New Apple Cinema Display? - Page 2

I'm hoping that Displayport beats out HDMI, but it's early to try to call. Anyway, I think we'll see 3200x2048 before we see 3840x2400.

For computers HDMI is a non starter. It has license fees and a connecter that doesn't latch on firmaly. HDMI will be "the" format for Consumer Electronics but I see DisplayPort taking over and becoming the next thing for computers. UDI the competitor is all but dead.

DisplayPort can do 2560x1600 rez with one small connector. DisplayPort 2.0 will double the bandwith enabling 3840x2400 rez. Despite claims it can carry audio and it also has a channel that can carry other types of signals.

Expect to see DisplayPort take off next year as LCD manf start adding the ports to their product line and Intel delivers their ICH10 chip which supports HDMI/DisplayPort/DVDI and encryption.

Another tidbit I've learned is that the DisplayPort spec defines an internal and external connection. There's a feature that basically allows LCD manf to receive a Displayport signal without the bulk of a tranceiver. It should enable thinner LCD designs is the take home point from VESA. We'll see.

Do you think apple would/need to wait for Displayport?

It would be odd for Apple to release new ACDs now without HDMI, DisplayPort, or both -- especially without Resolution Independence to drive ACD uptake.

9.2 Megapixel monitors have been available for a while.

Viewsonic VP2290b (AKA IBM T221)


Definitely not for gaming with the slow refresh rate but it's a pixel eating beast.



Yes true my gaffe. The 20" will be 1920x1200 sometimes I cheat and just call them 1080 screens but they're not.


Apple will probably wait until it's cheap to support the technology. Since DisplayPort is License Free it makes far more financial sense than HDMI. Intel has DisplayPort technology built right into the Eastlake chipset so I expect many vendors to begin taking advantage.

Why would anyone need somthing bigger than a 30' Display- those things are way to huge as it is.
Also, about the iSight, what was wrong with the external one? Make it again, Apple.

50 inch multi-touch screens FTW

I certainly don't want a monitor larger than 30 feet on my desktop. I would prefer a 20" monitor with 2560x1600 or greater resolution.

If you are a designer and work with After Effects, FCP, Photoshop, Illustrator. you will appreciate a larger screen. I have one 30" and one 23" I would not mind getting another 30" to replace my 23". Or maybe just have one large single display. Maybe 37"+.

Sure will be expensive at first, but it would be amazing such display. I would say bring it on!

I'd like to have a 37-40" computer display and I'd sell my 37" TV. I'd have no need for both if the computer display was comparable in size to the TV. It would save a lot of space in my small apartment, not having both.

So has anyone heard any dates that realistic for a refresh? I'm hoping for LED in order to maintain brightness over time... my old Cinema Display is looking dim.

I'm not sure if LED's will go that large... they don't even make a 17" MBP LED yet... Any news on LED backlights for these?

I would not expect the next ACDs to have LED backlighting. Someday, but not in 2007.

I think you were the only one who caught the ' instead of " .

Jan. 2008?

Nah, we haven't even seen a prevalence of small LED backlit displays yet. The 17" MBP doesn't have one yet. I think the big ones are still a year or two away.

Hmm... so we're likely just looking at some aesthetic updates and isight? I care more for the screen quality... no updates expected with regard to the screen technology itself?

I expected new ADCs a year ago so who knows what and when we'll see new ones.

Apple might wait until resolution independence is ready in OS X and then release tighter resolution displays. 100 ppi is kind of old but I don't think most people want any higher until menus, palettes and the like can be resized.

I don't see why. The TV guys are doing LCD with LED backlighting now, and those take a few more LEDs than a Cinema Display.

It's not a technical issue, so it may still be a cost issue. I am willing to pay a bit of a premium (<50%) for LED, so I think the time draws near for some people anyway.

You would pay up to 50% more for a LED display? Why? To save a few watts?

I understand energy conservation and all but are there any other real benefits? Longevity? Forgive my ignorance if there's a major difference I'm not aware of.

Most people think (and I hope Apple knows) that Cinema Displays are already too pricey compared to the competition. To add more than about 5% to the price, just for an LED lit display, would be a mistake, IMO.

Watts. Longevity. Color.

Whilst the product design of the Cinema Display family hasn't changed since they were launched a few years ago, the actual panels employed have been revised several times. Does anybody know how the panels employed in the current line-up compare with the competition?

I've been impressed with the 20" in the past, but the 23" always had a pink cast and seemed to suffer from a lot of pixel anomalies. I've yet to meet a 30" user who hasn't experienced the dancing pixels 'characteristic'.

I have both and I have no idea what are you talking about. The two monitors I have are perfect and I highly recommend. Specially the 30". Fantastic!

My 23 had the pink cast which got worse over time. It was one of the first ones made though and I think that issue was resolved with the later models.

