Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (
More info?)
On Mon, 17 May 2004 15:28:19 -0700, butterfly <butterfly@darkside.com>
wrote:
>I currently use a 17" CRT set at 1024x768. With Premiere and
>many other graphic software alike, I'm running short of desktop
>space. So I'm thinking of getting a 19" LCD since the 17" CRT is
>acting weirdly. But I wonder if 19" would big enough, by number
>it's only 2 inches more. If I spend a lot of time doing video
>and graphic stuff, would a 20 inch LCD be even better (21" seems
>to be financially impossible for me)?
First of all, do you NEED LCD? Beware that many LCD monitors are not
going to be great for video -- the contrast can be too low, the color
gamut limited. The best LCDs, I'm sure, are great for video, but you
pay.
Another issue isn't simply monitor size, but actual resolution. That's
the worst case of your eyes vs. the monitor's capabilities. If you're
doing 1024x768 on a 17" monitor and that's comfortable, did you try
1280x1024 on the same monitor? I used a 17" monitor at 1280x1024 for
YEARS (sure, it was a top of the line Hitachi 17", probably still the
best monitor I own, all told). The first thing is to try that -- the
real issue is screen space, not monitor size (despite what Steve Jobs
thinks).
Another possibility, which I'm using more and more these days, is
video preview. I use Vegas, not Premiere, but the issues are similar:
a full screen 720x480 preview windows eats a fair chunk out of your
work-screen, even on my 1600x1200 monitor(s). So why not send the
video out to a camcorder screen (sure helps I have a camcorder with a
4" screen) or some other external video monitor. For one, you'll find
preview on a real video monitor is often critical, but also, that
leaves all of your screen space for the NLE's GUI.
I also recently upgraded to a dual-head display card, after finding a
perfectly good Dell-branded Trinitron monitor, 19", at a yard sale for
$35. Now, I know, you'll call that a quirk, and I did too, until last
weekend, when I bought a not-quite-as-nice-but-still-decent 19"
HP-branded monitor at a yard sale for $30 (that replaced the kids' 15"
Panasonic monitor). It seems LCD screens are all the rage, and people
are practically tossing out perfectly good, perhaps quite superior
analog monitors for cheap LCD monitors. For "Quake3" or "Word", who
cares anyway? For video, you probably care.
And then there's the LCD. Unlike CRTs, LCDs are inherently digital
monitors. That's good and not-so-good. The good: take my laptop (well,
no, you can't actually take it, it's mine). It has a 1280x768, 10.4"
screen, which, as well as being a near perfect 720p, is also very
sharp. But only at 1280x768, when graphic pixels are 1:1 with digital
LCD active matrix pixels. Put up another resolution and it's ugly
time.
So when you're shopping for that 19" LCD, if you still do, pay very
close attention to the resolution. If it's 1024x768, you've made no
improvement in screen space, and can't go any higher (while you might
on your 17" CRT, you'll have to look into it). If it's 1280x1024,
that's a real improvement, the digital screen makes it sharper than a
CRT will be at that same resolution, so maybe you're happy. But mine
go to 1600x1200, and I've got two of 'em, and I'm happier ;-) And
curiously, I could have put in both 19" monitors and the dual-head
graphics card (a nVidia FX5200, the sort with heat sink rather than
fan, I don't need additional noise, and unless you play games,
spending more than $50 or so for a graphics card is probably a waste
of money these days) for $115, as it turns out...
Dave Haynie | Chief Toady, Frog Pond Media Consulting
dhaynie@jersey.net| Take Back Freedom! Bush no more in 2004!
"Deathbed Vigil" now on DVD! See
http://www.frogpondmedia.com
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram