17" desktop isn't enough

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

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)?
 

Rick

Distinguished
Oct 14, 2003
1,084
0
19,280
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"butterfly" <butterfly@darkside.com> wrote in message news:sheia0teg702r22a98k8b5hhnekhanf26f@4ax.com...
> 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)?

There's not much difference in the amount of real estate
between a 17" and 19" monitor. I made the same mistake
and wound up ditching the 19" for a 22" CRT.

Rick
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Invest in a dual head video card along with the 19". Then you will have the
19 AND the 17.......


Dru


"butterfly" <butterfly@darkside.com> wrote in message
news:sheia0teg702r22a98k8b5hhnekhanf26f@4ax.com...
> 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)?
>
 

Hactar

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2002
80
0
18,630
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <sheia0teg702r22a98k8b5hhnekhanf26f@4ax.com>,
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)?

Compare the maximum pixel resolution (some people will say I'm misusing
that word, but what I mean is the number of pixels horizontally and
vertically), not the diagonal measurement. I picked up a good used 17" CRT
a few years back for $90. Keep in mind that while LCD monitors may be
sharper and look cool, they support a lower DPI than do CRTs.

--
-eben ebQenW1@EtaRmpTabYayU.rIr.OcoPm home.tampabay.rr.com/hactar

Logic is a systematic method of coming to
the wrong conclusion with confidence.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <sheia0teg702r22a98k8b5hhnekhanf26f@4ax.com>,
butterfly@darkside.com says...
> 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)?
>

1280x1024 will be a decent step up, but go for a
1600x1200 LCD (which probably means 19-20") if you can
swing it. Unfortunately, as another poster said... LCDs
for the desktop are only 96dpi or so. A good CRT
display can have a dpi of 120. (The laptop that I use,
a 15" Toshiba at 1400x1050 has a dpi of 125.)

However, anyone know if there's an advantage to LCD vs
CRT for video work where you need to have accurate color
representations? (The fact that a lot of Apples come
with LCDs tends me to believe that's a non-issue.)
 

Rich

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2004
943
0
18,980
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"butterfly" <butterfly@darkside.com> wrote in message
news:sheia0teg702r22a98k8b5hhnekhanf26f@4ax.com...
> 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)?

A year ago I went from an old 17" CRT to a 17" LCD. My LCD is sharper with
excellent text clarity. My LCD seems to have a larger display size but that
could be that the CRT was older with the screen size measured rather than
the image size. In any event the lighter weight, cooler running and more
desk space in addition to better images for me is enough for me to stay away
from CRT's. That's my unscientific opinion.

This site might help:
http://www.techmind.org/lcd/

Rich
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <3heqc.5057$SZ4.2431
@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, richsanchez@usa.com
says...
>
> "butterfly" <butterfly@darkside.com> wrote in message
> news:sheia0teg702r22a98k8b5hhnekhanf26f@4ax.com...
> > 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)?
>
> A year ago I went from an old 17" CRT to a 17" LCD. My LCD is sharper with
> excellent text clarity. My LCD seems to have a larger display size but that
> could be that the CRT was older with the screen size measured rather than
> the image size. In any event the lighter weight, cooler running and more
> desk space in addition to better images for me is enough for me to stay away
> from CRT's. That's my unscientific opinion.
>
> This site might help:
> http://www.techmind.org/lcd/
>

LCD is indeed measured differently then CRT (the rule of
thumb I use is that a 17" LCD is equivalent to a 19" CRT
in terms of display size).
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Just Me" <justme@myplace.com> wrote in message
news:jZbqc.627231$Po1.121468@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> Invest in a dual head video card along with the 19". Then you will have
the
> 19 AND the 17.......
>
>
> Dru

I go along entirely with a second monitor.
I've kept with my 17" CRT by adding another, both driven by a Matrox 550
card.
I run Avid Xpress, After Effects and Photoshop on them, which being spread
over two screens gives me all the workspace I need.
Indeed, even with a single larger screen, I wouldn't contemplate running
Avid within one window.
One more tip, I also use Echofire, which allows me to see the preview pane
of Photoshop/After Effects on a TV monitor.
Ideal if you're preparing images for later showing on TV.

Robin.

