I work with people who do critical color work for film and video. They work in specially designed rooms that don't direct light at the monitors. Whether it be glossy or matte ambient light corrupts the screen.
This is the monitor that is most often used in film/video production. It does not have a matte screen. Whether in a studio or in the field we place the monitor in a darkened area where no ambient light can corrupt the color or contrast.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass
They shouldn't be doing so in a totally dark room either. Even a 40W lamp in the room can cause glare on the glossy screens. You're obviously not a designer if you don't understand the problem.
Engadget calls it a Blu-ray writer, and sony's own website says" Available Blu-ray Disc? playback/burning, CD/DVD playback/burning drive". You must not have read either website, and I guess when you called Sony, you talked to someone who had no clue.
As I stated originally:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core
As far as I can find out, it comes with a Blu-ray reader only.
Just called Sony and they said it is coming next week and it plays only. Does not write to Blu-ray disks. However, I have heard that the $1999 model may come a blu-ray writer. Can't yet confirm.
The one Engadget referenced, i.e., for $1399, is a Blu-ray player only.
I did read both web sites and obvious more than they did or before they watched the Sony video. I gather that my Sony contact did, in fact, have a clue.
By the way, did you notice the severe reflections in the Sony video at the 01:35 mark. I gather Sony has no problem with glass either, i.e., "Touch panel screen features reinforce glass for increased strength."
Now I guess I will have to agree with you that that would be a deal breaker for me too.
Personally, I think Apple is waiting on Blu-Ray for as long as possible to sucker people into rebuying movies on iTunes - how many folks own 3 copies of Beatles albums or VHS, DVD and Bluray versions of the Godfather trilogy due to the same marketing strategy being used) and increasing the consumer refresh rate on Apple computers. Also, to hold current price points, adding Blu_Ray would really cut into profit margins. Blu-ray drives probably have a different form factor than current Superdrives, so having it as an optional add-on probably isn't a viable option like processor, memory, etc., which is always the same standard size. When Apple finally adds BluRay, you can bet it'll be standard on the models it's available on.
If that were the case why then have an video input that can potentially allow for Blu-ray movies to be played. Seems a bit defeatist if that were just about ?sucker[ing] people into rebuying movies on iTunes?. Now if you want to say it?s about trying to build up their digital download store as ?good enough? alternative and not supporting a format that has little business being on consumer PCs when it should remain in their living rooms; I?d agree with that.
Godfather looks fantastic on Blu-ray! Have you seen Blade Runner on B-R?
If they added it, B-R wouldn?t really cut into their Mac margins as it would be a BTO option. There have been reports that show consumers are fine with B-R in the living room but aren?t adopting it on their PCs.
The form factor is an issue for their notebooks. The 9.5mm ultra-slim drives have only come out earlier this year. I forget if those were tray or slot-loading. The 11.7mm slim slot-loading drives have been used by iMacs are more expensive than the larger tray-loading drives that other vendors can use for their notebooks. The Mac Pro is the only one that can get a full sized drive but if that isn?t given a BTO option for their professional apps and the OS has yet to add AACS support, why would anyone would be expecting it to be on the iMac, Mini or MacBook that just came out. We?ll hear being hearing it all over again when the MBPs get updated, too. It?s an illogical order.
We?re talking about Apple here, not Acer, do you think they are going to sell them at cost? They will be expensive drives, especially if they have to service them.
Don?t get me wrong, I have no problem with B-R as a tech. It?s great for the living room, and though I certainly don?t need it for my PC, but appreciate your desire for it. I?ve even stated the ways to get B-R on a Mac, even stated places that sell drives. My question is why harp on what a company should do appease an individual or group without looking to see if it works with their game plan? From what I can see, it doesn?t. For a non-Apple example, I wish MS would make a Zune app for OS X or start using WebKit for IE, but I understand why they don?t.
