It's truly puzzling -- and disappointing -- that Apple has not done a significant display upgrade for a few years now. One would think that this might have been a low-cost no-brainer initiative, given what they already have in place.
Apple has a history of being very late to update their external monitors. At least with the move to retina I understand why it would take longer this time.
But the important question is: why should that be the case, considering it should be a trivial thing to do.
Clearly there are other factors at play. Why only 2 USB ports when it seems like everyone on these boards need more and it's a trivial thing to do? Apple has a long history of confounding their customer base in this way.
Reviewing the Specs on the LG 27MB85R-B listed in the post shows this monitor to have a Mini DP In and no Thunderbolt 2 inputs. The Similar but more costly LG 27MB85Z-B replaces the Mini DP Input with two Thunderbolt 2 inputs - Am I missing something? Sub $600 Thunderbolt display seems too good to be true.
Clearly there are other factors at play. Why only 2 USB ports when it seems like everyone on these boards need more and it's a trivial thing to do? Apple has a long history of confounding their customer base in this way.
An analogy like that, which refers to a small piece of a product, as opposed to a product itself, is not terribly useful.
Apple...................WAKE UP! How long has the new MacPro been on the market without a complementing Apple UHD Thunderbolt monitor? Cannot even begin to understand the thinking behind this neglect.
Right? But all that money spent on Beats??? And let's not mention the iWatch.
Apple has a history of being very late to update their external monitors. At least with the move to retina I understand why it would take longer this time.
Yes, and then releasing an overpriced one with glossy display. Sold my LED Cinema Display when a laptop I received from work would not connect to it. Replaced with a Dell UltraSharp and have been a happy camper ever since. I didn't realize how much the glare had been bothering me until I got a matte display and realized I was no longer fiddling with the angle of the monitor all day long.
As of now, the 5K Retina Display iMac cannot be used as an external monitor owing to the power requirements. The question is, once Macs start shipping with Thunderbolt 3 (which would have enough juice to drive the monitor), would the current 5K iMacs support them (since they are not Thunderbolt 3), or will it suffice if just the connecting Mac had Thunderbolt 3, making the 5K iMac a passive screen?
It's truly puzzling -- and disappointing -- that Apple has not done a significant display upgrade for a few years now. One would think that this might have been a low-cost no-brainer initiative, given what they already have in place.
Not really puzzling. Displays have gotten ahead of the hardware interface as manufacturers race to the bottom in price.
For the latest and greatest 5K monitors: No computer made in the world when Apple came out with the iMac 5K even had a DisplayPort 1.3 chip to connect the monitor to the GPU. Apple had to custom develop it's own version of a DisplayPort 1.3 chip when the DisplayPort 1.3 standard wasn't even released yet This means that no computer can connect to a 5K display without the kludge of using up 2 DisplayPort 1.2 ports or 2 HDMI ports.
4K Monitors until the past few months were very expensive - > $3,000. Definitely not consumer friendly - Apple's territory. But when they got really cheap, Apple already supported 4K Monitors via the DisplayPort 1.2 standard HDMI ports on every Mac.
Since Apple doesn't compete with cheap, and the Thunderbolt Monitor isn't an HDMI monitor, and Intel hasn't yet come out with Thunderbolt 3 support, the writing was obvious: No new Apple Monitors until Apple can make the best one at high end consumer prices.
As of now, the 5K Retina Display iMac cannot be used as an external monitor owing to the power requirements. The question is, once Macs start shipping with Thunderbolt 3 (which would have enough juice to drive the monitor), would the current 5K iMacs support them (since they are not Thunderbolt 3), or will it suffice if just the connecting Mac had Thunderbolt 3, making the 5K iMac a passive screen?
The current 5K iMacs only support DisplayPort 1.2 through Thunderbolt 2 ports. They are UNABLE to have the bandwidth necessary to run an external 5K display, NOR can they make a passive 5K screen. That would require the 5K iMac to have Thunderbolt 3 ports.
Last I heard, OSX still doesn't suport 10 bit, making you look like you want to use that under Windows 7 or 8. Something I cannot phantom...
It's a matter of consumer available 10-bit RGBA per channel monitors becoming more common. HP and others will help this happen in 2015.
Before it was reserved for monitors starting at $2k-$3k from Eizo and others. A monitor less expensive than the TB Display and you can bet Apple will make the support, system-wide as part of an update.
10-bit LED has taken forever to arrive at consumer price levels.
Aha, thanks for explaining. Yup, with all new tech, it certainly does take its time for prices to come down for the average consumer. We all should love early adaptors, as they make these prices go down.
