Apple's LED Cinema Display: the review - Page 3

Steve Jobs needed a higher green rating and threw matte under the bus to get it- that is the bottom line.
Too bad Sony has the patent for hybrid matte/semiglossy - gorgeous screens. Check them out on their Vaio line.
Apple screens now look like looks like HPs- circa 2005.

Go into any store and compare your screen to a SONY Vaio screen and tell me there is no difference. You can't. The only screen that should be glossy is a PLASMA and that because of plasma technology itself.
I have a plasma and love it but only because I have it positioned without any glare factor- between two windows. I pity the fool who spends hard earned money on a glossy laptop.

Make that TWO articulating arms.

Al Gore and the Green party threw Matte under the bus.

I have checked this a few times (since Saturday), it looks even across the full screen.
Tested with techtool pro display test and all the solid colors in system prefs's desktop.

You don't think APple cafres about potential loss of sales and people defecting to other brands of hardware?
If it wasn't for the OS a lot of us would probably buy something else. It's getting really tired.

hey solipsism - you are a true arse. When you go to an art gallery or museuM- would you prefer to see a painting (canvas) as is?
0r under a shiny, glossy sheet of glass?

Good point. Also, to those who say matte is somehow less realistic or more distorted than glossy, get up from your computer and take a look around. Most real objects are not shiny and reflective.

Thank goodness what lets you see with are clear, shiny and reflective, i.e., your eyes. Otherwise, everything would be less realistic or more distorted.

i've been seriously bitten with my 20" adc apple display so i'm very weary bout any apple monitor. One of the internal components fused and died again a day after i replaced it. This apparently was subject to a class action suit for the 17" version... It's still ticking and usable. however i can't use it on a new mac pro without an expensive adaptor.

making sweeping statements re matte is better for design etc is just as patronising and naiive as saying it doesn't matter. it's all about personal preference. I have 3 designers working in front of me all on imacs - 2 matte 1 gloss. Those using the smaller imacs prefer the matte the one working on gloss loves hers. My monitors are 2 cheapo matte thingies. Their colour accuracy is non existent but they help pick up differences in blacks for example more than any other display. Also, web professionals might prefer working on glossy screens as that's how most screens are being sold now. I also think that professional designers always learn how to compensate for colour inaccuracy and variance since even a matte screen can't give you excellent colour matching unless you spend time and money calibrating and if all your workflow is colour calibrated too.


besides, with pro machines you are not forced to buy apple's offering and macbook owners will get adaptors soon enough so you can pick the screen you prefer. I won't be getting one not because the screen is gloss but because apple decided not to include more connectors. I currently have dvi equipped machines - i already bought 2 adaptors for my macbook... i'm not going to buy a 3rd. And it's a bit pricey as is this - http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showpr...odid=MO-024-DE but at least it has enough different ports... maybe no camera but i have a firewire isight...

I also recall the old CRT's had a anti-reflective coating, bit like my current plastic specs. If it was done for CRT's then it couldn't have been so costly, so why not do it for these new screens??

Thats not possible! Yours eyes are what defines reality for you and then "distortion" means any departure from that. I was merely pointing out that a lot of computer graphics can look too shiny to be realistic and maybe a little bit of filtering isn't such a bad thing, to make it closer to physical objects.

Often the way you can recognize CGI in movies is that it's too shiny, and sometimes computer games use "trilinear filtering" and such to try and improve the realism.

The assertions that matte somehow blurs/distorts the outgoing images are way over-exaggerated and obviously being made to counter the slightly over-exaggerated glossy claims. It partly depends on your resolution and screen-size. A 1680 x 1050 20" screen is going to look sharper than a 1440 x 900 19" screen. A high enough resolution matte screen that is properly setup with your display signal (usually just pressing an auto-setup button) is very sharp.

The issue is with the glass plate. It needs a coating to absorb light rather than reflect it:

http://devicedaily.com/misc/new-anti...ll-angles.html

It needs to be able to transmit outgoing light very well so the solar panel tech might not be useful. If it could be used, it could charge the machine too and that improves the green status further.

My money's ready for a 30' LED Cinema Display I can connect to my 2008 MacPro - I hope I won't have to wait too long.

But the debate over digital vs. film was back when digital wasn't producing the same quality as film so it's not really a parallel situation. Digital eventually improved and got better than film.

In this case, matte screens replaced the old CRT displays and alleviated the glare and reflection problems. The current trend toward glossy screens is a step backward in that regard.

A more similar situation would be if the makers of digital imaging equipment suddenly decided to push a system by which users would have to have their images "developed" on a physical media before you could view it, just like in the old days. That's more akin to what's happening with displays. It's an intentional step backward.

Part of my work is in graphic design: my final products are either in print or on DVD. I like working on glossy and matte screens; sometimes I have a choice (at the office), sometimes I don't (when I'm out with a single notebook). Both have their good and bad points and work better or worse in various situations. It can also depend on my mood on the day. For any project, I always review it on a variety of screens including my plasma TV at home, which is again very different. All in all, I think it is a very personal decision as to which is better and sweeping statements for or against either are just not easy to make and stand by.

yay finally!
thanks

Absolutely.

