LaCie or Mitsubishi 22" CRT?
 

Hello, all. Just wondering if any of you have any experience with either of these monitors for video editing:

LaCie ElectronBlue IV 22" CRT
http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?id=10037

or

Mitsubishi Diamond Pro DP2070SB-BK 22" CRT
http://www.necmitsubishi.com/products/home/mitsubishi_index.cfm

They're both about the same price, and have the same monitor specs. LaCie comes with a hood for removing reflections, and Mitsubishi comes with 4 (downstream) USB ports, while LaCie has only 3. Also, the LaCie weighs 60lbs, vs 65lbs for the Mitsubishi.

I'm trying to decide which would suit my needs better, and any advice would be very welcome.

Thanks!

I think you're into splitting hairs with these two monitors. The hood isn't much use for video, but great for print work. So, if you also do print work, that might be a factor. I've used the Mits and the picture is among the best. Some are even switchable to NTSC video, which may be a plus.

I have friends using the LaCie and I've been equally impressed with it's picture. So, price and the few odd features are all that separates them. Either way, you won't go wrong.

Jaime, which one did you go with? I'm selling one of my two LCDs for a CRT to help the accuracy of my color graphics work. I was deciding between these EXACT two though I'll probably go ahead and buy the Blue Eye (if I go Lacie) or the Spetra Vision (if I go Mitsubishi).

I actually think Mitsubishi designs both monitors and LaCie just markets it as their own. The specs are too similar.

I did, however, find the 22" ElectronBlue IV over at PCNation.com for $600. Quite compelling.

But yeah, please do- let me know which you went with and if your happy with your decision.

Glen,

I just set up my brand new Mitsubishi 22" DiamondPro 2070SB. What made me get that one over the LaCie was the price ($678 shipped), the 4 port USB hub (versus 3 for LaCie), and the color (black, which goes very well with my computer).

I do believe that the LaCie monitor is also made by Mitsubishi, so theoretically the image should be identical. I haven't seen them side by side, and in fact hadn't seen either one in person before buying, so I can't compare them.

As far as image quality, this thing is beautiful! I can't see virtually any glare, and the colors are rich and lifelike. The resolution is impressive. Right now I'm using it at 1600x1200 for internet and email stuff, but when I start up with the vifdeo work, I'm sure I'll bump it up to 2048x1536. I've noticed that at that high resolution, very small text gets a bit soft, but seems ideal for long timelines and Photoshop work. All in all, I'm very happy with this monitor, and can't wait to dive into editing on this thing. I'm sure you'll love it too.

Hope this helps!

One other thing... This sucker is HEAVY!!! 65.7 lbs! And the box it ships in is huge-gantic. It's the one thing that made me think I should have gotten an LCD, but then I realized I'd be paying 2x for a comparably sized LCD, and promptly patted myself on the back for being a smart shopper.

Well if you want an LCD as a second monitor- to store all your photoshop/NLE palettes say the word. I'm selling one of my brand-new NEC LCD1765s (Check out NecMitsubishi.com, and my post on the Private Classifieds Forum- http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=17284)

Yeah I found the LaCie ElectronBlue IV for cheaper than that...should I go with the LaCie? Hmm- how about Spectravision...did your monitor package come with it? If so that was an AWESOME deal!

Regarding fonts getting 'soft'...there becomes a point when your res is so high it's not condusive to the dotpitch of the monitor. .24 is nice but it's not like the Sony F520 which boasts an industry standar .22. The F520 could probably display that res's fonts crystal clear...though it comes at a price. The monitor retails for $1700!
Another thing to help the sharpness of the image- which I didn't believe would work till I tried it myself is tone down your refresh rate. If your running a high refresh of like 85 or 100hz you might encounter a little bit of blurring due to the extra video bandwidth needed to display an image with that kind of refresh. I turned mine down (on my old Sony E540) from 85 to 75 and I actually gained a considerable amount of sharpness!

Wow. I just tried the lower refresh rate tip... everything is much sharper now! I never would have though of that. Thanks!

