or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › High-quality unboxing photos of Apple's LED Cinema Display
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

High-quality unboxing photos of Apple's LED Cinema Display - Page 3

post #81 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix01 View Post

Yes, I have the Apple converter.

Is it output-only or can you put the adaptor onto the screen and use it with a DVI output computer?
post #82 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeracer View Post

I really appreciate that you guys take the time to take photos of the unboxing of Apple products, but please, when you're taking "high quality" photos of devices like this you need to setup your camera correctly. Set the aperture to a very high number like F16 or greater (as high as your camera will go), and use a tripod to keep the camera still for the required longer exposure time. This will give you a far greater depth of field, and thus more than 2mm of the surface of the device will be in focus.

It is quite possible to take these nice close-ups and have the WHOLE display or laptop or whatever in perfect focus. Of course, if you're doing that on purpose to be arty, then disregard!

You're crazy, the photos are bokehlicious!
post #83 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Is it output-only or can you put the adaptor onto the screen and use it with a DVI output computer?

I got the adapter and there's no way to make it work with the DVI output on an old Macbook pro.

Here's a picture http://www.flickr.com/photos/deapeajay/2969264395/ (the top adapter)

The female DVI port on the old MacBook Pro is DVI-I (Digital and Analog), the Mini Display Port to DVI adapter is DVI-D (Digital Only). So the pins don't line up and the female and male ends would need to be reversed.

Old Macbook Pro is DVI-I (female). MiniDisplay Port (male) to DVI-D (female) Adapter can't plug into it. I wonder what would happen if you were able to make the MiniDisplay port female, and the DVI-D port male. It would then be able to plug into the DVI-I (female) port on the old MBPs. But somehow I suspect if it were that easy someone would have done it by now.
post #84 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeaPeaJay View Post

The female DVI port on the old MacBook Pro is DVI-I (Digital and Analog), the Mini Display Port to DVI adapter is DVI-D (Digital Only). So the pins don't line up and the female and male ends would need to be reversed.

Don't you just need a DVI-D cable though?

http://stores.channeladvisor.com/cab...rce=googlebase

So it would be:

MBP female DVI-I port -> male DVI-D plug ----- male DVI-D plug -> female DVI-D port on adaptor -> mini-displayport male plug -> Mini-displayport female port on display.

DVI-I will transmit the digital signal over a DVI-D cable.
post #85 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Don't you just need a DVI-D cable though?

http://stores.channeladvisor.com/cab...rce=googlebase

So it would be:

MBP female DVI-I port -> male DVI-D plug ----- male DVI-D plug -> female DVI-D port on adaptor -> mini-displayport male plug -> Mini-displayport female port on display.

DVI-I will transmit the digital signal over a DVI-D cable.

Yeah, that would seem to make sense. Since it's a digital signal, all you need is DVI-D. So all you have to do is reverse the adapter that Apple sells.

Use that cable for the DVI conversion. And then just switch MiniDisplayPort from male to female somehow.



But.... The 24" MiniDisplay port display would then be receiving a DVI signal wouldn't it? Would it know how to interpret that signal?
post #86 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeaPeaJay View Post

But.... The 24" MiniDisplay port display would then be receiving a DVI signal wouldn't it? Would it know how to interpret that signal?

The adaptor would normally convert mini-dp to DVI and it's not transmitting a dp signal to the DVI display, the adaptor would be turning the signal into the right format. Some adaptors won't work two ways though. For example, A DVI to VGA won't work the other way round as you need something extra to digitize the analog VGA signal. mini-dp and DVI are both digital signals though so it might work. All it needs is for someone with a new MB or MBP with the adaptor and the display as well as a DVI-out machine to try it and see if it works - not sure how many people have those parts but maybe the person who took the unboxing photos would.
post #87 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

The adaptor would normally convert mini-dp to DVI and it's not transmitting a dp signal to the DVI display, the adaptor would be turning the signal into the right format. Some adaptors won't work two ways though. For example, A DVI to VGA won't work the other way round as you need something extra to digitize the analog VGA signal. mini-dp and DVI are both digital signals though so it might work. All it needs is for someone with a new MB or MBP with the adaptor and the display as well as a DVI-out machine to try it and see if it works - not sure how many people have those parts but maybe the person who took the unboxing photos would.

Interesting. The only part that's missing is the male to female conversion of the MiniDisplay Port, otherwise I'd be tempted to try it myself whenever Amazon gets around to shipping my display.
post #88 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weepul View Post

Has anyone been able to find out if the glass on this screen is held on with magnets and removable like the glass on the iMacs?

