I could have sworn they were using LEDs for backlight only. The panel is still an LCD. ((A)M)OLEDs are the ones that are self-luminous and (had?) have problems with blue longevity.
I think. Used to be the case, at least.
The LED is just a backlight, but in order to make a white LED you have two choices. One is to mix red green and blue LEDs and tune them, but there are problems because each LED's output is dependent on temperature and the three have different temperature response profiles.
The other approach is to use blue (or near UV) LEDs that drive a mix of phosphors to produce a white light. The longevity problem thus comes from the slight burn-in effect on the phosphors, rather than any burn-out on the LED itself. Now obviously you won't get an image burn-in the way you would with a CRT or plasma, because the LED is just for backlight, but it does still take place, and it affects the different colour phosphors slightly differently, so there's a bit of colour drift.
It's a far less serious problem than the old backlights, never mind the AMOLEDS, but it is still an issue.
Would rather be a knowledgeable user with decades of experience and called a troll -
then a gambler who bought some stock that went up and now thinks they know it all.
I'm not going to show you guys how to use the internet. Or the application of critical thinking on the resources you read. Search for yourself - glossy displays are bad.
I'm not going to show you guys how to use the internet. Or the application of critical thinking on the resources you read. Search for yourself - glossy displays are bad.
Except they're not.
Team of opthamologists in my city. They've used Apple products since the Apple ][ for their work.
And they've now upgraded to Macs that are all glossy. Twenty or so computers being used daily by people (and their staff) that you claim to be on the forefront of touting the virtues of matte displays.
Better tell them they're all wrong, then. If just to see how much of a kick they get out of it.
Really, cite ONE expert medical article that says that this is the expert medical opinion, observation and experience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Wow, how'd I miss a post as completely, utterly, and hilariously wrong as this?
I must be slipping.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mode
Would rather be a knowledgeable user with decades of experience and called a troll -
then a gambler who bought some stock that went up and now thinks they know it all.
I'm not going to show you guys how to use the internet. Or the application of critical thinking on the resources you read. Search for yourself - glossy displays are bad.
It's obvious Mode is applying Tekstudian logic in his belief-system, slinging utter nonsense at the wall in the hopes something sticks. A fine example from the Book of Tekstud. \
Health issue? Never heard that before; why is that?
I fully agree Apple should offer matte display again. I got the 30" the moment it was announced EOL. Some people even bought spare ones to keep in the attic, go figure.
But with the runaway success of the iPad and its glossy screen perhaps Apple lost focus on what (some) customers want. Possibly, or even probably in the minority, these matte screen lovers, but sho nuff Apple customers all the same.
I just have to laugh at all the glossy Apple displays, before returning to my matte finish 30" Cinema displays (which can still be found on ebay and craigslist.) More pixels than the 27-incher is better, too.
Fully agree. The 409.600 more pixels make a little difference to me, but it's nice that you can have a long webpage open and read it without scrolling. A damn shame they don't make them anymore (EOL July 26, 2010).
"The Cinema Display's brightness, which was originally 270 cd/m2, has now been upgraded to 400 cd/2. The screen's contrast ratio has also been bumped up from 400:1 to 700:1."
Personally I choose the slowly-dying backlight over the glossy option, but to each his own.
Apple: this is a health and productivity issue. Please, include matte displays, at least as an option.
You can sign the matte petition at:
MacMatte (matte petition)
Any chance you can give it a rest? Reposting the same or similar post to a different thread isn't the way to make it work. Apple does offer a feedback page, just suggest people to send their requests over there.
This will probably get lost amongst the shouting match of the near-religious-war about screen texture. (Disclaimer: I own a 30" matte Cinema Display, made just as the war's first skirmishes were played out, and a 17" glossy MBP, of newer vintage.)
If I wanted to connect two of the new Thunderbolt 27"s to a 2009 Mac Pro, I'm assuming the video will work, but I'll need a wide variety of (passive) adapters?
Will non-video even work? If so, will the sound/camera/keyboard-controls still be frakked? ("No one would ever want to use two of these!" )
Where are the Mac Pro Thunderbolt video cards? Will there ever be old-Pro-compatible versions?