--
Robin Davies-Rollinson,
www.ffilmiau-fflur.co.uk
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Mon, 17 May 2004 23:33:35 GMT, "Just Me" <justme@myplace.com>
wrote:

>Invest in a dual head video card along with the 19". Then you will have the
>19 AND the 17.......
>
>
>Dru
>
>
>"butterfly" <butterfly@darkside.com> wrote in message
>news:sheia0teg702r22a98k8b5hhnekhanf26f@4ax.com...
>> 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)?
>>
>
I would go for the 20'' if you cant afford the 21"
 

Tony

Distinguished
Aug 5, 2001
1,944
0
19,780
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Rick" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2gsuo5F6i7ffU1@uni-berlin.de...
> "butterfly" <butterfly@darkside.com> wrote in message
news:sheia0teg702r22a98k8b5hhnekhanf26f@4ax.com...
> > 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)?
>
> There's not much difference in the amount of real estate
> between a 17" and 19" monitor. I made the same mistake
> and wound up ditching the 19" for a 22" CRT.

But there IS a big difference between a 17" CRT and a 19" LCD. The LCD has
much more usable viewing area than a comparably sized-CRT.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <MPG.1b1365fe8bb15adf9898e5@news-50.giganews.com>, toshi1873
@nowhere.com says...
> 1280x1024 will be a decent step up, but go for a
> 1600x1200 LCD (which probably means 19-20") if you can
> swing it. Unfortunately, as another poster said... LCDs
> for the desktop are only 96dpi or so. A good CRT
> display can have a dpi of 120. (The laptop that I use,
> a 15" Toshiba at 1400x1050 has a dpi of 125.)
>
> However, anyone know if there's an advantage to LCD vs
> CRT for video work where you need to have accurate color
> representations? (The fact that a lot of Apples come
> with LCDs tends me to believe that's a non-issue.)
>

I would think there is a disadvantage if anything.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
http://www.ramsays-online.com
 

Rick

Distinguished
Oct 14, 2003
1,084
0
19,280
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Tony" <tony23@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:10aknrktk1lauf0@corp.supernews.com...
> "Rick" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:2gsuo5F6i7ffU1@uni-berlin.de...
> > "butterfly" <butterfly@darkside.com> wrote in message
> news:sheia0teg702r22a98k8b5hhnekhanf26f@4ax.com...
> > > 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)?
> >
> > There's not much difference in the amount of real estate
> > between a 17" and 19" monitor. I made the same mistake
> > and wound up ditching the 19" for a 22" CRT.
>
> But there IS a big difference between a 17" CRT and a 19" LCD. The LCD has
> much more usable viewing area than a comparably sized-CRT.

Wrong. Most 17" LCDs run at 1024x768, most 19" LCDs
run at 1280x1024. Not much (or in many cases, any) difference
in real estate. Most 19" CRTs can handle 1600x1200 without
breaking a sweat.

Rick
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

1) best & cheapest way to go is dual 17" monitors running off either a
graphics card that has dual monitor support (eg. lots of Matrox cards)
or two video cards in your PC (one AGP, one PCI). That way, you can
drop all of your palletes on another monitor and work on the other.

2) Otherwise, wide-screen 17" or larger is the way to go, if you have
the money. Wide-screen has space for pallets off the side, and you can
still have the video full-size.

3) If you're really loaded, then the Viewsonic VP2290b
http://viewsonic.com/products/desktopdisplays/lcddisplays/proseries/vp2290b/

The only 22.2" LCD monitor in the world that gives you a full 9.2
Megapixels of resolution (that's 3840 x 2400 pixels!!), and far more
than enough space to have multiple applications with multiple pallets on
screen at once w/o overlapping.

Starting at $5704
http://shopper.cnet.com/ViewSonic_VP2290B_22_2_inch_LCD_monitor__Black/4014-3174_9-30471023.html?tag=pl&q=VP2290b
 

Rich

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2004
943
0
18,980
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Rick" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2gvh0cF7a950U1@uni-berlin.de...
<snip>
> Wrong. Most 17" LCDs run at 1024x768, most 19" LCDs
> run at 1280x1024. Not much (or in many cases, any) difference
> in real estate. Most 19" CRTs can handle 1600x1200 without
> breaking a sweat.
>
> Rick

I use my 17" at 1024 x 768 as that is most comfortable for me, so I guess
that would pretty much be correct. I've tried up to 1280 x 1024 but my old
tired eyes don't like it.

