). The electronics and the backlight are just as important.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2006, 03:53:48 AM by Stephen Best » Logged
Nill Toulme
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 741



WWW
« Reply #4 on: July 18, 2006, 07:56:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
...140cd/m2 is a distant past. Nowdays you're lucky if you can get below 200.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=71065\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The ability to calibrate at a reasonably low brightness level should be a primary consideration in the selection of an LCD monitor for serious photo work, but it is frequently overlooked.  I was happy to find that my new NEC 2090uxi calibrates to an approx 100 cd/m² without the slightest complaint and with room to spare.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
Logged
mtrice
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #5 on: July 18, 2006, 08:34:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the responses. Your thoughts fairly well match my experiences.

The additional brightness of the Dell LCD requires the ambient level of the room light to be higher than for the Lacie CRT. The LCD is uncomfortable to look at in a darkened room. On the other hand, the CRT is uncomfortable to look at in a bright room.

As for soft proofing I can’t honestly say soft proofing has not been a reliable method of predicting the print for me. What I have found is similar to old darkroom technique in that you do a test print of a completed image and then make adjustment based on the test.
Logged

61Dynamic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1442


WWW
« Reply #6 on: July 18, 2006, 08:36:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Apple monitors (at least mine and others I've used) can have their luminance adjusted to a sensible value. Just because another monitor has the same panel doesn't mean it's identical. I never understood the reasoning behind those people who find out what the panel is in a respected monitor then go out and buy a cheaper one with the same panel (often a Dell) and then tell others what fools they are by paying more. The electronics and the backlight are just as important.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=71067\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I mention dell for two reasons. 1) the guy bought a Dell. 2) Dells have great bang for the buck and people are drawn to that.

But, to be fair to Dell, I just got back from a client's place where I calibrated their brand new Dell 2407WFP 24" display and to my surprise it let me dim the backlight to 115cd/m2. A first for Dell in my experience and in all I've read from Dell owners in discussion forums (I know that previous versions of the 24" couldn't dim below 200). Either Dell is catching on, or this is a fluke. Time will tell...

I never have heard of a Apple display not letting the user dim it to a useable value (mine goes down to 90). Since Apple aims heavily for the creative market, it would not make sense for them to shun them with overly bright displays. Other companies sell displays that can dim to useable values as well such as NEC, Eizo and LaCie.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2006, 08:39:00 PM by 61Dynamic » Logged
Stephen Best
Guest
« Reply #7 on: July 18, 2006, 08:46:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
But, to be fair to Dell, I just got back from a client's place where I calibrated their brand new Dell 2407WFP 24" display and to my surprise it let me dim the backlight to 115cd/m2. A first for Dell in my experience and in all I've read from Dell owners in discussion forums (I know that previous versions of the 24" couldn't dim below 200). Either Dell is catching on, or this is a fluke. Time will tell...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=71074\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Maybe it's broken :-).

I'm sure there's some bargains out there, especially if 6500/2.2 is all you ever need. In fact, there's probably an argument for buying a cheap monitor locally if you're prepared to take it back half a dozen times until you get one with perfectly even illumination.
Logged
Serge Cashman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 200


« Reply #8 on: July 18, 2006, 08:59:21 PM »
ReplyReply

I didn't mean to be either pro-Dell or anti-Apple. Since I only have direct access to  a few monitors I will not insist that all Dells are too bright or all Apples are too bright.  115cd/m2 is perfectly normal obviously.

The minimum white luminance is not a common measurment mentioned in revews though. It does look like most monitors (aside from those highend LCD monitors specifically designed with DDC calibration in mind, not Dells and Apples) seem to be "too bright" at  their minimum backlight settings.

"The ability to calibrate at a reasonably low brightness level should be a primary consideration in the selection of an LCD monitor for serious photo work, but it is frequently overlooked...", like Nill wrote,  is a statement I fully agree with.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2006, 09:12:09 PM by Serge Cashman » Logged
Serge Cashman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 200


« Reply #9 on: July 18, 2006, 09:03:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Since Apple aims heavily for the creative market, it would not make sense for them to shun them with overly bright displays.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=71074\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's an overly optimistic view of "the creative market" to say the least.

Sorry for this remark - but it's true.
Logged
Stephen Best
Guest
« Reply #10 on: July 19, 2006, 03:52:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I didn't mean to be either pro-Dell or anti-Apple. Since I only have direct access to  a few monitors I will not insist that all Dells are too bright or all Apples are too bright.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=71076\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Are *any* Apples too bright?
« Last Edit: July 19, 2006, 03:56:23 AM by Stephen Best » Logged
Tim Lookingbill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1230



WWW
« Reply #11 on: July 19, 2006, 05:04:06 AM »
ReplyReply

The majority of Apple big screen LCD's are SWOP certified. I can't remember which models, though, maybe all of them except the laptops. And yes Apple does cater to the creative market as they've been doing since the late '80's so they've had time to understand the needs of that industry.