I guess what I'm asking here is if these displays will work at all with non-Thunderbolt Macs. Is there a transition strategy other than "Buy new kit!"?
If I wanted to connect two of the new Thunderbolt 27"s to a 2009 Mac Pro, I'm assuming the video will work, but I'll need a wide variety of (passive) adapters?
Where are the Mac Pro Thunderbolt video cards? Will there ever be old-Pro-compatible versions?
Apparently, the Thunderbolt cables don't work on existing Mini-DP products:
I would assume the displays will ship with a Thunderbolt cable. I imagine you will be able to use a standard Mini-DP cable to hook up the displays but you won't get data support for USB.
It's not clear what will happen with the Mac Pro concerning Thunderbolt because Intel has said there will be no TB GPUs or PCI cards. The port has to go on the motherboard.
The only way I can see them doing this in the new Mac Pros is to either have both PCI GPUs with display outputs and Thunderbolt ports on the motherboard or they can go the MXM route for GPUs like the iMac (which I'm personally hoping happens). Either way though, no solution offered for supporting Thunderbolt on pre-Thunderbolt machines.
First time poster but long time reader, just noticed at the bottom of the AppleCare Store page the T&C's have changed to reflect Lion rather than SL. Seem's the whole website has changed.
Nope. We are asking for a matte option. Choice is good.
Generally only super high end pros need matte, and they are using super high dollar color accurate screens any way so there really is little to no market for an Apple Matte Cinima display at this time.
Sorry, after using a 30" monitor for a few years now, I'd really like another one (or bigger), not a 27", and before you jump all over me and say 27" - 30", there isn't a big difference ? ask your girlfriend or wife if 3" MORE is a big deal
Comments
I could have sworn they were using LEDs for backlight only. The panel is still an LCD. ((A)M)OLEDs are the ones that are self-luminous and (had?) have problems with blue longevity.
I think. Used to be the case, at least.
The LED is just a backlight, but in order to make a white LED you have two choices. One is to mix red green and blue LEDs and tune them, but there are problems because each LED's output is dependent on temperature and the three have different temperature response profiles.
The other approach is to use blue (or near UV) LEDs that drive a mix of phosphors to produce a white light. The longevity problem thus comes from the slight burn-in effect on the phosphors, rather than any burn-out on the LED itself. Now obviously you won't get an image burn-in the way you would with a CRT or plasma, because the LED is just for backlight, but it does still take place, and it affects the different colour phosphors slightly differently, so there's a bit of colour drift.
It's a far less serious problem than the old backlights, never mind the AMOLEDS, but it is still an issue.
ALL eye doctors, science and medicine seem to counter your retort.
Really, cite ONE expert medical article that says that this is the expert medical opinion, observation and experience.
Millions of articles and hundreds of thousands of posts, petitions and ALL eye doctors, science and medicine seem to counter your retort.
Your SJ indoctrination is showing.
Wow, how'd I miss a post as completely, utterly, and hilariously wrong as this?
I must be slipping.
then a gambler who bought some stock that went up and now thinks they know it all.
I'm not going to show you guys how to use the internet. Or the application of critical thinking on the resources you read. Search for yourself - glossy displays are bad.
I'm not going to show you guys how to use the internet. Or the application of critical thinking on the resources you read. Search for yourself - glossy displays are bad.
Except they're not.
Team of opthamologists in my city. They've used Apple products since the Apple ][ for their work.
And they've now upgraded to Macs that are all glossy. Twenty or so computers being used daily by people (and their staff) that you claim to be on the forefront of touting the virtues of matte displays.
Better tell them they're all wrong, then. If just to see how much of a kick they get out of it.
Really, cite ONE expert medical article that says that this is the expert medical opinion, observation and experience.
Wow, how'd I miss a post as completely, utterly, and hilariously wrong as this?
I must be slipping.
Would rather be a knowledgeable user with decades of experience and called a troll -
then a gambler who bought some stock that went up and now thinks they know it all.
I'm not going to show you guys how to use the internet. Or the application of critical thinking on the resources you read. Search for yourself - glossy displays are bad.
It's obvious Mode is applying Tekstudian logic in his belief-system, slinging utter nonsense at the wall in the hopes something sticks. A fine example from the Book of Tekstud.