But I think the professionals are starting to worry that their screens will soon have glass panels as well. After all, the MacBook Pro is meant to be a professional notebook computer, and it has a glass panel.

I couldn't agree more.

There is an adage that states, "The more choices one has, the longer it takes to make a decision." In business, the more choices I give you, the more it costs to make, inventory or distribute.

And another equally important adage is, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." In business, "ugly doesn't sell."

So in light of what you said above, Apple has a choice to place a sheet of clear glass, a non-reflective glass or both on its new LED backlit LCDs to protect the screens, which is the primary purpose of the glass panel in the first place.

Now as we have witnessed in these forums, there will never be one perfectly acceptable format for everybody.

However, there is only one iteration that could work for or could satisfy everybody. The decision can be as fast as you can get out your credit card, and it will be the least expensive from both the manufacturer's and consumer's perspective once you have decided that a new LED Cinema Display would be perfect for you.

That is the one that Apple is currently selling. Clear, glossy glass and all. Its big, bright, green, and placed in the right light, glare free. And if you can't adjust it's position, turn down the overhead reflecting lights or find it too realistic and shiny, just buy a suitable matte film overlay. It is not permanent. As such, you can have a second choice at any time you want. However, I would suggest that the choosing which matte film will best suit your needs, will equally drive you mad.

Remember, if Apple did give you a 'matte' choice, you couldn't make it 'clear'.

By then however, you may come to the same conclusion as was reported by James' in his article, "LED-backlit display: Is it better for digital photography?" on O'Reilly's Digital Media site. http://blogs.oreilly.com/aperture/20...s-it-bett.html

As I said before, the iPhone or iPod Touch is one of the best examples what 'clear glossy' screens will affect. Off, it is a mirror. On, clear, brilliant images with no glare. Same for Jobo's Mirror L. http://www.jobo.com/web/Mirage-L-PDJ155.435.0.html

As a freelance graphic designer, I've already worked in more studios than most people will see in their entire career.

In the last year or so, a lot of the studios have been replacing their aging Power Mac G5s with aluminium iMacs, rather than Mac Pros. You can argue the benefits of the Mac Pros until you are blue in the face, but every single studio I've worked with can't see past the price tag, and hence they go for the iMac every single time.

So I've been asking around to see what end-users make of the new iMacs. Without exception, and I'm talking about 30+ seats here, including designers and artworkers, the end users loved the look of the new iMacs, but having used them for any longer than one day, they now HATE the iMacs glassy screen with a passion. The word 'torture' was actually used.

There are studios who replaced a few machines, realised their mistake, and are now scratching their heads about what to buy now, because unless they pony up for Mac Pros, their choices are limited.

This is where the market share and financial results don't tell the truth these studios have bought the kit, and the money is in Apple's coffers, but they don't actually like what they've bought, and they are unlikely to buy glassy Apple products again. In three years time, when they come to replace their fleet of aluminium iMacs, they aren't going to buy glassy again. And if all that Apple offers them is glassy, they simply won't be buying Apple.

I wonder how many aluminium iMac users, the power of denial aside, actually have buyers remorse? I'm guessing there are a lot of people out there who thought that the iMac looked great on the shopfloor are now regretting the glassy screen. I personally owned two, and I offloaded them on Ebay at a massive loss shortly after buying them.

cool beans! thanks for that.
I love control+eject... never have to use the mouse to shutdown/sleep/restart again!

I expect a 30" model will follow shortly, so here's my question:

When using an iSight on the 30", I find I have to point the camera all the way down in order for it to be pointed at me (or more commonly, my kid). It appears that the camera in this display cannot be aimed. Is this true?

Maury

Cinema Display = expensive dongle (as it currently stands).

Do we know for sure whether this panel is PVA or IPS? The reviewer is inclinded to say IPS, but I'm not so sure. Given the $900 price tag and the 14ms response time, the Cinema Display would fall more in-line with PVA panels I would think. Not that PVA is at all bad; it is 8-bit like IPS (although the actual NTSC color gamut may be a little less than what an IPS would provide), and the response time is middle-of-the-road (TN panels being the fast end and IPS panels being the slow end). So, I'd say the Cinema Display is a prosumer dongle, but not necessarily a professional's first choice.

I know I sure do. First Mac I've own that led to a decrease in productivity instead of an increase. Look, customer satisfaction doesn't show up for 3-5 years when they buy their next machine. Like you said, Apple already has the money for the current machines. If you alienate the professional base, they will leave. They have no choice as they're in the business of making money themselves. If price your most popular education models out of reach (Macbook), they will look elsewhere. And if the original iMacs were any indication, you can't count on the switcher staying as a given. Sure there are those who would spend a grand on a turkey sandwich if it had an Apple logo, but their numbers on the internet are far higher than their real life foot print. If you make your machines according to them and only them, can you think of the current profits as more like cash advances.

All of the mac sites discussing merits/flaws of the new 24 LED backlit 'suggest' what types of panel it might be. PVA, IPS.......

