Best DVI quality card

[Ashley]

Ummm... if you've got a digital LCD monitor connected via DVI-D, the IQ of the display is going to be determined by the monitor itself, not the graphics card. There may be many reasons to pick one card over another, but DVI-D IQ isn't one of them.

[Wombat]

Despends. You're no longer using the analog circuitry of the video card, but it's still the card's color rendering, etc., that counts.

[spadnos]

Um...

I'd go with a CRT and a Parhelia. No LCD can match the color output of an analog monitor. An LCD does its' own digital->analog conversion, and rarely do LCD's do any better than 6 bits/color (18-bits total). (many say that they're better than that, but it's uncommon for them to REALLY be better)

A monitor (of suitable quality) can output any number of colors that the display card can generate. In this case, the Parhelia will do well, with its' 30-bit GigaColor mode.

As for monitors, try a LaCie ElectronBlue III - I have a professional photographer friend who swears by them (not at them, like the Mitsubishi DP-2060U's he had before .

[afterburn]

Originally posted by Seajnky
novid: so your saying the ATI 128m is the way to go?

No, plenty ram. Video memory is relatively unimportant for 2D.

[Novdid]

Originally posted by afterburn
No, plenty ram. Video memory is relatively unimportant for 2D.

Exactly!

[gbm]

1. For 2D editing you need a proper size of COMPUTER's RAM, not video RAM on the graphics board. For graphics card 32 MB is more than enough. As for the computer - 256 MB is a minimum.

2. You are still missing the point. LCD screen does not display colors properly, and its color range is very limited (7 bits per primary at most). For photo editing this is NOT a solution. LCD is perfect for office work but not for realistic color rendering.

3. 1280x1024 is a minimum resolutoin for photo editing. I would suggest you go for higher res, esp. considering that any good CRT monitor suporting 1600x1200 is probably cheaper than your jumbo low res LCD.

[afterburn]

To illustrate the point: 1280*1024 means 1.3mpixel. For digital photography that is horribly insufficient for anything other than shoot pictures that need to be displayed on a computerscreen or TV. Even 1600x1200 is only 2mpixel and limits the amount of detail you can see while you are editing.

[[Ch]amsalot]

IMNSHO, the best CRTs for a graphic artist would use Mitsubishi's Natural-Flat CRTs. In my personal experience, the NF tubes have noticeably better color vibrancy than even the best SONYs.

For LCDs, there is only one worthy of a graphic artist: The Sharp LL-T1820. What sets this 1280x1024 resolution LCD apart from ALL OTHER LCDs is it's 10-bit gamma which permits 1024 greytones per pixel (all other LCDs have 8-bit, or 256 greytones).



If you must have 1600x1200 in a LCD, then the next choice is BenQ's incredible FP 2081. While it lacks the 10-bit gamma of the Sharp, it has an otherwise near perfect display. True, it's a couple of hundred dollars more expensive than the Viewsonic VX2000's my brother purchased and it is not as contrasty, but what it lacks in contast it more than makes up for in image accuracy.



-[Ch]ams

[knirfie]

I still dont get why people use LCD displays for Photoshop and other ´design´ programs, the color range on normal monitors is so much better, not to talk about contrast ratio´s, resolution and brightness.

[WyWyWyWy]

Originally posted by knirfie
I still dont get why people use LCD displays for Photoshop and other ´design´ programs, the color range on normal monitors is so much better, not to talk about contrast ratio´s, resolution and brightness.

You can blame Apple on this one.

Anyway, really pro (not those home-based) graphic studios still use CRT.

Graphic artists use LCD because they think:

1. LCD is cool.
2. Designers have to be cool.

Not true pro artist IMO.

[K6-III]

Originally posted by [Ch]amsalot
IMNSHO, the best CRTs for a graphic artist would use Mitsubishi's Natural-Flat CRTs. In my personal experience, the NF tubes have noticeably better color vibrancy than even the best SONYs.

For LCDs, there is only one worthy of a graphic artist: The Sharp LL-T1820. What sets this 1280x1024 resolution LCD apart from ALL OTHER LCDs is it's 10-bit gamma which permits 1024 greytones per pixel (all other LCDs have 8-bit, or 256 greytones).



If you must have 1600x1200 in a LCD, then the next choice is BenQ's incredible FP 2081. While it lacks the 10-bit gamma of the Sharp, it has an otherwise near perfect display. True, it's a couple of hundred dollars more expensive than the Viewsonic VX2000's my brother purchased and it is not as contrasty, but what it lacks in contast it more than makes up for in image accuracy.



-[Ch]ams

In that regard, you can also consider the Sharp LL-T1620, which is the 1820, but in a 16" rather than an 18"....

[[Ch]amsalot]

K6,

You quoted my whole post, images and all, just to tell peeps they can get the 16"??

LOL! Good thing I got a mouse with a scroll wheel!

-[Ch]ams

[GNEP]

[Ch]

You mean that you actually wrote a whole post?

On more than one line?

Just to comment on that??


Good thing that I've got a scrollwheel too.