If you work in the commercial printing industry where the big money is, you'll appreciate Apple's level of quality LCD's. That's not saying they make the best LCD on the market in regards to other imaging standards, but they provide the tool that's required to get the job done with the least amount of fuss.
Logged
Serge Cashman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 200


« Reply #12 on: July 19, 2006, 08:53:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Are *any* Apples too bright?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=71102\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hey - if they can get down from their "typical" brightness of 400  or 270 cd/m2 to 120 cd/m2 I'm happy for them. It does not sound too realistic though. I've obviously seen posts complaining about their excessive brightness.

The fact that Apple caters to creative market comes as  news to me...
Logged
61Dynamic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1442


WWW
« Reply #13 on: July 20, 2006, 12:17:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hey - if they can get down from their "typical" brightness of 400  or 270 cd/m2 to 120 cd/m2 I'm happy for them. It does not sound too realistic though. I've obviously seen posts complaining about their excessive brightness.

The fact that Apple caters to creative market comes as  news to me...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=71215\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Clearly you're not very up-and-up on Apple computers or its history. You couldn't be more wrong about either of those items.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2006, 12:17:38 AM by 61Dynamic » Logged
Serge Cashman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 200


« Reply #14 on: July 20, 2006, 12:44:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Just kidding. I learned how to use computers on Macs (Power Mac 9600s and beige G3s). I used to work as a computer support guy for an art school later on... I'm not anti-mac whatsoever.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7043


WWW
« Reply #15 on: August 02, 2006, 09:48:45 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm using a LaCie 321 with DDC calibration. The software lets one set luminance, or it will select luminance when the user selects L*. When I calibrated/profiled the monitor, I used DDC and the L* approach. The software selected a luminance value of 187cd/mm. My results indicated that the colour profiling was excellent but brightness and contrast were problematic. There are two fixes: the technically correct one: recalibrate by selecting a lower luminance value such as 120 (which I did NOT do), and the technically wrong one: intervene on the calibration/profiling by exogenously re-adjusting the monitor settings from the monitor front panel. The Lacie 321 does allow one to adjust contrast and brightness independently. Because I knew my problem was related to both and each needed some adjustment, I preferred to test the usefulness of the wrong approach. So I increased the brightness and decreased the contrast relative to the profiled settings. My soft-proofing is now very much more successful ON MY PRINTER, but my approach is "closed-loop" - which I don't mind, because I'm not exporting these images anywhere else but to my printer. The point is, the Lacie 321 does allow independent adjustment of brightness and contrast, and it can be calibrated to relatively low luminance values. I do, nonetheless, reegret the demise of my CRT after 4 years of faithful service. It just started dying and needed to be replaced. There is simply no available CRT good enough to replace it with.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
maxxedout-1
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« Reply #16 on: August 05, 2006, 09:50:58 PM »
ReplyReply

I just wanted to add my two cents.  I just bought a Dell 2007FWP and at first when I tried calibrating with Monaco I was having problems with the brightnes.  Did a little web searching found different topics, etc. and tried just profiling and only adjusting the brightness to achieve approximately 120 cd/m.

The monaco software gives this information after the profile is completed.  So after a couple of trial and errors I was able to achieve this easily.  At one point with the brightness set to 0 it was around 74 cd/m.  With brightness set to about 20 I hit 117 cd/m.   This is my first foray into the LCD world but so far so good.

Scott
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9222



WWW
« Reply #17 on: August 06, 2006, 09:30:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The Lacie 321 does allow one to adjust contrast and brightness independently.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72440\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

But only one of those is doing anything to adjust the CCFL backlight (one usually assumes brightness but that's not always the case).
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7043


WWW
« Reply #18 on: August 06, 2006, 10:09:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
But only one of those is doing anything to adjust the CCFL backlight (one usually assumes brightness but that's not always the case).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72688\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Andrew - have you worked with this particular model, or is this a generic comment? The controls provide for independent setting of brightness and contrast. There is a visible difference of effect between them which is quite noticeable when they are adjusted in turn.

The manual accompanying the monitor says this:

<<Brightness - Adjusts the overall image and background screen brightness.
Contrast - Adjusts the image brightness in relation to the background. >>

Based on that, it would appear you may have a point - they are both adjusting brightness, but one does it in a way that simulates a contrast effect. I'm not fussed HOW they do it, the important thing is the visual clue the result gives the user for obtaining predictable brightness and contrast out of the printer.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9222



WWW
« Reply #19 on: August 06, 2006, 11:12:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Andrew - have you worked with this particular model, or is this a generic comment? [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72690\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Generic. But there's only a single item you can control (physically adjust) and that's the intensity of the CCFL. What the manufacturer does to allow this isn't always clear.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad