Say what you want, but LCD's are digital through and through. You don't lose image quality in the digital to analog conversion.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
THANKS APPLE - I am done here....
- Thread starter Stojamow
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Are we still talking about video editing here? If so color accuracy is a non-issue because CRTs and LCDs do not look like TVs. Almost every editor I know who's tried LCDs hasn't gone back to CRTs, but that's neither here nor there. No matter which kind of monitor you choose you'll still need a broadcast monitor/TV to view your work on to make sure it looks correct.
Lethal
It's not the A/D/A conversion loss that's the problem. It's the dot pitch and the response rate.
TRUE: CRT vs LCD has nothing to do with the colours we are able to see on our TV sets which means that you need a client monitor to check out the colours etc as we are talking about editing.
WHEN it comes to screen size the funny thing is that several years ago people were so happy to edit with one 17" crt monitor (I have witnessed one professional to do so in 1998) and now 23" is barely enough. Here I am trying to deside between these two machines while even the 15.2" offers the same used by professinal 5 years ago. It is funny isn't it?
WHEN it comes to screen size the funny thing is that several years ago people were so happy to edit with one 17" crt monitor (I have witnessed one professional to do so in 1998) and now 23" is barely enough. Here I am trying to deside between these two machines while even the 15.2" offers the same used by professinal 5 years ago. It is funny isn't it?
Originally posted by Stojamow
TRUE: CRT vs LCD has nothing to do with the colours we are able to see on our TV sets which means that you need a client monitor to check out the colours etc as we are talking about editing.
WHEN it comes to screen size the funny thing is that several years ago people were so happy to edit with one 17" crt monitor (I have witnessed one professional to do so in 1998) and now 23" is barely enough. Here I am trying to deside between these two machines while even the 15.2" offers the same used by professinal 5 years ago. It is funny isn't it?
People are tired of squinting... plus there are a lot of windows you can have open in final cut pro, i'm on a 17" and i've got windows overlapping just so i can get the work done... sigh... My friend has two 17" and that seems to do the trick for having a lot of open windows in FCP, but we'll see how long that lasts
Originally posted by Stojamow
TRUE: CRT vs LCD has nothing to do with the colours we are able to see on our TV sets which means that you need a client monitor to check out the colours etc as we are talking about editing.
WHEN it comes to screen size the funny thing is that several years ago people were so happy to edit with one 17" crt monitor (I have witnessed one professional to do so in 1998) and now 23" is barely enough. Here I am trying to deside between these two machines while even the 15.2" offers the same used by professinal 5 years ago. It is funny isn't it?
Well a 17" CRT screen offers as much as 1600x1200 in resolution where as a 23" LCD offers 1920x1200. The switch to LCD screens can explain the need for such a large size because they have such a have such a poor pixel density that you actually put less on the screen for the same screen area.
One thing which have made me a little bit worried is the question of the display with 15" alBook.
Do you know guys how wide the problem really is because I do believe that basically all the people who are happy with the computer do not write to the forums because there is no need.
Do you know guys how wide the problem really is because I do believe that basically all the people who are happy with the computer do not write to the forums because there is no need.
If you are doing photo editing then 1600x1200 is no more straining then any other resolution as long as you can see your button bar. For text it may be a strain for some but not for me. I can still read the text at 1600x1200 from across the room. I just don't use 1600x1200 because my 17" only supports it up to 60Hz which is too low.
ya 60Hz is a terrible refresh rate.. . can really give a headache if staring at the screen for a long time
i find when working in photoshop... it easy to work at high res because you can just zoom in .... but i find that it's sometimes hard to see the tools your working with.... and you gotta move closer just to pick it.... as well as reading some of the menu's
at that rez it's hard to see the text in final cut as well....
these are at least the my feelings... if you can work at that rez.... the more power to you
Originally posted by Stojamow
One thing which have made me a little bit worried is the question of the display with 15" alBook.
Do you know guys how wide the problem really is because I do believe that basically all the people who are happy with the computer do not write to the forums because there is no need.
My screen is pretty damn good.
60 Hz is the frequency of AC power. Electric lights in sync with your monitor will give you headaches.
This is really only a problem with florescent as they actually arc or flash at 60x per second. Incandescent lights work by heating up a piece of tungsten which removing power and reapplying power at any rate more than once per second will not make it flash as that piece of tungsten has to cool and reheat. So in affect a piece of tungsten is a form of capacitor eliminating the flashing affect that AC current creates.
Sorry if I'm expanding on a subject that doesn't need expanding.
Soft. I have a 50Hz monitor and TV to boot. I can't stand LCD's because they are no where near clear enough when playing FPS (first person shooter) games
-revenuee
Umm. You realize that Halogen is, in fact, an incandescent right? Just one filled with Halogen gas instead of a pure vacuum.
-MacBandit
About the filament, just a point of clarification: The filament is actually more of a resistor - ergo choking the current so much that the element heats up to the point of incandescence. A fluorescent bulb is actually a capacitor - a gap between the electrodes - ergo requiring the starter to build the charge up to the point where is can leap the gap and fluoresce the gas within. The same concept apply to neon lights, though only the red ones are actually the noble gas Neon. The other colors ar accomplished with mixtures of other gasses: Mercury for Blue, CO2 for White, and Helium for Gold, different coatings for filtering get the further colors.
Strobe lights are another Noble Gas Xenon, but that's extremely bright for one - and requires a lot more power to get going. Y'know those really bright headlights? Xenon. Watch them start up though - real ones take about 5 seconds to reach full brightness.
sorry about he spelling and inconsistency of what i'm taking about in the last post..
the forum won't let me edit
what i mean to say is
my hunch was that it was in fact incandescent based on a visual observation of the bulbs...
but i in-fact went against my better judgment and posted
the forum won't let me edit
what i mean to say is
my hunch was that it was in fact incandescent based on a visual observation of the bulbs...
but i in-fact went against my better judgment and posted
-revenuee
That's ok
At first I thought you were kidding around.
We all learn by asking, then Googling on all that blarney I just spewed for verification.
BTW- The reason Halogen is so popular, is that it's the closes humanity has come to artificially duplicating the spectrum of natural sunlight.
Originally posted by patrick0brien
-revenuee
That's ok
At first I thought you were kidding around.
We all learn by asking, then Googling on all that blarney I just spewed for verification.
BTW- The reason Halogen is so popular, is that it's the closes humanity has come to artificially duplicating the spectrum of natural sunlight.
and heat... LOL
i get hot standing under neath the light source in the ceiling
the light, plus the computer, plus the other electronic gear results in my room being hot as hell - no pun intended
it's like 40 degrees outside, my window is wide open ... and the heat from my room is stronger then the cold from outside
Coldness doesn't exist. It is merely the absence, or to be more precise, an insufficient amount of heat.
Thanks yeah, I knew that about fluorescent and incandescent lights. I wasn't referring to there actual function though but to there observable output. An incandescent is a capacitor of heat and thus light. It retains it's heat energy even though put is taken away. A fluorescent requires constant power and thus flashes the moment power is taken away.
Sorry if I didn't specify my point of view. Also I didn't feel it was necessary to go into the specifics of how the two works in this situation since as I pointed out we are talking about the observable output.
- Status