Crt

[glorybound]

Question...

I was watching a video on PhotoShop and the instructor said that unless you are going to spend at least $1,500 on an LCD you should invest $500.00 on a good CRT, which has a much greater gamma range then a less then $1,500 LCD would give you. Any truth to this statement?

[glyph]

there's virtually no CRTs in production any more - not even for watching tv on..

just make sure any lcd you buy is IPS technology

I reckon the guy is correct though

[dapeter]

The bigger thing is the technology behind the panel. Almost all the panels that are rated at very high speeds (like 5ms or faster) are garbage as they only display 6-bit color. My Macbook Pro, that I'm writing this on right now, only displays 6-bit and while for most stuff on it it's fine and I don't notice, gradients in Photoshop don't look correct and you can see banding sometimes. So, no color decisions from this screen.

But you don't have to spend $1500 for an Eizo, LaCie or one of the high-end NEC's... just make sure it's S-IPS or IPS and you should be fine. My previous-generation Apple 24" LCD has great color rendition... and today Dell just yesterday announced a more color-accurate 24"er -

http://www.electronista.com/articles...u2410.display/

[simmsimaging]

Don't worry too much about it. If you are doing super critical final pre-press colour it might prove a real issue, but I doubt it. And if you were then you shouldn't be trusting monitor colour anyway, you'd be working by numbers and running high-end proofs.

I do colour correction for national and international advertising as part of my daily work and I use a cintiq LCD and a Lacie LCD and have for years now. It's not an issue for me. YMMV of course.

*EDIT* Okay, just realized you said <$1500 and both of mine were more than that. I was sort of reading that as LCD versus CRT totally. Anyway, I think the point still stands that it's probably not that much of an issue for most people's line of work.
b