Why are LCD's so Bright?

T

TwistedMetalGear

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 19, 2005
Messages
2,476
This is ridiculous. Every single LCD I use is like a nuclear bomb in terms of brightness. I take pictures with my digi cam and they look great on my CRT... Nicely shadowed, deep blacks, etc... Then I look at them on an LCD and holy crap everything is lit up like a Christmas tree. I tested this on countless different LCD's, Dell, Samsung, the new Apple Imacs, etc...

Case in point. I took a picture which was dark to begin with and went into the brightness options in photoshop. I turned it all the way down. -150 brightness. This caused an almost pitch black image on my CRT.

So I send it to myself via email and check it on the other computer which has an LCD. And holy crap, it's no longer pitch black, I can make out every little detail because there are no more pure black pixels.

I realize that most LCD's default to 100% brightness, while my CRT is at something like 40%. But I can't turn the CRT up that high or everything becomes really washed out.

I don't know why exactly I'm posting this, maybe I just need to rant, because my pictures look so ridiculously different on LCD's than on CRT's. Kind of pisses me off that there's no consistency between the two monitor types. :p
 
Take note of the brightness figure specified as cd/m2 or nits.
Next time get one that isnt as bright.
 
shut up and get a hold of yourself.


ok. well TN's suck if you do photoshop, thats just the truth. Youll notice off colors, blacks, etc. More expensive panels are significantly better, and they can be calibrated to reallyyyy close to crt quality. so if you want, find one of those lcds.
 
No LCD exists that can compete with CRT on the key factors of dynamic range and black level. (At least outside of selectively LED backlit models.) And manufacturers compound the problem by pumping up the brightness for marketing bragging rights, but at the further cost of black levels...

That said, some LCDs are certainly better than others. And I'd suggest, again, to get the biggest quality panel you can afford. Size is one thing, where LCD actually is an advancement...
 
I sat next to a guy in my computer science class who always turned down the brightness to zero on his CRT monitor. His vision was better than mine, but it seemed he had some kind of photophobia to where looking at bright screens either hurt his eyes, gave him a headache, or just looked too bright, I never bothered to ask him.

Certain retinal diseases like macular degeneration will cause photophobia, which creates high sensitivity to light.

My old Compaq monitor from 1999 still works fine, but as with all CRTs, their brightness wanes and although the black levels and colors are very very deep, white doesn't exist anymore since everything is so dark. Same goes for a newer Samsung CRT I bought a few years later.

And yeah it does sound like a rant from an ardent conservative who rather cling onto his rotary phone and thinks the devil whispers to you when you put on a bluetooth headset.

:eek::D

Yeah you should tell us (or just me) if you have any experience with more monitors before complaining about just one incident. Sorry, I'm just bored.
 
So, turn the backlight down? Mine shipped with the backlight set to 90%. I have it at 15% right now.
 
Color calibration. Do it. You're rant's completely baseless because people have their CRTs calibrated differently (or just not calibrated at all, most often) with widely different brightness and contrast levels set just as they do with LCDs. Your pictures will always look different on poorly set up or poor quality monitors. That's just how it works, no matter if they're CRT or LCD based.

Also, as so many others have already said, if you're doing photo work expect to pay $1200+ for a quality LED backlit S-IPS panel. People complain this is too expensive, but I paid $650 for a used 21" Trinitron CRT about 9 years ago, and I picked up a P-MVA panel 24" LCD for $300 last year. Blacks aren't as good as on the CRT, but they're much better than the TN panel 20" LCD I bought four years ago.
 
So pretty much the new apple imacs, all computer labs, and every public computer place with LCD's are not calibrated? Because it's like this wherever I go. The images are just soooo much brighter on an LCD. My CRT is a 22" diamondtron for reference. Maybe my monitor is naturally darkish? Who knows. Yeah, it wasn't worth making a thread about... I just needed to get my point across.
 
jaguax said:
So pretty much the new apple imacs, all computer labs, and every public computer place with LCD's are not calibrated? Because it's like this wherever I go. The images are just soooo much brighter on an LCD. My CRT is a 22" diamondtron for reference. Maybe my monitor is naturally darkish? Who knows. Yeah, it wasn't worth making a thread about... I just needed to get my point across.
Click to expand...

