Camera Labs

Now that finally the LCD-TVs are approaching 1920x1080 resolution at affordable prices, the question arises: should your next computer monitor be like the 26" NEC LCD2690WUXI (1100EUR) or would you prefer a LCD-TV like the Toshiba 37X3030D (1100EUR)?
Some pros and cons:
pro LCD-monitor:
(1) this one has very good color rendering
(2) for a monitor it's very large (but compared to a TV it's stil small)
(3) the pixel pitch is so fine, that you can put the monitor at 50-60cm viewing distance
(4) Good contrast (800:1), bright (400 cd/m²)
(5) has a 16:10 format which is good for 2:3 pics (Canon/Nikon/Sony DSLRs, displayed at 1200x1800, 120 pixels lost) and not so optimal for 3:4 pics (Olympus DSLRs, displayed at 1200x1600, 320 pixels lost)
pro LCD-TV:
(6) The pic is 40% larger (but you have to put it at least 80-100cm away)
(7) Extremely bright (500cd/m²), good for sunlit living rooms
(8) Extremely high contrast (3500:1), dynamically controlled
(9) it has "true scan/exact scan" mode, meaning that you get a 1:1 pixel-mapping and don't suffer overscan when connecting a computer to it. (very important)
(10) has a 16:9 format which is not so optimal for 2:3 pics (displayed at 1080x1620, 300 pixels lost), bad for 3:4 pics but optimal for 16:9 pics which are on the rise (like some Panasonic Lumix cameras)

So if you're into viewing photos there are 4 possiblities now:
- Print them
- Show them on your computer-monitor
- Show them on your TV
- Show them with a beamer

My opinion:
If you like a crowd pleaser, take the LCD-TV, even buy a 42" set (which is only 200EUR more abd has 6000:1 contrast). The pics are sharp and clear, everybody can view them from the couch, and the brightness is perfect. If you fiddle a bit with the controls you can even get some decent colors.
The beamer is LARGE but brightness is sorely lacking, you have to pull down the shades to the max, otherwise the contrast is equally bad.
The LCD monitor is good for your eyes and can display the best colors plus it has the advantage of 1200 lines plus you can get them much cheaper (best deal today: Samsung SyncMaster 245B for less than 600EUR, but I have heard nothing yet about the color rendering)
Printing: A4 prints don't do 10MP shots justice - really! So if you have a shop that consistently prints good colors on A3 or you own a A3+ printer that may be an alternative. Remember: even A3 is equivalent to only 20"! But the worst thing with prints is: They change their colors depending on the light you watch them in...

Now, start the flak...

_________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D800+assorted lenses

I would go for the beamer since I really liked the old days with slide projector You would pull out the carousel slide projector, screen and darken the room to create a special atmosphere to watch the precious holiday photos...

Currently I use a Samsung LDC TV with an Apple computer that has really great slide features. But it does distort picture colors a lot 'cause of the dynamic contrast and there isn't the same atmosphere as with the old slide projector. So the ideal for me would be beamer then prints in a book (store developed), LCD TV and then LCD monitor. The latter is the cheapest and easiest for me, and whatever you buy you wouldn't get the colors that you get on prints, unless you buy a calibrator as well.

Have you seen a beamer, that delivered a performance like a good 250W slide projector? Me not...

_________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D800+assorted lenses

No, my decision was actually made on the assumption that it would perform almost like a slide projector, and almost create the same atmosphere

Hi guys, I have a Sony W10 projector (1366x768 resolution) for home cinema movies which I sometimes use for photo slideshows - it doesn't look great in terms of colour and contrast for still photos, but the impact of a 100in screen is hard to beat. And as Rune says, it's quite fun to watch a slideshow in darkness on a big screen, but the quality is sadly nothing like projecting a quality transparency.

My folks have a 42in Plasma and photo slideshows can look great on that... I personally much prefer the colour and tonal range on plasma compared to LCD - it looks a lot more like CRT to my eyes - but I know the technology has several issues.

The trick as Thomas says is to have some means by which you can display your photos at a higher resolution - either by connecting a PC to the display, or by having an HD set which can accept memory cards direct. the Sony H9 offers a nice alternative too - an optional component video cable to deliver a 1080i signal.

Gordon

I think, the most convenient way to get your High-Definition (HD) content to the screen is either to have a HTPC (Home Theatre PC) in your living room or via a laptop with HDMI/DVI-interface.