Apple: this is a health and productivity issue. Please, include matte displays, at least as an option.
You can sign the matte petition at:
MacMatte (matte petition)
http://macmatte.wordpress.com
Health issue? Never heard that before; why is that?
I fully agree Apple should offer matte display again. I got the 30" the moment it was announced EOL. Some people even bought spare ones to keep in the attic, go figure.
But with the runaway success of the iPad and its glossy screen perhaps Apple lost focus on what (some) customers want. Possibly, or even probably in the minority, these matte screen lovers, but sho nuff Apple customers all the same.
Cheers,
Phil
Have you even tried to create a Photoshop Layer Mask on a glossy screen?
I just have to laugh at all the glossy Apple displays, before returning to my matte finish 30" Cinema displays (which can still be found on ebay and craigslist.) More pixels than the 27-incher is better, too.
Fully agree. The 409.600 more pixels make a little difference to me, but it's nice that you can have a long webpage open and read it without scrolling. A damn shame they don't make them anymore (EOL July 26, 2010).
Enjoy your slowly-dying backlight and your eight-year-old panel.
It was introduced in 2004 but got an upgrade in 2006 I believe. See http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2006/03/3369.ars
"The Cinema Display's brightness, which was originally 270 cd/m2, has now been upgraded to 400 cd/2. The screen's contrast ratio has also been bumped up from 400:1 to 700:1."
Personally I choose the slowly-dying backlight over the glossy option, but to each his own.
Originally Posted by zunx
Apple: this is a health and productivity issue. Please, include matte displays, at least as an option.
You can sign the matte petition at:
MacMatte (matte petition)
Any chance you can give it a rest? Reposting the same or similar post to a different thread isn't the way to make it work. Apple does offer a feedback page, just suggest people to send their requests over there.
Enjoy your slowly-dying backlight and your eight-year-old panel.
What kind of LED does Apple's LED backlights use? I've not found a reasonably authoritative source.
BTW: My 30" is 5 years old, is used daily and still quite bright. I've still don't have cause to go above minimum brightness.
- glossy displays are bad.
mmkay?
If I wanted to connect two of the new Thunderbolt 27"s to a 2009 Mac Pro, I'm assuming the video will work, but I'll need a wide variety of (passive) adapters?
Will non-video even work? If so, will the sound/camera/keyboard-controls still be frakked? ("No one would ever want to use two of these!"
Where are the Mac Pro Thunderbolt video cards? Will there ever be old-Pro-compatible versions?
I guess what I'm asking here is if these displays will work at all with non-Thunderbolt Macs. Is there a transition strategy other than "Buy new kit!"?
If I wanted to connect two of the new Thunderbolt 27"s to a 2009 Mac Pro, I'm assuming the video will work, but I'll need a wide variety of (passive) adapters?
Where are the Mac Pro Thunderbolt video cards? Will there ever be old-Pro-compatible versions?
Apparently, the Thunderbolt cables don't work on existing Mini-DP products:
http://store.apple.com/uk/question/a...TJHFAK27FT97KP
I would assume the displays will ship with a Thunderbolt cable. I imagine you will be able to use a standard Mini-DP cable to hook up the displays but you won't get data support for USB.
It's not clear what will happen with the Mac Pro concerning Thunderbolt because Intel has said there will be no TB GPUs or PCI cards. The port has to go on the motherboard.
The only way I can see them doing this in the new Mac Pros is to either have both PCI GPUs with display outputs and Thunderbolt ports on the motherboard or they can go the MXM route for GPUs like the iMac (which I'm personally hoping happens). Either way though, no solution offered for supporting Thunderbolt on pre-Thunderbolt machines.
What kind of LED does Apple's LED backlights use? I've not found a reasonably authoritative source.
That is a REALLY good question and I couldn't find anything either. Even the panel's datasheet doesn't seem to say.
Any chance you can give it a rest? Reposting the same or similar post to a different thread isn't the way to make it work
You've only just noticed? The majority of zunx's posts are demands for Apple to either make a portable Mac in your pocket for or matte screens.
Nope. We are asking for a matte option. Choice is good.
Generally only super high end pros need matte, and they are using super high dollar color accurate screens any way so there really is little to no market for an Apple Matte Cinima display at this time.
Skip