View Full Version : LCD or CRT for video editing.

28-07-2004, 07:46 PM
I am just about to buy a desktop computer for home. I will be mainly using it for editing video. I'll be running avid software. I'll also use it for photos and general internet serving etc.. No games.

Neither space or money are a real issue. I would love to buy a 19" LCD (probably Philips) but have been advised that a CRT would be better quality.

Does anyone out there use their LCD for editing, and what are the results. Thankyou in advance.

28-07-2004, 07:57 PM
If you get a good LCD, you won't see a difference in picture quality.

Beware of the resolution though - a CRT can provide excellent quality at any resolution, but an LCD can only display its best at it's maximum (native, i think they call it) resolution - which makes things look small!

28-07-2004, 09:19 PM
I haven't needed a high quality CRT for editing however my Step Dad does desktop publishing for various companies and has just upgraded his monitor, he went with a CRT as he felt an LCD could not give him the true colours he required. It basically comes down to the user and what you need. If you like the space and the colours on an LCD are fine for what you are doing then by all means grab the 19" Phillips. Just make sure that is the model with the 3 year "zero bright dot" warranty or you might end up with a very very annoying blown pixel.

28-07-2004, 09:46 PM
The Zero Bright Dot warranty is with the "B" series of Philips LCD monitors, e.g. I have the 170/B, 17in. Am very happy with it and upgraded my PC mainly due to video editing. the 170B also has a refresh (?) rate of 16ms, whereas some LCDs still are being sold with 25ms, maybe more. I would advise that you ask the shop if you can check the screen for bad pixels before you pay for it - Atech in Wgtn was happy about this and the techie put the screen through several modes so I could test it.

I do quite a bit of digital photo manipulation, home stuff, not professional; I mainly use Photoshop 6. The new LCD is fine - I have no complaints.

I almost went with a 19in CRT. Lovely big screen but what a BIG footprint!!! Now that I finally have an LCD, the old Win98 PC to my right, with its 17in CRT looks so "Last Centiury".

Before deciding on an LCD (got the new system only 3 weeks ago) I happened to go into our local newspaper editing office, to give them a beautiful photo (on a CD) that they put on the front page. When the sub editor viewed the photo, it was on a 17in Viewsonic (slightly better contrast, a bit slower refresh rate, but worse pixel warranty). Anyway, she said that her new LCD screen was fantastic, and she does a lot of photo work every day.

Having said all of the above, true blue purists will go for CRTs, flat screen of course. They do have the best resolution, refresh, contrast, colours. They also fling radiation in your face, which other types of purists would not stand for. And of course a big 19in CRT is still lots cheaper than a 17in LCD. Good luck choosing. :D

28-07-2004, 10:42 PM
I'm thinking of getting the Samsung Syncmaster 172X (http://www.ascent.co.nz/mn-product-spec.asp?pid=119143), and the specsheet (http://www.samsung.com/Products/Monitor/LCDMonitor/Monitor_LCDMonitor_172X_sp.htm) for it.

Curious about Samsungs pixel policy though?

29-07-2004, 08:54 AM
You might want to invest in a dual-monitor setup, because many video editing programs operate best in such a system. It is quite common for professionals to do this.

However, it might be too expensive to do so.

I have used my montior (el-cheapo 15" LCD) for video editing before, without any problems, however that's just my opinion.

29-07-2004, 09:11 AM
Kiki, try the words "pixel warranty guarantee Samsung LCD" in Google. A month ago I searched for the best warranty and it was Philips.

29-07-2004, 09:16 AM
Yawn, I am not awake yet. Guarantee? Guaranty!

BTW, prior to buying the Philips 170B, I put my friend's 170S LCD screen through tests using a game and a DVD movie. The "S" series has a slower refresh rate but everything looked A-OK and my friend is glad he has it and not a CRT.

29-07-2004, 11:37 AM
I use a CRT 21" and its great takes up lots of space and is very heavy but space isnt a big issue with me

29-07-2004, 12:17 PM
I provide technical services for companies that do non-linear editing and have video edit suites.

If you are running an AVID system you would be best to go for 2 x 21" CRT monitors (19" bare minimum) - as you will get frustrated with anything less. The AVID system is designed to be split across 2 monitors.

LCD are great for still images but the latency with moving video is not ideal and only the very top end LCDs (read = expensive) will have refresh rates that are close to that of a CRT.

Don't forget that you will need LARGE amounts of hard drive space. I'm talking 100 Gb absolute minimum - raw video takes up a LOT of space especially when editing.
If you are to be editing full length films you would be looking more like 300 - 500 Gb of storage space.

Billy T
29-07-2004, 12:36 PM
> They also fling radiation in your face

Not so Steve, firstly they emit no "radiation" as such, and never have, and secondly all modern monotors comply with international standards for ELF and VLF alternating electromagnetic field emissions (magnetic and electrical fields are assessed separately, along with static field voltages).

Provided they are a minimum of 30 cm from their screen (and just try working that close!) users are not exposed to any significant electromagnetic influences.


Billy 8-{)

29-07-2004, 01:26 PM
Well I found the Samsung pixel warranty (http://www.samsung.com/sg/support/warrantyterms). (Scroll down to the end of the page).

Looks like the better version is only available on certain models, or they haven't updated it?

Surely if I was paying over $1000 they would have a good policy for the 172X? 7 dead pixels is an awful lot I think.

29-07-2004, 03:06 PM
>>users are not exposed to any significant electromagnetic influences.

Billy, I myself am not concerned with radiation - this is why I added the "purists" (read: Greenie-Healthgood-type-of-person) bit. I know of one couple who lived for a couple of years in a hut with no electricity, and even now - in their hydroelectric/solar energy house, their bedroom is with very minimal wiring; and they would freak at the thought of an electric blanket. Anyway, for certain health purists, they would sneer at "any significant influences". But myself, I have no problem.

Billy T
29-07-2004, 03:32 PM
> I know of one couple who lived for a couple of years in a hut with
> no electricity, and even now - in their hydroelectric/solar energy house, > their bedroom is with very minimal wiring; and they would freak at the
> thought of an electric blanket.

You gotta laugh though Steve. Ignorance is bliss. Never mind the house, there's the earth's magnetic field that induces currents in your body proportional to your speed across the surface, these's magnetic anomalies that increase the field at various locations and reduce it at others, then there's the ongoing nuclear explosion that gives us light and heat. Even us non-greenies know the consequences of too much of that.

And the real killer is radon gas which seeps out of the earth pretty much everywhere and is a known carcinogenic agent. The closer the hut is to the ground the more they get.

Best to get on with living and stop worrying about dying. You don't miss anything by dying but you can sure miss a lot of good things by worrying too much.


Billy 8-{)