Man-wai Chang ToDie wrote:
> is there really a visible difference?
>
Yes. The difference is, high contrast ratio displays do it,
by using tricks.
The 2000:1 display does it, by changing the level of the backlight,
as a function of the image content.
For Photoshop users, that is a disaster. If that method is being
used, it means the monitor cannot be calibrated. Every time
the backlight changes intensity, the calibration is lost.
If the monitor is used for other purposes, maybe high
contrast values or dynamic adjustments, make sense. But
for Photoshop or applications where color accuracy are
more important, an unaided monitor at 500:1 might be better.
"Recently there have appeared LCD monitors with high specified contrast,
up to 3000:1, but using the same matrixes as are employed in the monitors
with more traditional numbers in the specs. Itˇ¦s because the so-called
dynamic contrast ratio rather than the ordinary contrast ratio is specified.
The concept is in fact simple. Each movie has both bright and dark scenes.
In both cases our eyes perceive the brightness of the whole picture at once.
So if most of the screen is bright, the level of black in the small dark
areas doesnˇ¦t matter, and vice versa. It is reasonable then to automatically
adjust the backlight brightness depending on the onscreen image. The
backlighting can be made less intensive in dark scenes, to make them even
darker, and more intensive, up to the maximum, in bright scenes, to make
them even brighter. This automatic adjustment is referred to as dynamic
contrast ratio.
... For ordinary work this mode is not just useless, but often irritating."
> The 2000:1 display does it, by changing the level of the backlight,
> as a function of the image content.
> ... For ordinary work this mode is not just useless, but often irritating."
LCD: 1000:1 vs 2000:1 
Linear Mode
