I'm wondering about the contrast ratio spec of new LCD monitors. It varies
between 1,000 and 3,000 in many cases, but with the screens all lined up and
displaying images in the store I don't see much difference. Any opinions
about how much difference this makes in the real world, and how you can
actually assess the difference?
"Victek" <Victek@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:g9bpvo$f01$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> I'm wondering about the contrast ratio spec of new LCD monitors. It
> varies between 1,000 and 3,000 in many cases, but with the screens all
> lined up and displaying images in the store I don't see much difference.
> Any opinions about how much difference this makes in the real world, and
> how you can actually assess the difference?
If you were looking at a low key images side by side you may notice a slight
difference between a monitor with a low contrast ratio and one with a high
one, but to be honest 1000:1 isn't low at all.
"HEMI-Powered" <none@none.gn> wrote in message
news:Xns9B0A903621069ReplyScoreID@216.196.97.136.. .
>>> I'm wondering about the contrast ratio spec of new LCD
>>> monitors. It varies between 1,000 and 3,000 in many cases,
>>> but with the screens all lined up and displaying images in
>>> the store I don't see much difference. Any opinions about how
>>> much difference this makes in the real world, and how you can
>>> actually assess the difference?
>> If you were looking at a low key images side by side you may
>> notice a slight difference between a monitor with a low
>> contrast ratio and one with a high one, but to be honest
>> 1000:1 isn't low at all.
> Please see my reply to the OP first, but I would disagree that
> 1000:1 isn't pretty low. But, unless one is into technical lab
> testing to glean some scientific comparisons, it is vitally
> important to view real world images and not just the canned
> displays in the stores. In my shopping this spring I found the
> 1000:1 displays were the lowest end monitors with the least sharp
> display while the 5000:1 were barely better than the 3000:1 but
> usually 2X-3X the price.
>
> In the end, I think this is a highly subjective issue.
I'm not talking about sharpness though, I'm talking about contrast
graduations.
Victek wrote:
> I'm wondering about the contrast ratio spec of new LCD monitors. It
> varies between 1,000 and 3,000 in many cases, but with the screens all
> lined up and displaying images in the store I don't see much
> difference. Any opinions about how much difference this makes in the
> real world, and how you can actually assess the difference?
There are only a few LCD screen manufacturers in world capable of
producing a monitor with CMYK colour gamut. You can however use a cheap
monitor and provided you follow a few pointers, only ever miss out of
the last section of black on a contrast wedge.
Although these monitors all seem to come with a 15 pin VGA plug (or
adaptor) DVI (Digital Video Input) will absolutely improve the contrast
range you can see on screen.
If you use a RADEON video card, it comes natively with built in monitor
profiling adjustments. All you need to do is get the RGB examples right
and you have very good colour balance without profiling the screen.
You may need a cheap program called "power strip" to move the gamma to a
low contrast region suitable for photographs but once you have done
these things, a $200 LG monitor will start to look like a high end Ezio.
The contrast ratio described by LCD makers is all useless. I have a
2000:1 CR screen that looks no better and no worse than the $1900 Ezio I
bought for editing photos - most of the time.
I use the (wide screen) LG for movie editing but I'd happily use it for
photo editing if I didn't have the Ezio.
Samsung make a screen now they claim will match the CMYK of a web offset
press. Big deal. So will my tweaked LG and it cost less than half the
price of the Samsung.
The current issue of Maximum PC reviews this subject.
There are also some comments in an interview in the current issue of CPU
that give insight into why LCD television panels are not what they seem
compared to Plasma, DLP and particularly the late CRT, still the standard of
measure. This is particularly so with regard to what contrast ratio means:
if LCD panels cannot display absolute black then what does contrast ratio
really mean?
Most of us are using 6 bit low end panels, regardless of what they cost with
always on back lighting.
8 and 16 bit color depths, as well as black, viewed on these screens are
illusory, which may explain why all but a few LCD panels are worse than low
end CRTs for mainstream image processing.
Contrast ratios and other measures for these panels, while generally made up
by the manufacturer and not necessarily objective measures, have more to do
with watching video and playing games than static image processing.
>> I'm wondering about the contrast ratio spec of new LCD monitors. It
>> varies between 1,000 and 3,000 in many cases, but with the screens all
>> lined up and displaying images in the store I don't see much difference.
>> Any opinions about how much difference this makes in the real world, and
>> how you can actually assess the difference?
>
> There are only a few LCD screen manufacturers in world capable of
> producing a monitor with CMYK colour gamut. You can however use a cheap
> monitor and provided you follow a few pointers, only ever miss out of the
> last section of black on a contrast wedge.
>
> Although these monitors all seem to come with a 15 pin VGA plug (or
> adaptor) DVI (Digital Video Input) will absolutely improve the contrast
> range you can see on screen.
>
> If you use a RADEON video card, it comes natively with built in monitor
> profiling adjustments. All you need to do is get the RGB examples right
> and you have very good colour balance without profiling the screen.
>
> You may need a cheap program called "power strip" to move the gamma to a
> low contrast region suitable for photographs but once you have done these
> things, a $200 LG monitor will start to look like a high end Ezio.
>snip...
You anticipated and answered my next question about DVI. My video card
(Nvidia 6600GT) has both VGA and DVI connectors. I'm currently using the
VGA connector, but the new screen I picked up has both so I will invest in a
DVI cable. I don't know if the Nvidia card has the built-in monitor
profiling you mentioned (?) I've read that using DVI eliminates screen
centering issues - is that true? I haven't even unboxed it yet so I can't
comment on image quality, but I did buy it from a store that I can return it
to within 30 days with no restocking fee - I have time to figure things out.
