I think you need to get out more. :O)

A lot has happened in LCD displays.

What CRT are you running that actually shows 2048x1536? It probably doesn't, you're just feeding it that signal and the resolution is whatever it can muster that day.

CRTs can provide a richness in the image that is a bit like 35mm film, but they are such a pain in so many ways.

Good plasmas today are very close to that CRT feel and don't have the size limitations, and there are many LCDs that are simply stunning when fed a good signal. For way less than $4000-5000.

Perhaps you have only seen 720p LCDs?

It makes quite a difference to see good full raster screens (1920x1080), and I've even seen a 42" 1080p going for less than $900 recently.

Atomic:

I feel your pain, but, as mentioned, LCDs have made some amazing gains over the past few years. The granularity that such pixel-based displays suffer is mostly gone, simply because the pixel sizes have been shrunk so much.

My previous display was a Dell (Sony Trinitron) 21" CRT, which has had an excellent reputation for sharpness and color fidelity. For what it's worth, this new 24" Soyo has a BEAUTIFUL display, and that's coming after my long experience with the Trinitron.

I can't stress enough how impressive the technology is behind this panel (and panels like it). Gone is the black-level-shift effect that you get with regular LCD panels when you move your head up and down.

Finally, I should mention that any remaining granularity can be obviated with the "ClearType" process within Windows, which adds just a touch of blur to text. What I hadn't realized until recently is that there is a utility one can download from MicroSoft that allows one to adjust the degree of blur.

I"m using a Viewsonic G225fB, which is capable of 2048x1536 @ 80Hz.

I get out plenty; I'm always looking at LCD and Plasma TV (and I ignore 720p models) when I have the opportunity, though I don't often bother looking at computer displays since, as I said, I've already got an LCD hooked up as secondary. Though I don't much care about how thin and light it is, as I don't tend to move TVs around, I wouldn't mind having one. I doubt I'd ever buy a TV larger than 40", or maybe 42", anything more would seem a bit excessive.

I won't deny they're getting better, and that some can look good. But they're still not good enough for me to justify that kind of money when I've already got a perfectly good HDTV... and one that's capable of natively displaying 480i and 480p when necessary, to boot. I'll probaly end up having to keep it for that reason, as not everything I watch is at HD resolutions, and every HDTV I've ever seen displays lower resolutions terribly. And from what I've read, flat-panel displalys that can change their native resolutions are pretty far off.

-------------------
The granularity that such pixel-based displays suffer is mostly gone, simply because the pixel sizes have been shrunk so much.
-------------------

Yeah, I'll agree with that... but that's a lot easier to do on a relatively small display like 24" with a resolution of 1920x1200. This is another one of my problems with the television displays, as there's only so much you can do about pixel size when you're trying to stretch 1920x1080 (or, even worse, 1366x768) over screens that range from 30-something up to beyond 50" in size.

Viewsonic G225fB, which is capable of 2048x1536 @ 80Hz

Those specs mean that it is capable of accepting such as signal without losing sync.

If you measure the actual image resolution on the face of your CRT, you'll be hard pressed to reach 2048x1536.

I'm always looking at LCD and Plasma TV (and I ignore 720p models) when I have the opportunity...

Well, the difficulty when going to big box stores is to find a setup that provides a quality signal. I have seen a competent setup at Circuit City in Santa Monica, CA, but I don't know if this reflects company edicts on using a proper setup with quality signal distribution.

Magnolia store (often in Best Buy stores) are a bit more high end, but this can be a good place to go see what a good picture looks like.

...every HDTV I've ever seen displays lower resolutions terribly.

If you read reviews published over the last few years, they always mention how good or not the picture looks with an SD signal. This varies widely, but many screens do an amazing job of upscaling, and I have no SD complaints from even the pickiest viewers with any of my LCD HD setups.

I certainly agree that this was a very substantial problem for many years, and even today you absolutely have to be careful about what you buy.

I doubt I'd ever buy a TV larger than 40", or maybe 42", anything more would seem a bit excessive.

My biggest TV is 110" (front projection), but I don't use that all the time. It is sometimes just too big to be convenient.

In the past I had a Pioneer Elite 55" rear projection TV, and it was just the right size for the room it was in.

That should (ideally) be the deciding factor, together with the much more important factor of sheer image quality.

I am simply dumbfounded by the image quality of my Westinghouse 24" LCDs that I paid $399 for each. I'd challenge anyone to say that these aren't good enough, for either HD or SD.

I posted about these 4-6 weeks ago, check those out for more detail if you want.

Notably, Sony has just released a BVM class video Vonitor this month that uses LCD technology for the first time.

BVM stands for Broadcast Video Monitor and is their highest quality class, a substantial notch above their PVM (Professional Video Monitor) series. No expense has been spared in the BVMs (which is reflected in the price), but those LCDs look goood.

---------
Those specs mean that it is capable of accepting such as signal without losing sync.

If you measure the actual image resolution on the face of your CRT, you'll be hard pressed to reach 2048x1536.
-----------

Well, who knows... and I'm not that into the technical aspects of these monitors so I'm not sure exactly what you mean by measure. But whenever I play a video that's 1920x1080, the thing never quite goes all the way across my screen unless I set the player to fullscreen; so I assume the display has more than 1920 pixels across, which is close enough to 2048 for me.