They shouldn't be doing so in a totally dark room either. Even a 40W lamp in the room can cause glare on the glossy screens. You're obviously not a designer if you don't understand the problem.
I can't imagine a professional designer even placing a 1W lamp infront of a monitor, glossy or matte.
I work with people who do critical color work for film and video. They work in specially designed rooms that don't direct light at the monitors. Whether it be glossy or matte ambient light corrupts the screen.
This is the monitor that is most often used in film/video production. It does not have a matte screen. Whether in a studio or in the field we place the monitor in a darkened area where no ambient light can corrupt the color or contrast.
Thanks for clearing that up! The problem isn't the lack of a matte option, it's the lack of a option!!!!!!!!!!
I'll smash all my lightbulbs, put up thick curtains, and trade in my Lacie monitors for a couple of those state-of-the art sonys you've got there immediately. I can't believe I never noticed that all good design studios are dark caves, and all good graphic designers work in dark holes!
Wow, I guess that's why no graphic designers use Apple products
I did read both web sites and obvious more than they did or before they watched the Sony video. I gather that my Sony contact did, in fact, have a clue.
By the way, did you notice the severe reflections in the Sony video at the 01:35 mark. I gather Sony has no problem with glass either, i.e., "Touch panel screen features reinforce glass for increased strength."
Now I guess I will have to agree with you that that would be a deal breaker for me too.
Well, the point of my original post was that other companies have all-in-ones with touch screens and blu-ray, 2 things which Apple is late in implementing. Whether it costs 1399 or 1999 doesn't make a difference to that point. Both are iMac price points.
In my industry no one would take you seriously or patronize your business if your studio was in front of giant windows. That makes for a horrible environment for color work.
In my industry no one would take you seriously or patronize your business if your studio was in front of giant windows. That makes for a horrible environment for color work.
This is our typical ambient light environment.
2 questions:
1) if you work at a post production facility in New Zealand, why do you live in Brooklyn?
2) Do you think graphic designers have the same requirements/workspaces as video post production folks?
You've gotten way off topic. It's been stated about a million times on AI that a lot of graphic designers, photographers, etc. etc. prefer the matte screen to the glossy one due to glare issues. Also lost of people who like using their computers outdoor, in rooms with lightbulbs, etc etc. The fact that glare isn't an issue at video post production facilities doesn't change that.
Most graphic design studios tend to be themselves well designed, inspirational sorts of places to work, and that tends to mean plenty of light. See for examples the pictures of the workspace which I included above.
That guy in your photo isn't using a mac either, by the way, and he has 2 matte monitors and a screen, which could also be considered matte. There's also light behind him which is giving off at least 40W.
They don't have blu-ray because they assume people will be downloading HD Video instead. If people are burning on a Blu-Ray..well tough crap. The only type of person, who would get a PC becuase of that deserves the peice of crap they bought instead.
But what if Lauren, the movie maker, is looking for a PC to burn her movies in HD? What are her options?
The persistent whiners about glossy screens have become too trite to deal with. I also prefer matte for displays that are good (presumably, the IPS 1440p 27" iMac will be excellent), but glossy isn't as atrocious as some of these whiners claim.
Graphic designers who need matte screens will get matte displays (duh).
Superbass, do you really expect anyone to take that second picture seriously? That guy is doing WHAT on that display? As for the first picture, are you sure those folks aren't WEB designers?
1) if you work at a post production facility in New Zealand, why do you live in Brooklyn?
Its just an example. All post production facilities have a similar design.
Quote:
2) Do you think graphic designers have the same requirements/workspaces as video post production folks?
The laws of physics don't change between film and graphic design. Ambient light on any screen corrupts color and contrast.
Quote:
It's been stated about a million times on AI that a lot of graphic designers, photographers, etc. etc. prefer the matte screen to the glossy one due to glare issues.
Its also true that simply because someone calls themselves a photographer or graphic designer does not automatically mean they know what they are talking about.