Almost no one, aside from photographic professionals and design / printing companies, properly calibrates their monitors. Most are nowhere near correct, and 9/10s+ of the LCDs on the market (and probably more in general usage) are TN or poor quality / older MVA and IPS panels with horrible color gamut to begin with, so even if properly calibrated they're not going to look correct.

CRTs too are rarely calibrated, but with them at least you have a much better chance of actually getting a proper image once they are.

The end result is, sadly, that there's not much point in looking to see how your pictures will look on other monitors. Get a high quality display, calibrate it properly, and print things off you want to share.
 
If you want, use the following site to help you calibrate your LCD monitor to your liking. It is not as precise as a hardware colorimeter and what looks good to you might look like crap to others. But hey, it's free and it's your monitor.

http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/

Like everyone else, I lower the brightness of my LCD monitors. I don't know what setting I have on my NEC LCD2690WUXi, but on my 6 year old Planar PX191 the brightness is set to 50 and contrast to 53.
 
CRTs generally max out near 100cd/m2 and most LCDs have trouble even going that low. As someone mentioned there has been a marketing (marketing is the death of sanity) bun fight over high brightness numbers with insane values like 500cd/m2. Then factor in that LCDs don't have a wide range of control before their color goes off or they start flickering the fluorescent tube. So they often don't go much lower than half maximum.

Benqs G2400/V2400 maxes out at 250cd/m2, which is much lower than the norm and that is a good thing as they will do 100cd/m2 or less. Look for a panel with lower back light specs and don't be afraid to turn it to zero. My NEC is always on zero, but even there is still cranks out about 148cd/m2.
 
It's actually a good thing LCD's can go very bright. Over their life CCFL bulbs will fade - by using it at a very low brightness you can gradually bump it up as this happens.

It's also marketing for when these things are shown in stores.
 
The other bonus of LCD's insane brightness is that you can use them in a brightly lit room and still be able to easily make out the image.

With my CRT I would always have to close the blinds and turn out the lights. With my LCD I can keep it open and let the sun shine in.
 
PKFGimpy said:
The other bonus of LCD's insane brightness is that you can use them in a brightly lit room and still be able to easily make out the image.
Click to expand...

+1

However it would still be nice if they could be tuned down to CRT levels of brightness for those of us that don't like to stare into the sun.
 
philjohn said:
It's actually a good thing LCD's can go very bright. Over their life CCFL bulbs will fade - by using it at a very low brightness you can gradually bump it up as this happens.
Click to expand...

Yeah, makes perfect sense to buy a monitor today that will have a decent backlight in four years :rolleyes:
 
silverwolf0 said:
I sat next to a guy in my computer science class who always turned down the brightness to zero on his CRT monitor. His vision was better than mine, but it seemed he had some kind of photophobia to where looking at bright screens either hurt his eyes, gave him a headache, or just looked too bright, I never bothered to ask him.
Click to expand...

I would not be surprised if it hurt his eyes as it happens to me. My comfort level is 90-95cd/m. I do crank it up to 120cd/m when doing some color-critical work, but looking at pages with a white background is straining - as if someone was pushing my eyeballs back.

Imagine if audiophile devices manufacturers decided all of a sudden to go on a SNR marketing war and instead of working on lowering the noisefloor decided to crack up the volume higher and higher. Would people still buy into that as they do with monitors ?!
 
brumwald said:
Yeah, makes perfect sense to buy a monitor today that will have a decent backlight in four years :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You might be surprised, I purchased an LCD a few years back and recently purchased an identical one for another system. The older LCD's backlight is dimmer for sure, but it's also picked up a warmth that the newer monitor can't reproduce.

The two monitors aren't next to one another now, so you'll be hard pressed to tell the difference, but it is there.
 
pawstar said:
I would not be surprised if it hurt his eyes as it happens to me. My comfort level is 90-95cd/m. I do crank it up to 120cd/m when doing some color-critical work, but looking at pages with a white background is straining - as if someone was pushing my eyeballs back.
Click to expand...

Ditto. I hate the "flashlight in my eyes" effect so common with web pages that have a white background. I usually need to set the brightness controls on my LCDs to one or two steps above minimum, but even then still consistently wish for a black background and white text. Or a magical new monitor variety that's not backlit.

