Sark

Hi all.

Last year I suffered with some health problems which I am now 99% certain are related to working on my PC's CRT display.

I have been informed that TFT's are less prone to many of the problems caused by CRT's.

Just wondered if anyone here works with Photoshop using a TFT.
I'm not asking regarding health issues, as that is something that will affect different people differently. I'm just interested to know if the image quality of a TFT is as suitable for imaging work as a CRT.

I'm considering an 18/19" model and would appreciate any advice from anyone currently working with a similar unit.

TIA

Sark

austizmo

Welcome sark. I'm sorry to hear of your health problems. And I'd love to answer your question, but I'm not sure what a TFT is. Maybe you could post a link to information? Or explain for those of us not in the know?

phatkat

TFT is an LCD monitor....a.k.a Flat panel.

austizmo

Ah. Gotcha. Yes I run photoshop on an LCD moniter. As long as you are viewing it head on it looks just fine.

Although I have heard the florescent lights used to light LCD moniters can cause retinal problems.

ToXin

A small point but a TFT isn't a LCD monitor...

TFT - Thin Film Transistor
LCD - Liquid Crystal Display
(neither require an electron 'gun' to create the image)

Whilst they look similar (flat) they work differently, the more modern TFT emits it's own light rather than having to be backlit.

The LCD is worse, but both can have a tendency to cause eye strain, particularly in long work sessions, which most of my PS work end up as

The resolution and sharpness isn't as good as a mid range CRT (in my personal experience) but it's personal preference or what suit you.

I am thinking about a new PC, and my intention is to get a decent CRT monitor with a diamondtron tube. larger, higher resolution, better display imo but it will take up a whole barn-load of desk space. [confused]

Sark

Yes, as phatkat explained, TFT is a flat panel display. I guess this term is more commonly used in the UK than the USA. Didn't know there was a difference between TFT and LCD though.

I was always given the impression that they were more suited to text work than imaging. Not sure why. Maybe the lower resolution of early cheaper units was partly why some held this view. I also assumed they were less likely to cause the problems associated with long sessions on a PC. It appears I maybe wrong here.

I shall do some searches and see if I can find some more in depth info relating to this issue. It may prove that a better quality flat CRT could be a better option.

Thanks for the replies.

Sark

MsOz

Without your going into details, this advice may or may not help, but something you should consider if you do not already do so is the Hertz rate of your monitor.

By default, many monitors run at 60Hz, which although it looks okay, is actually seizure inducing for some individuals.
Some monitors have an "automatic" setting, but I personally like to set all my monitors at 85Hz, as there is little noticible additional drain on my PC resources, but the picture is stronger in my peripheral vision (I run 3-4 monitors from 2-3 PC's at any one time), and I find I have far fewer headaches from being infront of my PC's for long periods of time. I can't stand that subtle flicker happening on my screen...

You can adjust your monitor rate under the Control Panel, Display, advanced settings.

BTW Toxin, My main monitor on my "Big Dog" system is a 19" Diamondtron NF flat-screen with a Radion 9600 video card. Cranked up to 1200x1600, the detail you can see and control with Photoshop is beyond belief! Fully zoom maxed, you have one pixel displaying as about 1/2" square...Yeah, it IS a desktop hog, about 17" high and wide, 18" deep, and "it ain't heavy, it's my monitor" is not even a good theme song [saywhat] , but I wouldn't have either of my other 2 trinitron monitors as the primary as long as I have this one!!!

ToXin

I'm not a doctor nor optician, just saying my own experience with a LCD gave me serious headaches after 15 mins or so. I hate laptops.

Something else I didn't mention is the position of the monitor in relation to artificial / natural light.

I think the screen should have illumination from both - artificial from above, natural from the side at ~90degrees. (health and safety booklet)

about refresh rate - I agree with MsOz : maximum usable is best, if you look away from the monitor to the side and can see a flicker out of the corner of your eye it's going to be causing eye strain without you realising it.

aside, do you see the lateral support wires as a slight shadow across the diamondtron ?

hmm, I also wonder if the SONY widescreen monitor is worth ?1700 [shocked]

Welles

As you can tell from the variety of answers here, the responses to monitors are extremely subjective. I've been using an Apple Cinema Display for two and a half years as my primary monitor. My old primary, a LaCie Blue II which was considered a very good monitor when calibrated properly (it is), is relegated to a palette monitor so they sit side by side. I often spend 16 hour sessions, breaking only for meals and hourly 'circulation' exercises.

With the CRT, I would be bleary eyed and prone to headaches after about 10-12 hours continuous use, a complaint which doesn't exist for me with the Apple Cinema Display (ACD). The crispness of images and text is significant with the ACD compared to the LaCie. I wouldn't have ever noticed without the direct comparison because the LaCie is so much better than many other mid-priced CRTs. (Some years ago I ran a software test of the electron gun alignments just out of curiosity and they were optimum for the monitor.) One distinct difference is that I can read text for an hour or two before my attention wanders whereas I am lucky to get 15 minutes on a CRT.

People whose judgement about Color Correction and Photoshop is always worthy of note (Bruce Fraser for one) still find, in their workflows, that color is more accurate on a good CRT, for example the Sony Artisan. While I believe these experts, my work goes from my main computer to a networked computer which drives my own printers. I can have my prints look almost exactly as does the image I create on my ACD, given the difference of reflected light and illuminated and the limitations of ink/paper combinations. Given my circumstances of a very narrow, controlled work flow my color perceptions of the ACD get an enthusiastic endorsement.

So if you are looking for a LCD, I'm an enthusiastic supporter of the technology. Do read lots of reviews of your varying options, make sure your video card is capable of sending a digital signal to the monitor, look at the viewing angle carefully (wider is better particularly for color change perceptions), and if at all possible try to compare before you buy.

Sark

Just to clarify a little.

At the end of 2002 I had symptoms which in the New year (2003) were diagnosed as Glandular fever.
This can last 6 to 12 weeks in younger people but, in us older folk it can drag on longer. It was November, last year, before I was fully recovered.

As well as the standard symptoms for this illness, I also suffered, on and off, from stomach problems, which I assumed were related.

It was at the end of a week visiting relatives, last November, that I felt I was virtually free of all the symptoms. Then, after returning home, the stomach problems returned along with mild nausia. This cleared over xmas (2003) but returned this New year. I eventually realised this was coinciding with periods of working on my PC.

If I have a break of 5 to 6 days from my PC I feel fine but, after a couple of sessions back in front of the screen the problems return. I suspect the stomach problems I had last year were related to the PC rather than my illness. The mild nausia most suffer from after long stretches at the PC I could tolerate. This however, is having a knock on effect with me that is less tolerable.

A few points worth making...My current monitor is a 19" unit (not a flat tube). This suffers badly from reflections, as such I need to work with the curtains drawn, or in low light conditions. I do run at 75hz but have never tried running higher. Although reasonably sharp the monitor is not as bright as some (this can't be resolved from the menu without compromising contrast and colour).

I realise I need a new monitor and the replies posted here seem to confirm it is quality, rather than type, of display that matters. Having searched and read some more on the subject, it is clear that enviroment (in my case, poor lighting) is also playing a part. Something that could be resolved with a better display.

To all those that have replied. It really is appreciated. Many thanks.

Sark