Quote:
Also lost of people who like using their computers outdoor, in rooms with lightbulbs, etc etc. The fact that glare isn't an issue at video post production facilities doesn't change that.
You are the one moving off topic, I'm not talking about everyone. I'm only talking about people who need to perform critical color work.
Quote:
Most graphic design studios tend to be themselves well designed, inspirational sorts of places to work, and that tends to mean plenty of light. See for examples the pictures of the workspace which I included above.
The workspace you've shown is horrible for critical color work. It doesn't matter if it makes people feel good.
Quote:
That guy in your photo isn't using a mac either, by the way, and he has 2 matte monitors and a screen, which could also be considered matte. There's also light behind him which is giving off at least 40W.
What does it matter if he's using a Mac? The high end color correction software is made for Windows and Linux. The computer monitor in front of him doesn't matter he's not using that for color, its just a computer monitor. The large image in front of him is from a digital projector.
If you look to his left you see the Sony CRT monitor that I posted earlier.
Jeff, lets not get caught up with facts here. DP has some advantages, but not enough to overcome one little thing: people want a single connection standard with both computers and video equipment and HDMI is good enough.
Computers are not consumer electronic devices. HDMI also doesn't have bandwidth to handle higher resolution displays. Long term it's a looser connection, but considering that until recently the majority of PC's still had PS/2 ports, I'm not holding my breath looking from rational behavior from the PC crowd.
Quote:
This outrageous fee is $10,000 a year plus at most a quarter per device. I'd double and give Apple a 50 cent piece for their troubles. They paid much more than that designing Mini-DP.
Does this mean that it might be possible to somehow attach an external video source in 1080p with a HDMI cable to the Display Port video in for perfect external visuals on the new 27 inch iMac?
The Mini DisplayPort lets you connect an external display, including the Apple LED Cinema Display, to your iMac. On the 27-inch iMac, the same port offers input, too. So you can connect any external source that has DisplayPort output ? including a MacBook or MacBook Pro ? and use your iMac as a display.
So we will see, but since HDMI and DPI are pretty compatible/interchangeable I'd say there is a strong possibility that Apple will be producing an adaptor with an HDMI-in. Since the same port handles input as well as output, these adaptors will probably have some sort of Y cable configuration. Should be very interesting and it's a good leveraging of DisplayPort. DP supports multiple monitors (HDMI does not) and this is a novel adaptation of this - nothing says the chain has to start with the computer - Apple's putting the computer in the middle of the chain. Pretty clever!
Even a 40W lamp in the room can cause glare on the glossy screens.
Funny, I'm sitting between two 150 watt lamps and I have no glare or reflections.
Quote:
You're obviously not a designer if you don't understand the problem.
You obviously don't own a glossy display. Internet echo chamber at it's finest
I'm so glad I disregarded the angst in forums like this and got my MBP - it's the best display I have ever used - and I've had color corrected E-Machines displays from the heyday of Trinitron CRTs...
Thanks for clearing that up! The problem isn't the lack of a matte option, it's the lack of a option!!!!!!!!!!
I'll smash all my lightbulbs, put up thick curtains, and trade in my Lacie monitors for a couple of those state-of-the art sonys you've got there immediately. I can't believe I never noticed that all good design studios are dark caves, and all good graphic designers work in dark holes!
Wow, I guess that's why no graphic designers use Apple products
Computers are not consumer electronic devices. HDMI also doesn't have bandwidth to handle higher resolution displays. Long term it's a looser connection, but considering that until recently the majority of PC's still had PS/2 ports, I'm not holding my breath looking from rational behavior from the PC crowd.
Displayport doesn't have much more video bandwidth, certainly not enough to matter. It's roughly 8.6Gbps vs. 8.1Gbps. When Display Port is updated with more bandwidth, you will have to replace your computer anyways to get it.