Imagine if audiophile devices manufacturers decided all of a sudden to go on a SNR marketing war and instead of working on lowering the noisefloor decided to crack up the volume higher and higher. Would people still buy into that as they do with monitors ?!
Click to expand...

No need to imagine this, unfortunately. People are still buying new CD releases and music downloads, aren't they?
 
skriefal said:
Ditto. I hate the "flashlight in my eyes" effect so common with web pages that have a white background. I usually need to set the brightness controls on my LCDs to one or two steps above minimum, but even then still consistently wish for a black background and white text. Or a magical new monitor variety that's not backlit.



No need to imagine this, unfortunately. People are still buying new CD releases and music downloads, aren't they?
Click to expand...

It drives me nuts, too. When I finally find an LCD that has whiter than whites and blacker than blacks down, I'll let you all know. Until then, I'll use what looks alright to me and dream of my days with a CRT.
 
zerodeefex said:
It drives me nuts, too. When I finally find an LCD that has whiter than whites and blacker than blacks down, I'll let you all know. Until then, I'll use what looks alright to me and dream of my days with a CRT.
Click to expand...

What you want is impossible with LCD's - in the words of Scotty "Ye kannae change the laws of physics".

What you want is either OLED (too many insurmountable problems IMHO) or SED, which should start surfacing fairly soon now that the lawsuits are out of the way.
 
brumwald said:
Yeah, makes perfect sense to buy a monitor today that will have a decent backlight in four years :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Actually, with a recession looming and prices for staples shooting through the roof, yes, it does make perfect sense. I'm hoping not to have to replace this monitor for at least three years. With regular calibration that's not really a problem.
 
Why are so bright? Maybe it is a marketing tool - "Whoa, our super-extra-LCD is damned so bright!" Or just a technology problem? But I doubt it is the latter.
 
philjohn said:
Actually, with a recession looming and prices for staples shooting through the roof, yes, it does make perfect sense. I'm hoping not to have to replace this monitor for at least three years. With regular calibration that's not really a problem.
Click to expand...

I'd certainly prefer a monitor that works decent today as well as in at least 5 years. Instead of buying one that gets decent after using it for four years...

Yes normal back-lighting gets dimmer with time so yes, it's a good idea to have some head-room. However, cranking up the back-lighting so much that you'll have to turn the brightness to 0% and get a catastrophic contrast ratio isn't an solution. Yes, it's that bad with a lot of monitors today.

Most monitors could be 50-70% of their current brightness and you would still have plenty of head-room for many many years...
 
Yeah, the crazy brightness is just a very unfortunate marketing ploy...
 
If backlight control and brightness are different, what about on laptop monitors? If I use the FN buttons to lower the brightness, the backlight does feel like it is going down and for one of my laptops, the light for a third of the screen disappears, then another third, then the whole thing, when I drop the brightness down to the lowest level. That's like three sections of a backlight or three backlights.
 
brumwald said:
Yes normal back-lighting gets dimmer with time so yes, it's a good idea to have some head-room. However, cranking up the back-lighting so much that you'll have to turn the brightness to 0% and get a catastrophic contrast ratio isn't an solution. Yes, it's that bad with a lot of monitors today.
Click to expand...

I agree, monitors are too bright generally and almost certainly for marketing reasons.

But on any properly designed monitor, the brightness control should have no negative effect on contrast. There are a few exceptions but the majority work the same as my NEC and by Backlight I mean brightness control because they are the same thing. Contrast is about 700 wether the brightness is at 0% or 100%.

backlightnq0.png
 
Snowdog said:
I agree, monitors are too bright generally and almost certainly for marketing reasons.

But on any properly designed monitor, the brightness control should have no negative effect on contrast. There are a few exceptions but the majority work the same as my NEC and by Backlight I mean brightness control because they are the same thing. Contrast is about 700 wether the brightness is at 0% or 100%.

backlightnq0.png
Click to expand...

This is also the same for the HP lp2475.
 
Snowdog said:
and by Backlight I mean brightness control because they are the same thing.[/IMG]
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. On mine backlight and brightness are separate controls. The manual states that backlight controls the backlight (durrrrrr), brightness controls the black level and contrast controls the white level.
 
A separate backlight control is even better. However, without that, then much better that the brightness be a true backlight control...
 
I have NEC 2690 and brightness just controls the backlight intensity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top