An Apple Store employee went and asked their repair technicians for me, and reported that it's just like the iMac, and that removing the glass yourself will void the warranty.

Not like they would be able to tell.
post #89 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weepul View Post

An Apple Store employee went and asked their repair technicians for me, and reported that it's just like the iMac, and that removing the glass yourself will void the warranty.

Not like they would be able to tell.

I think this is fine for the displays but that policy for the iMac is unacceptable. They are basically taking control over your hard drive data, which they have no right to do. If you have company information on an iMac that breaks and in the interests of data protection attempt to remove the drive before sending it back to Apple, they won't fix it for you.

This is one reason businesses should not buy iMacs. Can you imagine if some random Apple service guy had access to your company sales information or your emails and could sell it to the highest bidder. Steve Jobs would never let that happen to his own company.

The only way they will avoid this is by doing the same thing they do for Ram. Allow you to slot the hard drive in from the bottom.

I wouldn't be surprised to see if they had a mechanism to tell the plate was taken off like some sort of seal. They do this on the laptops with an element that changes color or something when exposed to water so that they know a laptop was water damaged.
post #90 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

I think this is fine for the displays but that policy for the iMac is unacceptable. They are basically taking control over your hard drive data, which they have no right to do. If you have company information on an iMac that breaks and in the interests of data protection attempt to remove the drive before sending it back to Apple, they won't fix it for you.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way somebody explained it to me (on these forums) was that "voiding your warranty" doesn't mean that your entire warranty is null and void if you open the machine up. It simply means that any damage that's incurred on the iMac while you have it open and are messing around in there is not covered under warranty. So if you had an existing problem that wasn't incurred as a result of you opening the computer, it and any future breakdowns are still covered by Apple.
post #91 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishstick_kitty View Post

I mean, c'mon, having to connect 3 cables onto the side of the MBP?

Not three but FOUR!. You forgot GigE for very fast TM backups to the TC!. It is certainly not convenient to plug and unplug even a couple of times a day.

Apple's hardware engineering should create a single large proprietary plug with 50 or 60 pins to handle all these connections. And if they can make it look like a giant MagSafe about 5 times bigger, all the better!. They can engineer cases and cannot engineer proper plugs ???.
MBP 2.4UB 500HD , MBA Gen1 1.6/80HD MB 2.2SR 250HD PB 1.67 160HD iPhones Gen1 8G4G
Reply
MBP 2.4UB 500HD , MBA Gen1 1.6/80HD MB 2.2SR 250HD PB 1.67 160HD iPhones Gen1 8G4G
Reply
post #92 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeaPeaJay View Post

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way somebody explained it to me (on these forums) was that "voiding your warranty" doesn't mean that your entire warranty is null and void if you open the machine up. It simply means that any damage that's incurred on the iMac while you have it open and are messing around in there is not covered under warranty. So if you had an existing problem that wasn't incurred as a result of you opening the computer, it and any future breakdowns are still covered by Apple.

It will depend on what can be proven has not resulted from opening the machine. For example, the object that measures water damage, people have said that it can change through other means (high humidity or something) and that Apple wouldn't do a motherboard replacement because of it.

It's just another method that allows manufacturers to get away from making certain repairs that may be expensive. If you get a motherboard or display failure and Apple notice you opened the screen, they would have the right to turn down your warranty repair as any screwdriver poking on the motherboard or touching parts of the back of the display can damage them.

This happened once with a PC store and a guy who had installed Linux. His laptop had a case fault but they said they didn't support Linux so they wouldn't repair it. I think they tried to justify it by saying that using Linux may have overheated the machine and caused the case part to warp.

Not all manufacturers will be so strict but the iMac design is in such a way that access to your own data is still difficult. Apple need to consider separating user-serviceable parts and those only Apple are qualified to replace. I think putting the hard drive and optical drive in the base of the unit could help. This way they can seal the display however they like and you also get a forward-facing optical drive. The bottom slot-in hard drive could work but may be harder to engineer.

Putting those parts at the bottom should mean that hey have enough room to lose the chin and make something much more attractive like the newer cinema display.
post #93 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nano2Gfteo View Post

Apple's hardware engineering should create a single large proprietary plug with 50 or 60 pins to handle all these connections.....

Oh boy, some AppleInsider forumers are going to loooove that idea.
post #94 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

One thing I don't get is why put an isight on the display if it's designed for Macbook users who already have an isight?