What other (sub $1000) 24" LED backlit screens are 'out there'?

Lenovo (matte screen) $624.99
http://shopper.cnet.com/lcd-monitors...col;txt#info-5

Eizo (matte screen) - $780
http://www.eizo.com/products/lcd/ev2411w/index.asp

Any others?

That that many. LED back lighting in larger desktop displays is still very expensive compared to similar CCFL backlit displays. Most companies don't want to take the risk quite yet and holding back until it becomes more affordable.

The Lenovo has had very dismal review.

I don't believe the Eizo is available yet.

Most photography is usually under glass... the Mona Lisa is in a glass box.

I love that I'm a "true arse" because I crack a joke about Jobs/Apple currently feels about matte display sales in relation to glossy display sales.

PS: Responding to Teckstud with facts, especially sourced ones, usually gets him riled up.

From a technical sense of resolving picture and color information digital is not really better than film. Digital just became accepted and widely adopted.


LCD has never been considered technically equal to CRT. The only reason LCD has replaced CRT is because television manufacturers are all moving to LCD televisions. The CRT factories are all being shut down, while LCD factories are going online.


Having to develop an image on a physical medium is not a step backwards. Their are advantages to physical mediums. For one it exists as a physical medium. A digital image does not actually exist, its just a collection of data being read and displayed. Physical mediums do not need electricity to be seen. You can hold a positive film transparency up to the sun and see an image. You cannot do that with a digital image.

It's painfully obvious today that Apple has survived by keeping hardware and software controlled completely by them. What could be argued as once their downfall is now their reason for success. However, the new cinema display is really lacking. The lack of firewire and a glossy only screen has its cons, but the new display port is whats really whacked. I may not be the average user but I currently use my 23" apple cinema display through a dvi switch to several other macs. Now I have to wait to see if they put out an adapter. Which I don't see happening because the new display port is clearly a device to protect content. I will say that I do like the power cable provided, but no sleep or power controls? What gives! With the new macbooks missing firewire and now the new crippling display. Apple's new moniker should be "First it giveth' then they taketh away."

This ACD is not designed to be used with all Macs its only designed for the notebooks.

Any one is free to use mini Display port so 3rd parties can make any type of adaptor they choose.


Not sure what you mean by this. Display port is designed to use HSDPA. This only restricts content that contains this type of DRM. It has no effect on content without HSDPA. It has absolutely nothing to do with display adaptors.


Apple has always abandoned older technology for newer technology. This is nothing new.

Agree with you 100% and I'm a pro too. Glossy is awesome!! Glad to see more people are seeing the light.

I just bought a 2.53 GHz macbook pro and will soon be getting the ACD dock to make life easier while in the office. Just shell out the cash if you can and get them and stop complaining. If you do real work the savings in time and improvement in quality of how you interact with your computer will pay itself in no time.

If you don't have the cash go buy el cheapo windows PC components and torture yourself while you eat shit and die.

You do realise that you can get the same thing as Control+Eject by pressing power? On a notebook it's right next to it and just one button, not two!


I hope you mean HDCP, otherwise the new Cinema is a 24" iPhone.

And on that, HDCP first appeared through DVI. Not HDMI or DisplayPort, DVI. Apple could have kept DVI and implemented HDCP if they wanted to. The move to MDP is about keeping up with what will be the next industry standard, DisplayPort.

Come on, is that really necessary? I think this sort of crass display shows that you're another malcontent, just on the other side of the issue.

That's mature. Buy a Dell 2408WFP and a spare MagSafe charger and you'll have nearly the same for less. Don't even think about pulling the "it'll use a crappy TN panel", because the Dell Ultrasharps use the Samsung PVA, and there's still no confirmation of whether the new Cinema even uses IPS! Plus you get to avoid the mirror effect.

On glossy vs matte, in early 2006 I bought a Toshiba laptop with a glossy screen and loved the color etc. When 2008 rolled around and I was going to buy my MacBook Pro, a friend convinced me to get matte. I'm glad he did. I can use mine on almost zero brightness in most average conditions, my old laptop had to always be on full to avoid reflections. And the same goes for the new MacBooks. The power savings of LED are offset by the need to have it on 100% brightness the whole time. To those "switchers" with glossy now, go and sit down at a matte screen for a while.

I am sitting right now with my glossy macbook pro (october 2008 model) in a cafe with 100 ceiling lights, a fireplace, neon signs and cars... And the only reflection I can see are the black parts of the screen, which has no text or pictures on them anyways... and I don't need to go 100% brighness at all.

Also, for the $400 dollars you think you are saving you don't get power management, isight reroute, good sound with subwoofer, audio reroute, usb reroute, instant dual monitor if needed, an any other soft-hardware integration apple can think of. I don't know about you but it is just not worth my time to spend 2-3 hours researching a cheapo alternative for the pennies you will save.

[personal attack removed]

Right, got my acronyms mixed up.


Not the same: LED backlighting, web cam, speakers.


The LED backlighting in the MacBook makes a big difference in brightness and contrast. You don't need it on 100%.