Does either size of DP offer a positive locking mechanism?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass
Thanks for clearing that up! The problem isn't the lack of a matte option, it's the lack of a option!!!!!!!!!!
I'll smash all my lightbulbs, put up thick curtains, and trade in my Lacie monitors for a couple of those state-of-the art sonys you've got there immediately. I can't believe I never noticed that all good design studios are dark caves, and all good graphic designers work in dark holes!
Wow, I guess that's why no graphic designers use Apple products
Especially not these guys
If you're doing careful color work, that's way over the top for ambient lighting. If they're product designers, such as doing 3D modeling or sketching, then it's fine because it's not the colors that matter. That much light is going to visibly alter the blacks on any screen. I can tell when the sunlight from a single 4' x 4' window washes out the blacks on my previous generation ACD, whole walls of windows has to cause problems. Why link to a site called "Stupid Studio" anyways?
Quote:
And it's very dark here:
Doesn't look like that person is actually doing anything. Certainly not work. It looks like video in a Final Cut window, but where is the rest of the program?
Who said Blu-ray isn?t king? It?s the highest quality consumer audio and video option we have, but that does mean that every computer should automatically have it? DVD is still widely popular and despite HDTV taking off up-converting DVD players seems to be more popular that Blu-ray. That doesn?t mean it?s better quality. Blu-ray is great for the home entertainment system, but popularity on PCs is not high and Apple has it?s own agenda with the iTunes Store that it wished to pursue. That much should be obvious. If you want Blu-ray on a Mac you now have an inexpensive option with the 27? iMac. You can also use an internal or external drive with Windows on a Mac, but I don?t think that most people are going to do either of those because they simply don? t care enough about Blu-ray. Convenience trumps quality every time, which is why better tech often fails or takes a long time to take hold.
Upconverting DVD players are only popular because they are dirt cheap, and people buy them as regular DVD players. Whether they upconvert or not doesn't matter to most I imagine.
If Apple are really knobbling their own flagship consumer desktop PCs just to drive iTunes sales, them they are brain dead. Apple should provide the consumer with as much choice as it's reasonable to do so, and as BD is now a very successful format, it should certainly be included.
As for convenience beating quality, if that were the case, blu-ray would stand no chance against DVD. Where I live in the UK, the BD sections in stores are getting bigger and bigger. The format is clearly doing okay.
Well, the point of my original post was that other companies have all-in-ones with touch screens and blu-ray, 2 things which Apple is late in implementing. Whether it costs 1399 or 1999 doesn't make a difference to that point. Both are iMac price points.
Like shit. Your point was…
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass
In terms of price point, Sony has an all-in-one WITH BLU-RAY and WITH MULTI-TOUCH 1080p screen on the market for $1300. http://www.engadget.com/tag/vaiol
Next to it, Apple doesn't exactly look like the innovator with their current iMac.
…to dis Apple, which you do all the time.
Well, you are not a Mac user. So why don't you just upgrade your PC. Sony seems to have everything you have been screaming for, particularly their Blu-ray writer starting at 2 grand.
Oh. Did you the view the SONY promo video and notice the reflections? Where is your mouth now?
____________________
For many reasons, I am not prepared to recommend Blu-ray as a backup medium.
There are too many reports coming out that suggest the format is not universally playable, i.e., if I were to write to a Blu-ray disc today, there is less guarantee that it will play,* unobstructively or otherwise, on my next machine or worse, on anyone else's player to whom I may send it to.
At $10 to $20 a disc, vs 25¢ each for DVD's, the cost is just too high at the moment. BTW, I have leven ooked for those so-called $6 BD and on those sites that purport to sell them, they are conveniently not available.
Comments
This is the monitor that is most often used in film/video production. It does not have a matte screen. Whether in a studio or in the field we place the monitor in a darkened area where no ambient light can corrupt the color or contrast.
They shouldn't be doing so in a totally dark room either. Even a 40W lamp in the room can cause glare on the glossy screens. You're obviously not a designer if you don't understand the problem.
