What are the results of 2 different monitors?

[goddi]

Greetings,

I am thinking of upgrading my CRT to a flat screen. I am looking at a 23" Samsung XL2370 that is 1920x1080. My other choice is a 23" Dell SP2309W that is 2048x1152. I am not sure show their different screen resolutions will affect my PTE shows.

I now make my PTE shows at 1920x1080. So I would expect the PTE show to be full-screen on the Samsung. However, what would happen on the Dell? If the show is created with the 'Fixed size of slide' checked, I am assuming it will be fixed at the 1920x1080 size and have a black boarder on the Dell. If I don't select the 'Fixed size of slide', then the show will fill the entire screen in the Dell? If so, will it be 'stretched' in proportion?

Any opinions or suggestions???

(I like the Dell because the screen is more adjustable, up or down to your height. But I just saw today at Costco, they have the Samsung P2370 which looks to be exactly like the XL2370 but has an HD TV tuner for $279.99!)

Gary

[fh1805]

Gary,

Your understanding is quite correct. A 1920x1080 show will fill the Samsung. And on the Dell it will behave as you expect depending upon your choice of "Fixed size of slide" on or off.

regards,

Peter

[Guest Yachtsman1]

I would ensure the refresh rate of a new monitor is at least 5 or below, particularly if you use animation.

Yachtsman1.

[goddi]

I would ensure the refresh rate of a new monitor is at least 5 or below, particularly if you use animation.

Yachtsman1.

====================

Thanks, Peter and Yachtman,

Yes, if my memory is correct, both are "2 ms.".

Gary

[cjdnzl]

====================

Thanks, Peter and Yachtman,

Yes, if my memory is correct, both are "2 ms.".

Gary

Goddi,

Just check to be sure the 2ms screens are 8-bit, and capable of 16-odd million colours. Most 8-bit screens are about 5ms, and the 2ms screens, aimed primarily at gaming and movie use, are usually 6-bit screens which use a form of dithering to reproduce some colours. Almost all laptop screens are 6-bit, the colour is acceptable but not good enough for accurate image manipulation. You can tell the difference by checking the figure given for the number of colours displayed, 16,777,216 for an 8-bit, and 262,144 for 6-bit. For high-quality still images, get an 8-bit and forget the milliseconds. If you can't ascertain the colour count, don't buy the screen.

Colin

[goddi]

Goddi,

Just check to be sure the 2ms screens are 8-bit, and capable of 16-odd million colours. Most 8-bit screens are about 5ms, and the 2ms screens, aimed primarily at gaming and movie use, are usually 6-bit screens which use a form of dithering to reproduce some colours. Almost all laptop screens are 6-bit, the colour is acceptable but not good enough for accurate image manipulation. You can tell the difference by checking the figure given for the number of colours displayed, 16,777,216 for an 8-bit, and 262,144 for 6-bit. For high-quality still images, get an 8-bit and forget the milliseconds. If you can't ascertain the colour count, don't buy the screen.

Colin

=========================

Colin,

It took me a while, but I found these specs. It has the 16+ million colors, as you state, but it is 24 bit (not the 8 bit, as you mentioned). Is this a positive or a negative?

Color Support24-bit-(16.7 million colors)

Diagonal Size-23in

Diagonal Size (metric)-58.4cm

Form Factor-Desktop

Image Brightness-250cd/m2

Image Contrast Ratio-1000:1

Image Max H-View Angle-170

Image Max V-View Angle-160

Interface-VGA (HD-15) / DVI / HDMI

Max Resolution-1920 x 1080

Response Time-2ms

Technology-TFT active matrix

Type-LCD display

Widescreen-Widescreen

Thanks... Gary

added later:

Oppps, the above is for the XL2370; below is for the P2370 model (pretty much the same, but the 'P' has the TV tuner):

• Diagonal Size 23 in - Widescreen

• Dot Pitch / Pixel Pitch 0.2655 mm

• Max Resolution 1920 x 1080

• Color Support 24-bit (16.7 million colors)

• Max Sync Rate (V x H) 60 Hz x 81 KHz

• Video Bandwidth 164 MHz

• Response Time 2 ms

• Video Output None

• Signal Input DVI-I, VGA

• Features MagicTune , MagicWizard , MagicBright 3 , Sync on Green

[fh1805]

=========================

Colin,

It took me a while, but I found these specs. It has the 16+ million colors, as you state, but it is 24 bit (not the 8 bit, as you mentioned). Is this a positive or a negative?

