Dual Monitors - Really necessary?

[Alan Mills]

Seeing the subject crop up in another thread I thought I'd canvas thoughts on whether dual monitors are really used and found to be cost effective.

I'll start with my thoughts...

Historically, I'm certainly not a fan of flat panel screens. I find the image quality less than that of a half decent CRT for any sort of graphics. I bought a pretty decent 19" CRT which i comfortanbly run at 1600x1200 and I'm really happy with the quality i get.

When I put together my spec for a new rig a few months ago I considered two monitors. Either I get another 19" CRT, whcih franly would just take over the the whole desk and more or I would need to re-invest in 2 flat panels. I admit I didn't spend too long looking because it seemed the best res I could get off a flat panel was 1280x1024. Double that for two monitors. Not bad I thought! But then the price comes out. The cost of two halfway decent flat panels runnign at that sort of res would have added another £700 (or so) to the cost of the rig. I decided that £700 for only a third again as many pixels as I already had was just not worth the effort.

And then from previous experience I would have had a display of lesser quality - but a tiny bit bigger.

Conclusion. No burning desire here to move up to a second monitor!

What's everyone else do?

[mrlipring]

for graphic design, photography, and video editing, it's good to see the proper colours. Hence tft monitors, pretty as they are, are useless.

two GOOD 19" crts, and a new desk, or wall-mounted brackets will be less than £700. And will make your workspace look even cooler.

I only have one monitor, but then i'm more of a writer etc, i don't do editing and stuff all that often. I just like the technical side of things. I might end up getting another monitor, but for now, i have to spend money on other things. Like my spiralling cheese addiction. It's the morphine, y'see.

[p4ocer]

why dont u do one of each?

thats wut i do...

[LJR]

I use two flat panel screens. I used to use a 21" CRT but, like Millsy says, they are large and unweildly.

I wouldn't go back to CRT. I find the crisper image of the LCD too much of an added bonus. I always notice the difference when I go to work and use a CRT again.

Two screens are certainly useful. I like the extended timeline and the fact that I can have my preview and source viewers on the top half of one screen and my storyboard on the top half of the other. Also, programs like Photoshop are not so crowded with all the palettes when you have two screens.

P4ocer's idea might be a good compromise if you do want to stick with at least one CRT.

Pop round sometime and view my setup if you want to compare.

[Marc Peters]

Again, it boils down to a personal thing. I've had LCD monitors for a few years now, but then I never really had a top of the range CRT .

A Lack of physical space of my desk and the expense has stopped me thus far. I did try and use two CRTs a few years back, but got frustrated with moving my eyes from one screen to another. A minor frustration, I would agree! I also tend to use two computers when I'm editing... one for the mundane and one for purely editing.

But I understand the general concensus is video editing = dual monitors

[Mike Thorpe]

If you get a good quality CRT instead of whatever is the cheapest, you will get a crisp display and I'll have a big smelly wrestling match with anybody who says that the quality of the displays aren't as good.

Dual monitors - no they're not necessary, but again, it's down to personal preference. Go for two CRTs and spend the money you saved on ham and bisuits.

[Alan Mills]

I'm picking up vibes in this thread that people actually believe that a TFT monitor is as good in quality as a good CRT. Am i right?

Admittedly, it was three years ago when I looked at some TFT for my (previous) PC and they were severely lacking when compared to a good CRT. I haven't really paid them any mind since tbh. Have they improved then? Can you get better resolution than 1280x1024 for TFTs now?

[LJR]

Are you referring to quality or resolution? To me there is a marked difference between the two. The two LCD's I have both run at 1280 x 1024 (for a combined 2560 x 1024). While the individual monitors do not run at a resolution higher than 1280 x 1024 the image they display at those resolutions is crystal clear and flicker free. To me, that is what quality is about.

I am sure you get high end CRTs that are every bit as good as LCD, but I went from a 21" Iiyama (which I would consider to be a very good make of CRT) to my NEC and BenQ displays and noticed a marked improvement.

[Alan Mills]

Originally Posted by LJR

I am sure you get high end CRTs that are every bit as good as LCD, but I went from a 21" Iiyama (which I would consider to be a very good make of CRT) to my NEC and BenQ displays and noticed a marked improvement.

From my personal experience from a couple of years ago you would have written that as "I am sure you can get high end LCDs that are every bit as good as CRTs" which is my point.

Clearly, your experience is that quality is better on an LCD. When I spent time looking at them I found images to be soft with no sharp definitions on LCDs. Almost like the images had a very slight blur put over them.

Maybe I was unlucky or maybe I just saw the wrong ones but images were NOT sharp on LCD when I investigated them. Effectively you were paying twice as much money for a product of lower quality. Clearly things have improved.

[LJR]

Maybe it's because I am using DVI connectivity?