Rich
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <2gvh0cF7a950U1@uni-berlin.de>,
me@privacy.net says...
> "Tony" <tony23@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:10aknrktk1lauf0@corp.supernews.com...
> Wrong. Most 17" LCDs run at 1024x768, most 19" LCDs
> run at 1280x1024. Not much (or in many cases, any) difference
> in real estate. Most 19" CRTs can handle 1600x1200 without
> breaking a sweat.

Common sizes and resolutions for LCDs:

15" LCDs are usually 1024x768

17" LCDs are usually 1280x1024, 1024x768 is rare

19" LCDs are sometimes 1280x1024 with a 0.30mm pitch, or
1600x1200 with a 0.25mm pitch

Source: http://www.bizrate.com/
- bizrate allows you to search by screen size/resolution

Then there are the 16:9 displays which are 1280x768,
which adds to the fun.

Personally, if you have the choice of running a 17" CRT
at 1024x768 or 1280x1024, there is a sizeable difference
in usable screen real estate when using 1280x1024.
However, text may be a bit small on a 17" CRT at
1280x1024 so you'll have to bump up to Large Fonts.
 

Rick

Distinguished
Oct 14, 2003
1,084
0
19,280
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Toshi1873" <toshi1873@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:MPG.1b14bae538c42cc29898eb@news-50.giganews.com...
> In article <2gvh0cF7a950U1@uni-berlin.de>,
> me@privacy.net says...
> > "Tony" <tony23@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:10aknrktk1lauf0@corp.supernews.com...
> > Wrong. Most 17" LCDs run at 1024x768, most 19" LCDs
> > run at 1280x1024. Not much (or in many cases, any) difference
> > in real estate. Most 19" CRTs can handle 1600x1200 without
> > breaking a sweat.
>
> Common sizes and resolutions for LCDs:
>
> 15" LCDs are usually 1024x768
>
> 17" LCDs are usually 1280x1024, 1024x768 is rare

> 19" LCDs are sometimes 1280x1024 with a 0.30mm pitch, or
> 1600x1200 with a 0.25mm pitch

> Source: http://www.bizrate.com/
> - bizrate allows you to search by screen size/resolution

You're correct about the 17" LCDs, I meant to say some run
at 1024x768 instead of most. But which 19" LCDs did you
find at the above website that runs at 1600x1200? I didn't find
a single one -- all were 1280x1024. Meanwhile, most 19"
CRTs are shown as capable of handling 1600x1200.

And let's not even get into LCD's resolution inflexibility, the
fact that their backlights eventually fail like all other backlights,
their cruddy color gamuts (except if one has >$3K to spend),
etc etc. For any kind of serious graphics or video work CRTs
are still the only game in town.

Rick
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <2h0lp5F7tgr9U1@uni-berlin.de>,
me@privacy.net says...
> "Toshi1873" <toshi1873@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:MPG.1b14bae538c42cc29898eb@news-50.giganews.com...
> > In article <2gvh0cF7a950U1@uni-berlin.de>,
> > me@privacy.net says...
> > > "Tony" <tony23@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:10aknrktk1lauf0@corp.supernews.com...
> > > Wrong. Most 17" LCDs run at 1024x768, most 19" LCDs
> > > run at 1280x1024. Not much (or in many cases, any) difference
> > > in real estate. Most 19" CRTs can handle 1600x1200 without
> > > breaking a sweat.
> >
> > Common sizes and resolutions for LCDs:
> >
> > 15" LCDs are usually 1024x768
> >
> > 17" LCDs are usually 1280x1024, 1024x768 is rare
>
> > 19" LCDs are sometimes 1280x1024 with a 0.30mm pitch, or
> > 1600x1200 with a 0.25mm pitch
>
> > Source: http://www.bizrate.com/
> > - bizrate allows you to search by screen size/resolution
>
> You're correct about the 17" LCDs, I meant to say some run
> at 1024x768 instead of most. But which 19" LCDs did you
> find at the above website that runs at 1600x1200? I didn't find
> a single one -- all were 1280x1024. Meanwhile, most 19"
> CRTs are shown as capable of handling 1600x1200.

Darn it, you're right... I thought I had seen a 19"
1600x1200 LCD in there. Was probably a CRT in drag.

All of the 18" and 19" LCDs over at PriceScan.com show
1280x1024. Have to step up to a 20" LCD to get
1600x1200.