Engadget calls it a Blu-ray writer, and sony's own website says" Available Blu-ray Disc? playback/burning, CD/DVD playback/burning drive". You must not have read either website, and I guess when you called Sony, you talked to someone who had no clue.
As I stated originally:
As far as I can find out, it comes with a Blu-ray reader only.
Just called Sony and they said it is coming next week and it plays only. Does not write to Blu-ray disks. However, I have heard that the $1999 model may come a blu-ray writer. Can't yet confirm.
The one Engadget referenced, i.e., for $1399, is a Blu-ray player only.
Have confirmed that the $1999 model does come with a Blu-ray writer. http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/...tegoryId=16154
I did read both web sites and obvious more than they did or before they watched the Sony video. I gather that my Sony contact did, in fact, have a clue.
By the way, did you notice the severe reflections in the Sony video at the 01:35 mark. I gather Sony has no problem with glass either, i.e., "Touch panel screen features reinforce glass for increased strength."
Now I guess I will have to agree with you that that would be a deal breaker for me too.
Personally, I think Apple is waiting on Blu-Ray for as long as possible to sucker people into rebuying movies on iTunes - how many folks own 3 copies of Beatles albums or VHS, DVD and Bluray versions of the Godfather trilogy due to the same marketing strategy being used) and increasing the consumer refresh rate on Apple computers. Also, to hold current price points, adding Blu_Ray would really cut into profit margins. Blu-ray drives probably have a different form factor than current Superdrives, so having it as an optional add-on probably isn't a viable option like processor, memory, etc., which is always the same standard size. When Apple finally adds BluRay, you can bet it'll be standard on the models it's available on.
If that were the case why then have an video input that can potentially allow for Blu-ray movies to be played. Seems a bit defeatist if that were just about ?sucker[ing] people into rebuying movies on iTunes?. Now if you want to say it?s about trying to build up their digital download store as ?good enough? alternative and not supporting a format that has little business being on consumer PCs when it should remain in their living rooms; I?d agree with that.
Godfather looks fantastic on Blu-ray! Have you seen Blade Runner on B-R?
If they added it, B-R wouldn?t really cut into their Mac margins as it would be a BTO option. There have been reports that show consumers are fine with B-R in the living room but aren?t adopting it on their PCs.
The form factor is an issue for their notebooks. The 9.5mm ultra-slim drives have only come out earlier this year. I forget if those were tray or slot-loading. The 11.7mm slim slot-loading drives have been used by iMacs are more expensive than the larger tray-loading drives that other vendors can use for their notebooks. The Mac Pro is the only one that can get a full sized drive but if that isn?t given a BTO option for their professional apps and the OS has yet to add AACS support, why would anyone would be expecting it to be on the iMac, Mini or MacBook that just came out. We?ll hear being hearing it all over again when the MBPs get updated, too. It?s an illogical order.
We?re talking about Apple here, not Acer, do you think they are going to sell them at cost? They will be expensive drives, especially if they have to service them.
Don?t get me wrong, I have no problem with B-R as a tech. It?s great for the living room, and though I certainly don?t need it for my PC, but appreciate your desire for it. I?ve even stated the ways to get B-R on a Mac, even stated places that sell drives. My question is why harp on what a company should do appease an individual or group without looking to see if it works with their game plan? From what I can see, it doesn?t. For a non-Apple example, I wish MS would make a Zune app for OS X or start using WebKit for IE, but I understand why they don?t.
They shouldn't be doing so in a totally dark room either. Even a 40W lamp in the room can cause glare on the glossy screens. You're obviously not a designer if you don't understand the problem.
I can't imagine a professional designer even placing a 1W lamp infront of a monitor, glossy or matte.
I work with people who do critical color work for film and video. They work in specially designed rooms that don't direct light at the monitors. Whether it be glossy or matte ambient light corrupts the screen.