I say if you found the LaCie for $600 then go for it. If the image is anything like the Mitsubishi, you will be very pleased. I didn't get the Spectravision, though. The price was for the monitor alone. I'm not sure if you'd need it for web design stuff, or video work; an NTSC monitor is best for checking accurate colors for video.

I unfortunately can't take your LCD because I can't afford it, and even if I could I don't have any room for it! Good luck selling it!

What refresh were you running before? What did you switch it to to see the added sharpness?

PS I'd be getting the BlueEye Vision/Spectravision for web graphic design. Is it only for pre-press work?

Before I was running it at 100 Hz at 1600x1200. Now I have it at 75 Hz. It really is a world of a difference. Everything looks much cleaner, clearer and sharper. And no flicker. It looked good before, but now its even better.

As far as the Blue Eye / Spectravision, I really don't know. I don't do pre-press work, and have never used a CRT calibrator, so I can't offer an informed opinion on it.

Got the Mitsu 22, one at home and one at work, and YES it is heavy! And takes up a lot of desk real estate! And it's a bit dark both in Photoshop and FCP. Need to look at my work on an NTSC monitor to see if the lighting is OK. Next monitor will be an Apple Cinema...yes, more expensive but worth it, imho.

I'm not sure about FCP but it may use video overlay. If so the look of the footage will be completly determined by your overlay settings in the video card. If stills look dark in Photoshop maybe your calibration is off. Did you get the Specravision with it?
The Apple Cinema Display IS sweet, however if your doing any graphic work any...ANY LCD is sub par. Reason being regardless of contrast ratio it still is incredibly inaccurate in the low end. Off black and black seem to blend together with no distinction between the two. If you adjust the brightness/contrast to fix this you end up getting whit saturation.

Re: Video work- you should always use external monitor. The only way to go!

Dude,

You can get a nice 18inch Sony LCD for the same price. I can't stand CRT's anymore. They are clumsy, heavy, you can never get them to adjust right, they lose their brightness after a while, take up too much space and much more. We have all LCD's here now and we will never go back.

Go and check out the Sony LCD's, they look awesome. Samsung is making some really crisp ones too.

Glen, no Spectravision. I did play with the gamma some and it helped a little.

Mark, Sony is same price as what, Apple or Mitsubishi?

I totally agree about the major disadvantages of CRTs. I had to ship my desktop to an on-location gig, and there ain't no way I was gonna ship that load of a Mitsu 22 with it, so I "borrowed" an LCD off the Fiery print spooler (using the Mitsu to take its place) and shipped the little LCD instead. Worked out fine. Of course, not as easy as bringing a laptop. :-)

Mark, the only advantages LCDs have over CRTs are physical ones. If space and weight aren't an issue CRTs are still king (visually). LCDs are more than adequate for video work in an NLE- but you can't do any serious graphic work on an LCD....and I have a set of really nice ones *thankyouverymuch*
http://www.mazdamp3.com/vbb230/_hand...my%20setup.jpg Better displaymate results and pixel response than any in Sony's line-up. Yet- it's still not up to par of a good calibrated CRT. It'll be a while before LCDs match the color representation and viewing angles of CRTs.

The only image I've seen that beats the Apple 23 inch Cinema Display (LCD) is the Sony Artisan (CRT). Plenty of serious pre-press, graphics arts, design and photography is done on high end CRT's.

Jeff,
Ya know I was looking at those CRTs today. I saw an add on the back of an older issue of PhotoshopUser magazine. They look pretty nice but according to the specs are no better than the Mitsubishi DiamondPro and LaCie ElectronBlue IV (both same monitor) However it's price is much more. I thought maybe it was their F520 with a hood and color calibrator...but it isn't. I checked the dot pitch and the Artisan is only .24. The F520 is .22, the highest in the industry.

So you said the Artisan has a really good picture. I'm assuming the Mitsu/LaCie should be in the same realm.

