--- Moreno Polloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The biggest issue for me was that the newer flatscreen CRT's I tried
> were
> not as sharp in the edges as some of the curved screen models. In the
> end, I
> went with a digital LCD. Perfectly sharp from edge to edge, and with
> a
> custom profile,
>> But the Sony is very fuzzy (even at only 1280 x 1024) while the
Mitsubishi is very sharp even at 1920 x 1440 (the highest my card
goes). <<
I've had similar observations. I don't know what happened to Sony. Their
monitors used to be among the best.
No, Mitsubishi designed and made their own -- I think the Sony patent expired?
Many people have reported that the Mitsubishi version is to be preferred --
but of course they all make their fair share of duds, and the video card
used has some bearing on it too...
Charles
>Don't the Sony and Mits
The one fundamental thing on choosing a monitor is to buy the demo ( or
at least have the seller hook up the one he is proposing to sell you, so
you can see the images for yourself). They DO vary from sample to sample.
You want to check a sharp image, and also a screenful of text, at a small
font
>> The one fundamental thing on choosing a monitor is to buy the demo
( or
at least have the seller hook up the one he is proposing to sell you, so
you can see the images for yourself). They DO vary from sample to sample.
You want to check a sharp image, and also a screenful of text, at a small
f
I second that... I'd love to find an LCD model that had reasonably
accurate color and luma levels for a closed loop system.
Art
Robert Meier wrote:
> --- Moreno Polloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>The biggest issue for me was that the newer flatscreen CRT's I tried
>>were
>>not as sharp in t
The word "Mexico" might have something to do with it.
Even if the components themselves are good, a monitor needs to be
assembled and adjusted correctly at the factory, and I wonder if that is
being done.
Sony, perhaps more than some companies, seems to be suffering from the
competition in the m
>> That's what I found too...my LCDs have very bad low light response.
Things
that are plain as day on my CRT don't even exist on my LCD...and I, too,
calibrated using the Spider. Since most all my work is B&W, and particular
to shadow detail, I'm really unable to use LCDs at this point, at least
Why stop at a pair?
One to hold the working image, one to hold the original and a third for the
menus :-)
On Friday 01 Mar 2002 3:17 am, Moreno Polloni wrote:
> >> I'll have to check these out next time I decide I need another display!
>
> Any
> recommendations...er, aside from the IBM one ;-) <
>> The G520 allegedly fixes whatever they got wrong in the G500, but costs
lots. I bought a G420 19" FST in the end and it's delightful at 1600x1200,
razor sharp right to the corners and after a little tweaking geometry is
faultless. It's probably the best upgrade I've ever made, in terms of being
> There's still a lot of sample to sample variation with those monitors. I
> also bought a G420 and had to return it as the image was so soft
> the monitor
> was practically unuseable.
Is that model a direct drive, or use analog RGB video? I can't imagine how
a direct drive could be soft at all
Hello Austin,
You wrote:
> > There's still a lot of sample to sample variation with
those monitors. I
> > also bought a G420 and had to return it as the image
was so soft the
> > monitor was practically unuseable.
>
> Is that model a direct drive, or use analog RGB video? I
can't imagine
> how
> Hello Austin,
>
> You wrote:
>
> > > There's still a lot of sample to sample variation with
> those monitors. I
> > > also bought a G420 and had to return it as the image
> was so soft the
> > > monitor was practically unuseable.
> >
> > Is that model a direct drive, or use analog RGB video? I
13 matches
Mail list logo