-----------
I am simply dumbfounded by the image quality of my Westinghouse 24" LCDs that I paid $399 for each. I'd challenge anyone to say that these aren't good enough, for either HD or SD.
-----------

I've found it's harder to find fault in the image quality of screens that size as well, like I said before. Certainly its easier to pick apart the image on a 40"+ TV, if only due to the fact they have the same (or similar) number of pixels over such a larger surface.

I quite like my 24" Samsung LCD monitor, as well. But I have no plans to throw out my CRT just yet. And my CRT HDTV will stay around for as long as I continue to have DVDs and SD content.

One of the most important specs needed for selecting a photo-grade LCD monitor is the color depth. Most LCD-s, these days, are geared for gamers who need very fast pixel lifetimes, like 3-4ms. These LCD's are very cheap, ~$200 for 24 inch screens, but, totally insufficient for CCing because at 16 bit or less, they don't display the full color gamut. Real TFT displays, at 24 bit, display the full range of RGB colors(several millions of colors, I forget how many) These kinds of displays have longer pixel lifetimes, 12-15ms, and cost considerably more. If you do CCing or color work in photoshop, stay away from these cheaper LCD's.

But whenever I play a video that's 1920x1080, the thing never quite goes all the way across my screen unless I set the player to fullscreen; so I assume the display has more than 1920 pixels across, which is close enough to 2048 for me.

That's not the right test. Imagine that you quantize the 2048 pixels across to 1024 pixels of horizontal resolution. You'd still see that 1920 pixels won't "go all the way across the screen."

The real question is whether you could display a pattern with say 1024 white pixels alternating with 1024 black pixels all on one line.

But of course if your CRT is working well and you don't mind the electrical bill, it makes sense to continue using it.

These LCD's are very cheap, ~$200 for 24 inch screens, but, totally insufficient for CCing because at 16 bit or less, they don't display the full color gamut. Real TFT displays, at 24 bit, display the full range of RGB colors(several millions of colors, I forget how many) These kinds of displays have longer pixel lifetimes, 12-15ms, and cost considerably more.

Sorry, as of 2007 you can't generalize that so easily.

Many older LCDs and a small number of current LCDs have only 6 bits per subpixel (R,G,B) of true color depth. These screens then use dithering to reach 8 bits per subpixel, which is OK for most people "watching TV" but doesn't cut it for the most critical use.

Most screens today, at one notch up from the cheapest, have 8-bit color depth (per subpixel, so 24 bits total). The next step up, such as Sony's latest color correction LCDs, have 11 bits of color depth.

Even that is not the record; 13 bits is the highest I've seen, but not in a released product.

Listen to what I mean not what I say...;o)
My point is, cheap LCD displays won't EVER give you a good color image to CC to. Especially if you're a photgrapher.

I deeply agree, and just think it is a pity that the good 21" screens cost $2K+

If you ever see anything for this purpose that costs less, please holler here!

Riredale,

There are two long threads about this model over at AnandTech Hot Deals.

Here is the other one.

Have you looked at the Westinghouse 24" models?

John

Newegg has Westinghouse 24" for $359.99 after rebate.

Newegg has Westinghouse 24" for $359.99 after rebate.

That's a great deal. Last month I paid $399AR each for two of these. Snif!

They are really good, with near 180 deg. viewing angle and an excellent picture. THey even look nice, with a piano black frame, non-glare screen, and a discreet stand.

Only two things that I wish they would have done differently: source switching is done with barely perceptible buttons, and there is no auto-snooze when the video signal is turned off (instead you get the BSOL, the Blue Screen Of Life :O).

I'm using a Samsung Syncmaster 215tw which works very well, but, it cost me ~$500. 24 million colors, beats out my Sony widescreen which I paid twice as much for a few years ago.

I was in a Micro Center last weekend near Cleveland and they had an Acer 24" for $300 after rebate.

Gateway 24" Widescreen HD is on sale right now for $500. But their shipping and taxes drive the display back up to about $593 for me.

Gateway 24" monitor at Best Buy with speaker bar for clearance price of $375. Saw it Sunday evening. This is the older version that was just replaced (no HDMI) but plenty of inputs.

I just purchased (and am currently using) the 24" Gateway you mentioned. WOW. $380 out the door for a new in box LCD from a company you've heard of. Maybe I need to go grab the last two they have???

Glad you got the savings!

Maybe I need to go grab the last two they have???

Prices are coming down, so not unless you really need them now.

One of my monitors took a dive 2 months ago and it was killing me. Editing on one 19" monitor just doesn't work. I couldn't take it any longer. Now I am back to two monitors. A lot of new models are coming out now. I hope the price drops significantly. I would like two 24" monitors!!

Apparently, OfficeMax is going to be selling the Soyo monitor for $249 on Black Friday. Some people have reported problems with this monitor, but I've had mine since mid-August and have been very pleased with it-- excellent color fidelity and a panel technology that won't shift the black level if you bob your head up and down. Very pleased with mine.

Deal is back on again, according to TechBargains. Price with free shipping is now $285. Excellent color, no black-level shift.