Are you sure you are a 'Global Moderator' whatever that is?

Anyway, imagine the image you are sending while iChatting if you weren't looking into your camera lens.

Ever watch the news on TV? Or when you are talking to someone, do you look into their eyes or turn and look away?
post #95 of 102
This is already an oldish thread but...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Are you sure you are a 'Global Moderator' whatever that is?

I think this is more of a mismatch in assumptions between people.

Quote:
Anyway, imagine the image you are sending while iChatting if you weren't looking into your camera lens.

Ever watch the news on TV? Or when you are talking to someone, do you look into their eyes or turn and look away?

This seems to assume that you're using the big display for the image and the small display for the capture. I don't see why it has to be that way, use iChat on the smaller display, which will probably work better that way because it would have a shorter distance between the image and the camera than you might have on the larger display.

TV news usually uses a nifty system where the camera is behind an image projected onto beam splitter glass, so you can make it look like you're looking into their eyes. With computer displays, you either look into the camera and get whatever you can through peripheral vision, or you don't really look like you're looking into the camera by looking down towards the image that comes back, so a smaller screen helps either way.
post #96 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

This seems to assume that you're using the big display for the image and the small display for the capture. I don't see why it has to be that way, use iChat on the smaller display, which will probably work better that way because it shortens the distance between the image and the camera.

TV news usually uses a nifty system where the camera is behind an image projected onto beam splitter glass, so you can make it look like you're looking into their eyes. With computer displays, you either look into the camera and get whatever you can through peripheral vision, or you don't really look like you're looking into the camera by looking down towards the image that comes back, so a smaller screen helps either way.

What the hell are you talking about?

The reason the LED Cinema Display has an iSight Camera is for convenience. In most cases, anybody who is going to put out a grand for a new monitor intends it as their main, if only, production screen.

Sure, some may only video chat on the small screen, but as we do and as seen most often when you see the kids video conferencing at the Apple Store, the large screen is a joy.

In any case, and as in any TV studio I have been producing in, you always look into the camera lens if you are directing you conversation to the viewer.

As we found when we instruct students/clients new to video conferencing using iChat for example, most would look at themselves on screen or, look and talk to the picture of the person on their screens. As if the person were live in front of them.

In any event, you look into the camera that you set up to use, i.e., Macbook or Display, in iChat Preferences.
Obviously, you can't use both at the same time.

And obviously, any new DTs that come along will surely be capable of connecting to the new LED Cinema Displays making the inclusion of the iSight Camera particularly worthwhile.
post #97 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

In any case, and as in any TV studio I have been producing in, you always look into the camera lens if you are directing you conversation to the viewer.

They never use a teleprompter type device to do that? Many of the ones I've seen, the camera is behind the image, not in some other place to the side or above or below.

Quote:
As we found when we instruct students/clients new to video conferencing using iChat for example, most would look at themselves on screen or, look and talk to the picture of the person on their screens. As if the person were live in front of them.

In any event, you look into the camera that you set up to use, i.e., Macbook or Display, in iChat Preferences.

To me, looking into the camera pretty much defeats the point of video conferencing though, because you're looking at the camera, not the image of the other person. If both people do that, then neither person is directly looking at the image of the other person.
post #98 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

They never use a teleprompter type device to do that? Many of the ones I've seen, the camera is behind the image, not in some other place to the side or above or below.



To me, looking into the camera pretty much defeats the point of video conferencing though, because you're looking at the camera, not the image of the other person. If both people do that, then neither person is directly looking at the image of the other person.

Jeff

Remember that Apple has applied a patient to put the camera in the middle of the screen. When that happens, you could place the video conferencing iCHat window in the center and look right at the person you are talking to.

Right now the camera is at the top of the laptop. If you are looking at a video of the person to whom you are talking to, your eyes will be pointed in that direction and that is what your audience is seeing at that time, i.e., of you looking down.

Test it yourself. Open iChat. Turn camera on. Look directly at your own image and take a snapshot of the screen. Voila, a picture of you looking downward. Do the same thing, but this time, look at the iSight camera lens. Voila, big difference.
post #99 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Test it yourself. Open iChat. Turn camera on. Look directly at your own image and take a snapshot of the screen. Voila, a picture of you looking downward. Do the same thing, but this time, look at the iSight camera lens. Voila, big difference.

Do you mean that sarcastically? I know what you're talking about, I've done that test in the past. I thought I was talking about that in my last two posts. You either look and look bad, or don't look and you're looking at a camera, not a person.