This is the monitor that is most often used in film/video production. It does not have a matte screen. Whether in a studio or in the field we place the monitor in a darkened area where no ambient light can corrupt the color or contrast.
Thanks for clearing that up! The problem isn't the lack of a matte option, it's the lack of a
I'll smash all my lightbulbs, put up thick curtains, and trade in my Lacie monitors for a couple of those state-of-the art sonys you've got there immediately. I can't believe I never noticed that all good design studios are dark caves, and all good graphic designers work in dark holes!
Wow, I guess that's why no graphic designers use Apple products
Especially not these guys
And it's very dark here:
As I stated originally:
The one Engadget referenced, i.e., for $1399, is a Blu-ray player only.
Have confirmed that the $1999 model does come with a Blu-ray writer. http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/...tegoryId=16154
I did read both web sites and obvious more than they did or before they watched the Sony video. I gather that my Sony contact did, in fact, have a clue.
By the way, did you notice the severe reflections in the Sony video at the 01:35 mark. I gather Sony has no problem with glass either, i.e., "Touch panel screen features reinforce glass for increased strength."
Now I guess I will have to agree with you that that would be a deal breaker for me too.
Well, the point of my original post was that other companies have all-in-ones with touch screens and blu-ray, 2 things which Apple is late in implementing. Whether it costs 1399 or 1999 doesn't make a difference to that point. Both are iMac price points.
This is our typical ambient light environment.
In my industry no one would take you seriously or patronize your business if your studio was in front of giant windows. That makes for a horrible environment for color work.
This is our typical ambient light environment.
2 questions:
1) if you work at a post production facility in New Zealand, why do you live in Brooklyn?
2) Do you think graphic designers have the same requirements/workspaces as video post production folks?
You've gotten way off topic. It's been stated about a million times on AI that a lot of graphic designers, photographers, etc. etc. prefer the matte screen to the glossy one due to glare issues. Also lost of people who like using their computers outdoor, in rooms with lightbulbs, etc etc. The fact that glare isn't an issue at video post production facilities doesn't change that.
Most graphic design studios tend to be themselves well designed, inspirational sorts of places to work, and that tends to mean plenty of light. See for examples the pictures of the workspace which I included above.
That guy in your photo isn't using a mac either, by the way, and he has 2 matte monitors and a screen, which could also be considered matte. There's also light behind him which is giving off at least 40W.
They don't have blu-ray because they assume people will be downloading HD Video instead. If people are burning on a Blu-Ray..well tough crap. The only type of person, who would get a PC becuase of that deserves the peice of crap they bought instead.
But what if Lauren, the movie maker, is looking for a PC to burn her movies in HD? What are her options?
Graphic designers who need matte screens will get matte displays (duh).
Superbass, do you really expect anyone to take that second picture seriously? That guy is doing WHAT on that display? As for the first picture, are you sure those folks aren't WEB designers?
1) if you work at a post production facility in New Zealand, why do you live in Brooklyn?
Its just an example. All post production facilities have a similar design.
2) Do you think graphic designers have the same requirements/workspaces as video post production folks?
The laws of physics don't change between film and graphic design. Ambient light on any screen corrupts color and contrast.
It's been stated about a million times on AI that a lot of graphic designers, photographers, etc. etc. prefer the matte screen to the glossy one due to glare issues.
Its also true that simply because someone calls themselves a photographer or graphic designer does not automatically mean they know what they are talking about.
Also lost of people who like using their computers outdoor, in rooms with lightbulbs, etc etc. The fact that glare isn't an issue at video post production facilities doesn't change that.
You are the one moving off topic, I'm not talking about everyone. I'm only talking about people who need to perform critical color work.
Most graphic design studios tend to be themselves well designed, inspirational sorts of places to work, and that tends to mean plenty of light. See for examples the pictures of the workspace which I included above.