I recently bought a 30" HP, after tiring of waiting for Apple to upgrade theirs. The HP is a great display, and cheaper, although not quite as "pretty" as Apple's.

All I know it this is a recent comment from a chat I had with a designer:

http://www.newegg.com/product/produc...82E16824176059

HP LP2465 Carbonite-Black 24" 6 ms (typical gray to gray) DVI Widescreen LCD Monitor with Height & Pivot Adjustments 500 cd/m2 1000:1 - Retail

$609.99

Model
Brand \tHP
Model \tLP2465
Cabinet Color \tCarbonite-Black
Display
Screen Size \t24"
Widescreen \tYes
Maximum Resolution \t1920 x 1200
Recommended Resolution \t1920 x 1200
Viewing Angle \t178°(H) / 178°(V)
Pixel Pitch \t0.27mm
Display Colors \t16.7 Million
Brightness \t500 cd/m2
Contrast Ratio \t1000:1
Response Time \t6 ms (typical gray to gray)
Horizontal Refresh Rate \t30 to 94 kHz (VGA input); 30 to 92 KHz (DVI input)
Vertical Refresh Rate \t48 to 85 Hz
Panel \tActive Matrix, TFT LCD
Display Type \tWUXGA

Connectivity
Input Video Compatibility \tDigital
Connectors \tDVI
DVI \t2 (DVI-I Dual-link)
HDMI \tNo
USB 2.0 \t1 upstream, 4 downstream ports

Power
Power Supply \tAuto-Ranging, 90 to 132 VAC and 195 to 265 VAC; internal power supply, 50 Hz/60 Hz
Power Consumption \tMaximum: < 100 W; Power Saving: < 2 W

Convenience
User Controls \tButtons or Switches:
Input Select, Auto Adjust, OSD Up, OSD Down, OSD Menu Select, Power
Languages:
English, French, German, Spanish, Italian, Japanese, Dutch
User Controls:
Brightness, contrast, positioning, color temperature, individual color control, serial number display, full screen resolutions, clock, clock phase, input selection (includes separate direct access key for dedicated swap between inputs 1 and 2), factory reset

Regulatory Approvals \tAustralian ACA Approval, Canadian Requirements/CSA, CE Marking, China CCIB/CCEE Approval, CISPR Requirements, Eastern European Approvals, Energy Star Compliant, FCC Approval, German Ergonomic (TUV and GS Mark), ISO 9241-3,7,8 VDT Guidelines, ISO 13406-2 Pixel Defect Guidelines, Mexican NOM Approval, MIC Requirements (New Zealand), MPR-II Compliant, Nordic Approvals (Nemko, Fimko, Demko, Semko), PC2001 Compliant, PC99 Certified, S. Korean MIC Approval, Taiwan BSMI Approval, TCO 03 (emissions, ergonomics, environment), TUV-Ergo, UL Listed, VCCI Approvals, Microsoft Windows Certification (Microsoft Windows 98, Microsoft Windows 2000, and Microsoft Windows XP)

Stand Adjustments \tHeight, Pivot, Swivel, Tilt
Built in TV Tuner \tNo
Built in Speakers \tNo
Features \tAnti-glare, Anti-static, Plug and Play
Windows Vista \tWorks with
Packaging
Package Contents \tLP2465 LCD Monitor
2 x VGA to DVI Cable
2 x DVI Cable
Power Cable
USB Cable
User Manual
Support Disk

Dimensions
Dimensions (W×H×D) \t14.6" x 22.0" x 9.1" (with stand)
Weight \t23.6 lbs.
Temperature Range \t46°F to 95°F (10° to 35° C)
Humidity Range \t20% to 80% non-condensing
Manufacturer Warranty
Parts \t3 years limited
Labor \t3 years limited

I'd buy this before I'd buy a 23" Cinema Display.

Ok I have few questions for you.

First – do you understand that Cinema displays is a product that supposed to be targeted for the design market? Coz if you don’t do design or video or photo you go for iMac… And from this point of view today apple displays are absolutely out-of-date, low contrast, bad color reproduction, and no LED, those three things are at the first priority, not size or camera. NEC and EIZO already had models better more than two years ago.

Second question is about the resolution, how are you going to render the text and read the web with a 20 inches monitor with a resolution not native for pc? I mean there are standards, would really like to know hove the Resolution Independence works.. I mean “would prefer a 20" monitor with 2560x1600” – what for?


PS: design pro would never go for HP – they don’t have a professional product line, only big screens.

With resolution independence, which should be coming to OS X by next year, interface elements can be scaled so that they are the same size, regardless of the resolution of the display. So, if you have a very high resolution display, say 150-200 pixels per inch, all of the icons, palettes, etc are the same size they would be at lower resolution.

The principal advantage (in my mind) to high resolution displays is that text looks very sharp on screen, much like a printed page, instead of pixelated as it does on most current displays.