HEMI-Powered wrote:
> Shon Kei Picture company added these comments in the current
> discussion du jour ...
>
>> Victek wrote:
>>> I'm wondering about the contrast ratio spec of new LCD
>>> monitors. It varies between 1,000 and 3,000 in many cases,
>>> but with the screens all lined up and displaying images in
>>> the store I don't see much difference. Any opinions about
>>> how much difference this makes in the real world, and how you
>>> can actually assess the difference?
>> There are only a few LCD screen manufacturers in world capable
>> of producing a monitor with CMYK colour gamut. You can however
>> use a cheap monitor and provided you follow a few pointers,
>> only ever miss out of the last section of black on a contrast
>> wedge.
>>
>> Although these monitors all seem to come with a 15 pin VGA
>> plug (or adaptor) DVI (Digital Video Input) will absolutely
>> improve the contrast range you can see on screen.
>
> I've got a 21" and a 26" Samsung monitor and also an ATI Radeon
> video card. I don't at all like the digital interface even if it
> is marginally sharper because it doesn't allow the various
> controls on the monitor to alter the image. Yes, this can be done
> with the video card but then one is altering the actual video
> signal at the source rather than how the monitor processes and
> displays it. I much prefer to run on the analog side.
>
>> If you use a RADEON video card, it comes natively with built
>> in monitor profiling adjustments. All you need to do is get
>> the RGB examples right and you have very good colour balance
>> without profiling the screen.
>
> This is definitely not true in my experience. I've set up both my
> Samsungs, one on analog and one on digital, and ran through the
> calibration stuff that comes with the Radeon card and with the
> color calibration tool Samsung provides. It is not at all a
> trivial task to get these things to display what I know is the
> correct brightness/contrast and color balance. Worse, similar
> settings display entirely differently on each monitor making it
> even more problematical to decide what "right" is.
>
>> You may need a cheap program called "power strip" to move the
>> gamma to a low contrast region suitable for photographs but
>> once you have done these things, a $200 LG monitor will start
>> to look like a high end Ezio.
>>
>> The contrast ratio described by LCD makers is all useless. I
>> have a 2000:1 CR screen that looks no better and no worse than
>> the $1900 Ezio I bought for editing photos - most of the time.
>>
>> I use the (wide screen) LG for movie editing but I'd happily
>> use it for photo editing if I didn't have the Ezio.
>>
>> Samsung make a screen now they claim will match the CMYK of a
>> web offset press. Big deal. So will my tweaked LG and it cost
>> less than half the price of the Samsung.
>
Use power strip. The shareware version will nag you at boot but
otherwise it works a treat on Samsungs
Victek wrote:
> I'm wondering about the contrast ratio spec of new LCD monitors. It
> varies between 1,000 and 3,000 in many cases, but with the screens
> all lined up and displaying images in the store I don't see much
> difference. Any opinions about how much difference this makes in the
> real world, and how you can actually assess the difference?
I wonder if someone who knows about densities and prints might care to
comment on this. I'm too rusty! Is a 1000:1 range the same as a density
range of 3.0? What is the best that prints can achieve? I would have
expected less than 3.0, and if so presumably the blacks are compressed a
little to fit the available dynamic range of the print? I remember
sometimes having to do dodging and burning to produce the "best"
black-and-white print.
I have been disappointed with the LINEAR dynamic range of typical (i.e.
inexpensive) LCD monitors - there is very little display of the lower
blacks so that, if you have an image of 0..255, all levels below 8 may
appear as one black. To get the best visible greyscale reproduction, I
have found that you typically need to decrease the contrast (gain)
setting, and increased the brightness (offset) setting, so that the blacks
are actually shown as dark greys. This then works well with colour
images. Note that I print very little, so matching monitor to printer
isn't an issue for me.
saycheez wrote:
> The current issue of Maximum PC reviews this subject.
> There are also some comments in an interview in the current issue of CPU
> that give insight into why LCD television panels are not what they seem
> compared to Plasma, DLP and particularly the late CRT, still the
> standard of measure. This is particularly so with regard to what
> contrast ratio means: if LCD panels cannot display absolute black then
> what does contrast ratio really mean?
It is supposed to mean the ratio of lowest to brightest light.
If they could display absolute black, the ratio would be infinite.
Even CRTs don't have an infinite contrast ratio, as long as they
have been on recently, or been in a lighted room, because of phosphorescence.
Anything over 500:1 is perfectly adequate for previewing
photo material meant for halftone printing or photo
printing on paper. It may no be adequate for images
destined for transparencies or better electronic displays.
On Aug 30, 10:45*am, "Victek" <Vic...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> I'm wondering about the contrast ratio spec of new LCD monitors. *It varies
> between 1,000 and 3,000 in many cases, but with the screens all lined up and
> displaying images in the store I don't see much difference. *Any opinions
> about how much difference this makes in the real world, and how you can
> actually assess the difference?
This is a subject that has really interested me. I have been involved
in measuring CRT display ratios, and realize the physics that limits
those.
But it seems to me that there should be limits to LCD also. Are these
displays controlling transmittance of backlight ONLY by analog voltage
rotating the polarization angle? If so, in order to get very high
extinction the angle of the vector must be controlled to a fraction of
a degree, which means a VERY tight control of the control signal.
Or, is it a combination of polarization angle and pulse width
modulation?
Contrast ratio of LCD monitors 
Linear Mode