As to LCD vs. Plasma, I think the race is over and esp. with the full HD-resolution of 1920x1080 that LCD will be the major choice even for high quality displays.

When considering the impact of large screen projection vs. brilliance on a 42" screen I found that brilliance wins. Photos are composed of light, and if the projector does not put enough lumen on the screen people will be disappointed. My Sony H50 (1366x768 resolution) is quite superb for film projection, but photos don't look great: Too little light for darker photos and too little resolution.

Plus another observation: If you don't print, you can forget about portrait format photos. Apart from LCD-monitors that can be turned upright, there is no proper way to view portrait format photos.

_________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D800+assorted lenses

Hi Thomas, that's a really good point about portrait aspect shots - when they come up on a landscape-aspect screen, people are inevitably disappointed by their shrunken size.

Indeed when it comes to slideshows on the TV, I actually weed out the portrait aspect shots where possible.

I wonder if people will take fewer portrait aspect shots as they view them on their TVs more...

Gordon

I totally agree with you, Gordon. Almost all of my portrait aspect shots get weeded out for projection, because they only look like "thumbnails" or inadvertantly cropped landscape shots
This again is a good reason to recommend wide-angel zooms as you need a 33% wider lens (eg. 24mm equiv.) to capture the same hight in landscape format than in portrait mode (where a 36mm would suffice).

_________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D800+assorted lenses

Another good monitor is the NEC 20WMGX2 or 20WXG2 for non USA people. Nice color reproduction. 20.1" 1680x1050 glossy LCD panel. It's great in photo mode but it's one where you have to tweak the settings. It has great response rate.

_________________
rv65
C-5050Z | SD700IS (IXUS800 IS) | JamCam | Quantaray RZ 800 w/ 50mm prime lens (just found but broken) (aka Cosina CT-7, Various other brands) | EOS 50D

Hi everybody, I would like to know the difference between the LCD monitor and the old ones, then I’m wondering if my eyes will be spoiled by computer cause I spend sometimes in computers. What's the difference between the LCD and the old ones monitor? How fast does the computer spoil our eyes? Please answer me. Thanks a lot.

_________________
C9720A

Your eyes get spoilt because you are focusing on a subject that is located about 40 cm in front of you for hours and hours on end. So even if you are using an LCD that does emit any radiation like the old CRT monitors, you're still going to spoil your eyes if you spend long hours at the computer without any breaks in between.

Also, eyesight loss can be genetic. My eyes started going when I was 12, and I didn't watch TV, play on the computer, etc. Both my parents have bad eyesight, +9 diaopters and above each. So that's kinda spilt over into my eyesight.

_________________
PhilipGoh.com

Hello abhijit, and welcome to the friendly Camera Labs forum.
What do you mean by "the old ones"? Old CRT (cathode ray tube) based monitors?
Well there are some huge differences but in any case the answer of pgtips hold true for any kind of monitor.
The major diffenrences between an older CRT and a new LCD monitor are:
- CRTs were bulky and energy hogs.
- CRTs had some distortions (curved lines)
- CRTs emitted more radiation
- CRTs had better blacks and brighter colors. Some say even more accurate colors

_________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D800+assorted lenses

If money were no object, I'd most definetly go for a 30" LCD monitor.



I've got that monitor. It's pretty sweet. Shame it's discontinued.

_________________
I've upped my Iso, now up yours.
Nikon D700, Nikon D80, Micro Nikkor 105 f2.8 AI-S,Nikon 85mm 1.8D, Nikon 50mm 1.8D, Nikon 35mm F2D, Nikon 16-35 f4 VR, Nikon 24-70mm F2.8 AF-S, Nikon 70-200VRII, Nikon 70-300mm VR, 300mm f2.8 AI IF ED, SB-800, SB-900. Noiseware pro,NIK Dfine, Nik Colour Effex, Nik Sharpener Pro

hi guys, I have a Hannspree 28in LCD tv but this tv has a 1920 by 1200 resolution so I think its perfect for watchin TV and using as a monitor. I mainly use it as a monitor tho and since Hannspree make good moniters I realy get the best of both!

Has anybody purchased a refurbished Dell LCD Monitor? How long do you think it will last? I am thinking about purchasing a refurbished Dell LCD monitor and I am wondering if it will be worth it. Will it go bad after a year or two or can I expect it to last for awhile?
_____________________
market samurai ~ marketsamurai ~ marketsamurai.com