The workspace you've shown is horrible for critical color work. It doesn't matter if it makes people feel good.
That guy in your photo isn't using a mac either, by the way, and he has 2 matte monitors and a screen, which could also be considered matte. There's also light behind him which is giving off at least 40W.
What does it matter if he's using a Mac? The high end color correction software is made for Windows and Linux. The computer monitor in front of him doesn't matter he's not using that for color, its just a computer monitor. The large image in front of him is from a digital projector.
If you look to his left you see the Sony CRT monitor that I posted earlier.
Jeff, lets not get caught up with facts here. DP has some advantages, but not enough to overcome one little thing: people want a single connection standard with both computers and video equipment and HDMI is good enough.
Computers are not consumer electronic devices. HDMI also doesn't have bandwidth to handle higher resolution displays. Long term it's a looser connection, but considering that until recently the majority of PC's still had PS/2 ports, I'm not holding my breath looking from rational behavior from the PC crowd.
This outrageous fee is $10,000 a year plus at most a quarter per device. I'd double and give Apple a 50 cent piece for their troubles. They paid much more than that designing Mini-DP.
Firewire was rejected for less....
Does this mean that it might be possible to somehow attach an external video source in 1080p with a HDMI cable to the Display Port video in for perfect external visuals on the new 27 inch iMac?
From Apple's web site:
Mini DisplayPort.
The Mini DisplayPort lets you connect an external display, including the Apple LED Cinema Display, to your iMac. On the 27-inch iMac, the same port offers input, too. So you can connect any external source that has DisplayPort output ? including a MacBook or MacBook Pro ? and use your iMac as a display.
So we will see, but since HDMI and DPI are pretty compatible/interchangeable I'd say there is a strong possibility that Apple will be producing an adaptor with an HDMI-in. Since the same port handles input as well as output, these adaptors will probably have some sort of Y cable configuration. Should be very interesting and it's a good leveraging of DisplayPort. DP supports multiple monitors (HDMI does not) and this is a novel adaptation of this - nothing says the chain has to start with the computer - Apple's putting the computer in the middle of the chain. Pretty clever!
may if not most of dell's monitors have hdmi connections. more than have dp.
That's not my experience. And given Dell's stance on DisplayPort I'm not surprised they are such a huge supporter of it:
http://content.dell.com/us/en/corp/d...play-port.aspx
Even a 40W lamp in the room can cause glare on the glossy screens.
Funny, I'm sitting between two 150 watt lamps and I have no glare or reflections.
You're obviously not a designer if you don't understand the problem.
You obviously don't own a glossy display. Internet echo chamber at it's finest
I'm so glad I disregarded the angst in forums like this and got my MBP - it's the best display I have ever used - and I've had color corrected E-Machines displays from the heyday of Trinitron CRTs...
Thanks for clearing that up! The problem isn't the lack of a matte option, it's the lack of a
I'll smash all my lightbulbs, put up thick curtains, and trade in my Lacie monitors for a couple of those state-of-the art sonys you've got there immediately. I can't believe I never noticed that all good design studios are dark caves, and all good graphic designers work in dark holes!
Wow, I guess that's why no graphic designers use Apple products
Especially not these guys
And it's very dark here:
DUD please your dreaming
dave cave stories to scare the kiddies
no graphic des use apple ???
puleeeze
Computers are not consumer electronic devices. HDMI also doesn't have bandwidth to handle higher resolution displays. Long term it's a looser connection, but considering that until recently the majority of PC's still had PS/2 ports, I'm not holding my breath looking from rational behavior from the PC crowd.
Displayport doesn't have much more video bandwidth, certainly not enough to matter. It's roughly 8.6Gbps vs. 8.1Gbps. When Display Port is updated with more bandwidth, you will have to replace your computer anyways to get it.
Does either size of DP offer a positive locking mechanism?