Yeah, that's a real nice set, Glen! :-)

Since I am slowly migrating away from prepress-oriented projects now that I have one of the best Quark-Illustrator-Photoshop artists in CT on my team, and I'm spending more time on video editing, the benefits of LCD become more appealing.

Of course, that doesn't mean our I.T. gods here are the slightest bit inclined to buy them.

When it becomes as difficult to buy CRTs as 8-track car stereos, they'll adopt LCD I'm sure.

When my daughter bought her PC two years ago it came with an LCD and I was like: "Ooooh, cutting edge!" Now, buy a computer at Wal-Mart and it's just as likely to come with an LCD, or at least flat glass on the CRT for a few bucks less.

I have a nice pair...of speakers!
:-)

Mike- do you think having a color calibrator for web graphic work is overkill?...Or can it actually help?

Glen, there is more to a monitor than dot pitch. The color gamut, accuracy etc. are more important for much of my work. One of the advantages of LCD's is they hold calibration much longer than most CRT's. The Sony Artisan has built in hardware calibration that simplifies the process for most users.

Color accuracy is more important for pre press and photography, in my opinion. But as web browsers improve, the need for increased accuracy in web graphics will become apparent.

The hardware calibration is only achieved through the used of a color calibrator made for that monitor. In the Sony Artisan case it comes included in the price. The LaCie and Mitsubishi can be purchased with or without the colorcalibrator. Both of them offer true hardware calibration as well.

Regarding web graphics- the term "web-safe color" is already obsolete...I don't know anyone that doesn't have a video card that can display 16 million colors (at least). Even the lowest of the low, say, a cheap E-machine brand computer with intergrated graphics is capable of 32bit color.

So with the assumption that all browsers that will be viewing my pages will have a video card that can display 16-32bit color- is a hardware color calibrator for my next CRT advisable? Granted I know profiling is mainly for pre-press work however it also sets the black point, white point, and neutral grey which can be tricky. With that alone I can be assured there are no color casts...correct?

In other words........Color Calibrator.......Yay or Nay?

Well, if a Pantone Personal Color Calibrator (P2C2) will do the trick for $45, that's helpful...but before I go paying almost $500 for the La Cie Blue Eye, there are a lot of other things I would want to spend that money on first: another UHF wireless mic, etc.

That's just my situation, your mileage may vary.

But if your doing graphic work for hire wouldn't it be beneficial to know the graphics I'm sending to a client were created on a calibrated monitor?

Calibrating and profiling a monitor is only one step in the entire process of color management. It will insure that your colors are accurate. However, I don't think Internet Explorer supports ColorSync or icc profiles or other methods of color management. If you also calibrate your clients monitors then they will have a chance of viewing accurately your graphic design work. But most software is not color smart and can not be color managed across multiple computers.

Jeff,
My main concern is the guess-work involved in trying to manually calibrate my monitor. When I do graphics and send it out to a client I worry that maybe my monitor is a bit oversaturated and the graphics and beings so...I make the graphics accordingly and have them end up looking flat and undersaturated. Or even worse my white, black, and grey points. I have trouble setting the *perfect* grey point etc.

The benefit of profiling wouldn't really effect me beings I'm not doing pre-press. But I want the colors I see in Photoshop while editing images to be the exact colors they are supposed to be. My client I'm working heavily with has professionally calibrated monitors though they aren't LaCie Monitors so I don't know how much the integrity will hold up.

Regarding IE, I think I'd be using an sRGB profile which is default for webgraphics...which is what I use now. I've even tested graphics I did in Photoshop and checked their integrity in IE and it seemed to hold up.

I dunno maybe I should pick up a book on color calibration/profiling it's all still confusing to me.

So Jeff, do you think having a calibrator will help me?

If your client is using a calibrated monitor then I would definetly consider a good hardware calibrator. I use the Pantone SpyderPro. It works with both LCD and CRT's. The cost is fairly affordable and does a great job for the money. They are available from B & H Photo, one of our sponsors.

Well I'd go with the LaCie blue eye beings it doesn't do calibration on the software level. It litterally does true hardware calibration.
So- yes it is worth it?