> And let's not even get into LCD's resolution inflexibility, the
> fact that their backlights eventually fail like all other backlights,
> their cruddy color gamuts (except if one has >$3K to spend),
> etc etc. For any kind of serious graphics or video work CRTs
> are still the only game in town.
>
> Rick
>
>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Tue, 18 May 2004 01:11:36 -0400, Toshi1873 <toshi1873@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>In article <3heqc.5057$SZ4.2431
>@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, richsanchez@usa.com
>says...
>>
>> "butterfly" <butterfly@darkside.com> wrote in message
>> news:sheia0teg702r22a98k8b5hhnekhanf26f@4ax.com...
>> > 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)?
>>
>> A year ago I went from an old 17" CRT to a 17" LCD. My LCD is sharper with
>> excellent text clarity. My LCD seems to have a larger display size but that
>> could be that the CRT was older with the screen size measured rather than
>> the image size. In any event the lighter weight, cooler running and more
>> desk space in addition to better images for me is enough for me to stay away
>> from CRT's. That's my unscientific opinion.
>>
>> This site might help:
>> http://www.techmind.org/lcd/
>>

>LCD is indeed measured differently then CRT (the rule of
>thumb I use is that a 17" LCD is equivalent to a 19" CRT
>in terms of display size).

Well, yes and no.

CRTs are measured based on the size of the picture tube, which is
always larger than the "viewable area". You typically get about 18" on
a 19" screen. LCDs are based on the actual LCD matrix area, so a 17"
LCD is actually a 17" screen.

The other thing you're alluding to is that, at the same size, an LCD
is sharper than a CRT (being digital and all, the pixels are precisely
defined). So you can, in theory, use a smaller LCD with the same
resolution as a larger CRT. For example, my laptop sports a 10.4"
screen at 1280x768... I wouldn't think of running a 13" CRT at
anything much over 1280x1024.

However, that's the theory. If you look at the way the LCDs are made,
there's a pixel element, transistor, etc. at each pixel site,
electronics to drive them all, etc. Or, in English, you pay for more
resolution, in real money. CRTs, on the other hand, have become faster
simply with the evolution of fairly cheap analog parts. So while you
_could_ probably have 1600x1200 on a 17" LCD as clear or clearer than
I have 1600x1200 on my teo 19" CRTs, chances are you can't find an LCD
that does 1600x1200 on a 17" screen, and if you can, it's going to
cost an arm and a leg. The popular LCDs may actually cut your
resolution, versus a monitor of similar size.

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
 

Hactar

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2002
80
0
18,630
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <40acc78b.1388461191@news.jersey.net>,
Dave Haynie <dhaynie@jersey.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 May 2004 01:11:36 -0400, Toshi1873 <toshi1873@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
> >LCD is indeed measured differently then CRT (the rule of
> >thumb I use is that a 17" LCD is equivalent to a 19" CRT
> >in terms of display size).
>
> Well, yes and no.
>
> CRTs are measured based on the size of the picture tube, which is
> always larger than the "viewable area". You typically get about 18" on
> a 19" screen. LCDs are based on the actual LCD matrix area, so a 17"
> LCD is actually a 17" screen.
>
> The other thing you're alluding to is that, at the same size, an LCD
> is sharper than a CRT (being digital and all, the pixels are precisely
> defined). So you can, in theory, use a smaller LCD with the same
> resolution as a larger CRT. For example, my laptop sports a 10.4"
> screen at 1280x768... I wouldn't think of running a 13" CRT at
> anything much over 1280x1024.

I haven't seen any high-DPI LCDs outside of laptops. AFAIK, all consumer
models have comparable DPIs (lower among LCDs, higher among CRTs).

> However, that's the theory. If you look at the way the LCDs are made,
> there's a pixel element, transistor, etc. at each pixel site,
> electronics to drive them all, etc. Or, in English, you pay for more
> resolution, in real money. CRTs, on the other hand, have become faster
> simply with the evolution of fairly cheap analog parts. So while you
> _could_ probably have 1600x1200 on a 17" LCD as clear or clearer than
> I have 1600x1200 on my teo 19" CRTs, chances are you can't find an LCD
> that does 1600x1200 on a 17" screen, and if you can, it's going to
> cost an arm and a leg. The popular LCDs may actually cut your
> resolution, versus a monitor of similar size.

As you say, there are probably some out there, but they are so expensive
as to make their market share very small.

--
-eben ebQenW1@EtaRmpTabYayU.rIr.OcoPm home.tampabay.rr.com/hactar

Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands,
hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. -- H.L. Mencken
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

This 20" Dell LCD looks nice for a relatively good price
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=320-1578&category_id=4009

butterfly 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)?