Regarding your P.S., you'd be surprised. Designers will go for what they can afford. A lot of the specs mean nothing to most people, including designers. Why do you say HP displays are not "professional," whatever that means? They're as good as most and better than some.

Text in high resolution should look better but it happens if you apply printing rules to it, what if the text is a picture button on the web site for example with standard 75 dpi resolution, if font size is set in pixels, or pt, it isn’t sharpener it is smaller. And text looks pixilated only on low quality monitors. More over images you see on the net are not vector, and the source you see is originally 75 dpi, so the monitor with higher resolution but with the same size lets say 20 inches will have either stretch them or show them small... I don’t see the solution here for me 17 inches with 1280 x 1024 (native is 1024x768, they play with it a bit, now17inches notebooks come with something more than 1024 but less than 1280, but it is a notebook it is about information you get on the screen, when you work it isn't just space there should be an accuracy) is not a comfortable thing to use, not if you work with pixel art or web design just for surfing or games you may not care…
Resolution independence if it works as you say should solve the problem but it should be an amazing piece of genius software and a display should be of a very high quality. And it should be an open standard, apple displays are for now DVI enabled and it is a universal standard so if the resolution advantages will work on mac but not under windows it wouldn't be a nice product design. So I personally don’t belive in 20 inches with resolution nearly twice as it should be.

HP monitors are a big player on US market, but they are low quality, and most of all color reproduction is ok for games and movies not for photo editing or preprint preparation. NEC, EIZO, led display from Samsung is not bad, but not great, apple displays were nice for the first year and a half aprox. I mean that time every manufacturer including Sony had the same problems with matrix and colors on their screens larger 17 - 19 inches.

I disagree. I can see sharper text on a MacBook 13" display which is only slightly higher resolution than most other displays. MacBooks aren't known for having the highest quality displays. This has little to do with the "quality" of the monitor and a lot to do with the resolution.

Resolution independence is a big deal and as you point out, there are a lot of complications. Apple has been working on the issues with developers for some time. Some interface elements might be vector art and some might be high quality bit maps; all scaleable. Images on the web for the time being will probably just look smaller. Be assured, higher resolution displays are coming. We won't remain stuck at 100 ppi forever. I suspect it will be a slow transition, starting at perhaps a 25% increase on nicer monitors. The suggested 2560 on a 20" monitor would be more like 50% higher. I don't think that's going to happen for several years.

Finally, I won't argue the merits of displays from various manufacturers. I'm no expert. I will say however, my subjective opinion is that the HP I just bought is a far sight better than the ACD I had for three years before it. In my research before the purchase, it seemed that the HPs were pretty highly regarded. It sounds like you're not happy with displays from any manufacturer.

That's why one would set a different scale factor for one's browser than for most other applications. Over time, more graphics on the web will be vector graphics and fewer will be raster graphics.


There are open standards for vector graphics on the web. As for Microsoft doing anything like Resolution Independence, I think that will be two major operating systems after Vista.


No, images on the web will be scaled by a user selectable scaling factor. The user sets a default scaling factor for everything that will be chosen based on the pixel density of the monitor and the user's preference. Each application can have its own scaling factor and the browser would need to override the system default to keep everything from being too small. Same with old applications that developers have not prepared for Resolution Independence.


I don't think so. I think we'll see a fairly sudden availability of monitors from Apple with at least about 150dpi in order to really show off Resolution Independence. 250dpi LCDs are shipping now. The main reason the price is high is because volumes are very low.

The online Apple Store is missing monitors. Currently, the only monitor offered is the 20" in the refurbished section. Not really sure what this means.

Pardon my ignorance, they have hidden the displays under accesories and are not highlighting them in the foreground with the more "popular" products.

I noticed recently that displays aren't on the first page anymore. I guess Apple is embarrassed by them.

Show me the large manufacturers who have 250ppi LCDs that aren't less than 10" or on a smart phone.

The monitros still show up when you go to "Config" your new mac?

Skip

If they bring new ACD with cameras in them, they would need to provide some kind of system to disablem some of them, imagine you have 3 of them doing ichat and what then ? Seeing yourself in 3d with these 3 camera's switching on simultanely ?

Cool!

Personally, I'd like something that runs a little cooler. The current ACD always scares me when i feel it and almost get burned.

Indeed, it's a sad state of affairs. I love the look of the ACDs, but they are a good 50% more expensive than their rivals.

Check out the thread on Apple's support forum - it's had 21,000+ hits so far. I'm sure those guys would appreciate hearing from you because by the sounds of things your 30" Cinema Display might be the only one in the world that works flawlessly.

I just returned my fifth 30" Cinema Display last week.

Dell announced a fancy display for CES:
http://www.dell.com/content/topics/t...=us&l=en&s=gen

C'mon, Apple. Give us new Cinema displays.