My question was, what is the value in personal video conferencing if the person can't look at the video of the other person while talking to them?

It's one of the reasons why I don't even try to use such a technology, limitations like this make it more of a gimmick with self-defeating workarounds than an worthwhile means of communication. Obviously, it's a very different case in news and entertainment, though those people usually have better equipment and a sizable audience anyway.
post #100 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohmaar View Post

I wish I had a dime for every "graphic artist" who says that. I wonder how many of them say that just because they read someone else who said it?

I've been doing high-end CG since back when the Amiga was the only PC that could (20 years for you newbs who weren't even born yet). I have an 8-core Mac Pro with dual 30" anti-glare ACP monitors and a 24" iMac with the new glossy screen and guess what? I prefer the glossy screen. Since the new 24's have better saturation and contrast, I'm swapping out my 2 30's for two of the new 24's (yes, it's downsizing but I've found that sometimes you CAN have too much of a good thing). And it will be nice having the built-in iSight -- I never bothered getting the add-on iSight for my Pro.

So anyone who says that graphic artists don't like the glossy screen is just re-spewing.

Much appreciated post Ohmaar. I'm not a graphic artist, just a writer and web user in education who loves high quality video and graphic images on my iMac 24" I've had just about everything Apple has made since the beginning and this is the best graphic experience. If I turn it off, there is a lot of reflection, which means I have to see myself more than I'd like, but since I'm sitting in front of it mostly when it is working, I've never had the problems so many seem to grumble about without ever using them.

I do wonder about whether the new 24" monitor/MacBook Pro combi will work, but I'm attempted to try it for my university desktop so I can bring the MBP home; I only wish it would would with the older 17" MBP
"Run faster. History is a constant race between invention and catastrophe. Education helps but it is never enough. You must also run." Leto Atreides II
Reply
"Run faster. History is a constant race between invention and catastrophe. Education helps but it is never enough. You must also run." Leto Atreides II
Reply
post #101 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Do you mean that sarcastically? I know what you're talking about, I've done that test in the past. I thought I was talking about that in my last two posts. You either look and look bad, or don't look and you're looking at a camera, not a person.

My question was, what is the value in personal video conferencing if the person can't look at the video of the other person while talking to them?

It's one of the reasons why I don't even try to use such a technology, limitations like this make it more of a gimmick with self-defeating workarounds than an worthwhile means of communication. Obviously, it's a very different case in news and entertainment, though those people usually have better equipment and a sizable audience anyway.

Absolutely not.

OK. My original response was to address a query re the necessity of having iSight on the LED Cinema Display (CD). And I was trying to point out that if one were viewing via iChat window on the LED CD, it would be more appropriate to be using the respective camera on the LED CD.

You are right in your second statement. Normally on TV the camera and the monitor are close together and set back to account for the convergence.

So, let's compromise.

In order for the video conversation to be as normal as possible, the speaker would look directly into the other persons eyes. So, I would suggest that we place the viewer up at the top of the monitor and as close to the working camera as possible. Certainly not placing the viewer on an external monitor and using the iSight camera on the laptop.
post #102 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

My original response was to address a query re the necessity of having iSight on the LED Cinema Display (CD).

Seems odd that the thread is 7 months old and you felt the need to bring it back for this fairly minor point though as well as make the childish remark that my opinion in this matter somehow relates in any way to my ability to help keep the forum in check.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

In order for the video conversation to be as normal as possible, the speaker would look directly into the other persons eyes. So, I would suggest that we place the viewer up at the top of the monitor and as close to the working camera as possible. Certainly not placing the viewer on an external monitor and using the iSight camera on the laptop.

That's assuming the laptop is sitting to the side of the screen. If you move it in front of the main screen then the camera would sit about the right height to get better eye contact, which I also find quite important for these kind of things. When people are looking down at an image, it detracts from the conversation.

Either way, I don't really care that much about its inclusion, the camera will be of use to Mini and Mac Pro owners when they eventually get updated and will likely have mini-dp outputs on them. That is assuming of course those people buy this display, which I would imagine most won't. The Mini is a budget computer so the display will be too expensive and the Pro is for doing serious work and the need for a matte version far outweighs the need for a camera.

Now if what they'd done was add a camera to refreshed matte Cinema displays and released mini-dp enabled Mac Pros and Minis and marketed the display for machines that don't already have one along with a more affordable £300-400 20" model, I'd say that would be fine.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › High-quality unboxing photos of Apple's LED Cinema Display