Gary,

I fear Colin must have been half-asleep when he posted! 16million plus colours and 8-bit technology are mutually exclusive. In binary arithmetic the maximum number that can be represented by 8 bits is 256 (2 raised to the power 8) Two raised to the power 24 (= 24-bit technology) gives 16777216 as the maximum possible number.

24-bit is definitely a positive as far as you are concerned.

regards,

Peter

[goddi]

Gary,

...24-bit is definitely a positive as far as you are concerned.

regards,

Peter

============

Thanks Peter. I can't see any negatives with this monitor/TV. I hope they still have some left.

Gary

[cjdnzl]

Gary,

I fear Colin must have been half-asleep when he posted! 16million plus colours and 8-bit technology are mutually exclusive. In binary arithmetic the maximum number that can be represented by 8 bits is 256 (2 raised to the power 8) Two raised to the power 24 (= 24-bit technology) gives 16777216 as the maximum possible number.

24-bit is definitely a positive as far as you are concerned.

regards,

Peter

No, not asleep, Peter, just a terminological differentiation raising its head. Colour depth is usually expressed as 8-bit, or 16-bit, referring to the number of steps from black to saturated colour for each of the three primary colours. 8-bit has 2^8 or 256 steps from 0 (black) to peak colour, and 16-bit has 2^16 or 65,536 steps from black to peak colour. Photoshop refers to colour depth as 8-bit or 16-bit, and that is understood to be per colour.

So, an 8-bit image (all jpegs are 8-bit by design) has three primary colours each of which has 256 steps, so the combined colour result is 256 x 256 x 256, = 16-odd million possible colour combinations. Don't try to calculate the possible colours in a 16-bit image - 2^48 is BBIIGG! - 28 followed by 13 zeroes!

(Of course, most cameras shooting RAW do it in 12-bit, a few later models use 14-bit, but image editing programs pad the pixels with 2 or 4 bits to make 16-bit, or 2-byte pixels to facilitate handling the image in bytes rather than bits.)

It all boils down to whether you take the photoshop approach, or the advertising hype approach, 8-bit per colour or 24-bit for three colours, its all the same.

But, my original point about being aware of 6-bit - aka 18-bit - screens which sacrifice colour quality for speed of rendering was the main reason for posting in the first place.

Will that do, or do I need a lawyer?

Regards,

Colin

[cjdnzl]

Perhaps I should mention that 8-bit images are entirely adequate for viewing, as 256 steps per colour are more that the eye can distinguish.

The problems come when adjusting images in photoshop or similar, when trying to lighten shadows or darker areas of the image. The distribution of tonal representation in an image is not linear, as gamma comes into play, resulting in more steps available in the lighter areas than dark. So fewer steps in the shadows means a greater change of depth per step, and when one tries to lighten the shadows, the steps become visible as banding or posterizing.

Working in 16-bit greatly increases the number of steps available in shadow areas, so lightening dark areas is far less prone to banding. The rule is, all tonal adjustments should be done in 16-bit before converting to 8-bit for printing. Likewise, all your original images should be stored either as the original RAW images, or at least in 16-bit PSD or Tiff files. Converting to 8-bit and Jpeg is always the last step.

If you shoot in jpeg, depending of course on the purpose of the shoot, you are severely limited on what manipulation you can apply to the image in the way of tonal adjustment.

I am reminded about the story of the old farmer, and his young farmhand who had just finished building a fence across the field. The old farmer said "Is it straight?", and the youngster said "Yep, she's near enough." The old cocky said "near enough is not good enough. I want it STRAIGHT." So the young farmhand set to work and squared and aligned every post until the fence was absolutely straight. The old farmer surveyed the fence and said "Is it straight now?" and the farmhand said "Yep, she's absolutely ruler straight." The old man looked at the fence a while, then said "Well, I guess that's near enough."

I sometimes remember that story when I am working on an image.

Regards,

Colin.

[fh1805]

Will that do, or do I need a lawyer?

Colin,

I think we can agree to settle out of court! As you said at the start of your post: it was just a "terminological differentiation".

regards,

Peter

[fh1805]

...near enough...good enough...

It's sometimes a very fine line between the two. I find that, quite often, near enough is, indeed, good enough provided that the definition of "near enough" has set the bar high enough.

regards,

Peter