Thanks for clearing that up! The problem isn't the lack of a matte option, it's the lack of a
I'll smash all my lightbulbs, put up thick curtains, and trade in my Lacie monitors for a couple of those state-of-the art sonys you've got there immediately. I can't believe I never noticed that all good design studios are dark caves, and all good graphic designers work in dark holes!
Wow, I guess that's why no graphic designers use Apple products
Especially not these guys
If you're doing careful color work, that's way over the top for ambient lighting. If they're product designers, such as doing 3D modeling or sketching, then it's fine because it's not the colors that matter. That much light is going to visibly alter the blacks on any screen. I can tell when the sunlight from a single 4' x 4' window washes out the blacks on my previous generation ACD, whole walls of windows has to cause problems. Why link to a site called "Stupid Studio" anyways?
And it's very dark here:
Doesn't look like that person is actually doing anything. Certainly not work. It looks like video in a Final Cut window, but where is the rest of the program?
Who said Blu-ray isn?t king? It?s the highest quality consumer audio and video option we have, but that does mean that every computer should automatically have it? DVD is still widely popular and despite HDTV taking off up-converting DVD players seems to be more popular that Blu-ray. That doesn?t mean it?s better quality. Blu-ray is great for the home entertainment system, but popularity on PCs is not high and Apple has it?s own agenda with the iTunes Store that it wished to pursue. That much should be obvious. If you want Blu-ray on a Mac you now have an inexpensive option with the 27? iMac. You can also use an internal or external drive with Windows on a Mac, but I don?t think that most people are going to do either of those because they simply don? t care enough about Blu-ray. Convenience trumps quality every time, which is why better tech often fails or takes a long time to take hold.
Upconverting DVD players are only popular because they are dirt cheap, and people buy them as regular DVD players. Whether they upconvert or not doesn't matter to most I imagine.
If Apple are really knobbling their own flagship consumer desktop PCs just to drive iTunes sales, them they are brain dead. Apple should provide the consumer with as much choice as it's reasonable to do so, and as BD is now a very successful format, it should certainly be included.
As for convenience beating quality, if that were the case, blu-ray would stand no chance against DVD. Where I live in the UK, the BD sections in stores are getting bigger and bigger. The format is clearly doing okay.
Well, the point of my original post was that other companies have all-in-ones with touch screens and blu-ray, 2 things which Apple is late in implementing. Whether it costs 1399 or 1999 doesn't make a difference to that point. Both are iMac price points.
Like shit. Your point was…
In terms of price point, Sony has an all-in-one WITH BLU-RAY and WITH MULTI-TOUCH 1080p screen on the market for $1300. http://www.engadget.com/tag/vaiol
Next to it, Apple doesn't exactly look like the innovator with their current iMac.
…to dis Apple, which you do all the time.
Well, you are not a Mac user. So why don't you just upgrade your PC. Sony seems to have everything you have been screaming for, particularly their Blu-ray writer starting at 2 grand.
Oh. Did you the view the SONY promo video and notice the reflections? Where is your mouth now?
____________________
For many reasons, I am not prepared to recommend Blu-ray as a backup medium.
There are too many reports coming out that suggest the format is not universally playable, i.e., if I were to write to a Blu-ray disc today, there is less guarantee that it will play,* unobstructively or otherwise, on my next machine or worse, on anyone else's player to whom I may send it to.
At $10 to $20 a disc, vs 25¢ each for DVD's, the cost is just too high at the moment. BTW, I have leven ooked for those so-called $6 BD and on those sites that purport to sell them, they are conveniently not available.
*
http://forums.highdefdigest.com/blu-...wont-play.html
http://www.videohelp.com/forum/archi...s-t366768.html
http://consumerist.com/344116/buyers...y-future-discs
http://h30434.www3.hp.com/psg/board/...&thread.id=134
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c...&start=20&sa=N
http://www.sltrib.com/popculturetech/ci_13548949
http://www.vg247.com/2009/10/01/sony...omment-page-1/