I have never seen a 10bit monitor, and even though people articles tell me things look 'awesome' I wonder if we are really able to differentiate between an 8bit and a 10bit monitor. Wiki tells me: " The human eye can discriminate up to ten million colors" Of course, putting these side by side they probably won't be build with the same tech but differ in many other aspects apart from 8- or 10bit.
Anyone here who has seen what images on a 10 bit monitor looks like?
It's possible that Apple has not put energy into this because A) They are selling enough The style still matches the mac book series well.
I tried to move to a 30" monitor, much taller. Turns out that taller is not better, our eye's are designed to go side to side.
You're 90 degrees out.
It's much easier reading up and down than left and right. That's why newspaper columns are narrow. It's why music staves are on top of each other, rather than on separate pages.
It is kind of puzzling to me why Apple has been dragging their feet on bringing the TB display up to snuff even for those of us with older non-5K products.
They won't do a major update until they can ride the design out for a few years. They have to go all-in with Retina and the tech needs to catch up.
As far as the adjustment goes, I would bet most of their sales aren't going to iMac users given that they have a built-in large display. I'd expect them to be to laptop, Mini and Mac Pro users for the most part (which combined make up about 85% of their sales).
From their accessory sales, it looks as though they could be selling quite a lot of displays. They made $6b in accessory sales in 2013-2014, which includes $99 Apple TV (~8-10m units) and $99-199 Airports. I'm not sure what other expensive accessories they sell but if $4b is from $999 displays, they're still selling 4m units and there are ~18m Mac buyers.
If you had a single color gradient across a 5k display with 24-bit (same as 32-bit color with alpha but the monitor doesn't need to know the alpha values as the compositing happens on the GPU), you'd get 256 lines of color spread across 5120 pixels. 10bpc or 30-bit would give 1024. 12bpc or 36-bit would give 4096.
5120x2880 x 24-bit x 60Hz = 21.2Gbps
5120x2880 x 30 x 60 = 26.5Gbps
5120x2880 x 36 x 60 = 31.9 Gbps
Although the eye can't make out more distinct colors than millions, it can make out gradient bands so the monitor needs to be able to produce more than 256 color variants per channel. There are test charts here for people to open on their displays:
Click the 'click here to load' links, which just open images with gradients. If you can see banding or can't make out some content then the monitor could be improved.
There's a difference between the display being able to reproduce the colors and accepting higher quality input though. A GPU has to be able to output higher than 8-bit content for it to be worthwhile for the display to accept higher than 8-bit input. Someone would have to produce content or film higher than 8-bit, have software that maintains it, have a GPU that processes and outputs it and have a display that takes it as input. For most users, having a display that can just take 8-bit content in and interpolate the colors would have the same effect. Higher than 8-bit content would show more accurately for people who produce higher than 8-bit content though so if they can do it, great but I suspect the GPUs will limit them.
TB3 isn't due until Skylake. This makes me wonder if the next Macs will skip Broadwell. If they do, everything's getting pushed back until the 2nd half of the year again so only the Watch before Summer and maybe a special edition Macbook Air. If they don't, Broadwell updates will be soon but they won't support the Retina TB display.
I'd, personally, like to see a curved display but that doesn't work for video or images so unless they build multiple models or have a way to warp the display that doesn't affect the work negatively for video and image professionals I doubt that would come. Please, don't read that as I'm all for curved TVs; those are usually for multiple people sitting in different spots, but a computer display is typically single use with the user squarely in the center.
Just curious- what is the point of a curved display? You say it's not great for video and "images". What does that leave? I feel like I'm missing the boat on this one. I understand it makes 150 foot movie screens feel more immersive, but in any other context it seems like it would just make the display seem smaller.
I solved all of these questions and problems by buying a Retina iMac.
I do graphic design, video editing and production, website work, coding, gaming when I have time etc. etc.
It really is the perfect machine. With 27" I don't need dual displays, and the Retina resolution is fantastic. The machine itself is a beast and competes with the Mac Pro for raw power. I also have Windows on it for when I need it it.
Its just an insane machine, and I can't imagine a better scenario for me, or most people that want a simple and elegant solution with the best display available and lots of Mac or Windows power.
Many of alternatives. Nobody sane in publishing and graphics design uses Apple poor quality displays. It is not about resolution, but about backlight and color consistency (white balance) not to mention glare of glass.
Advanced studios are either on Vizio professional monitors or NEC professional versions (no the once that you see the most on Amazon for sale).
Otherwise buy.... whatever.
For the record, has Apple fixed the problem of foam that degradates unevenly causing yellow ugly spills on the display panel over 2-3 years of daily work?
The only complaint I have about my Apple 27" is that there is no sleep button for the monitor like the one on my Apple 20".
Considering the huge number of third-party monitors out there, the price tag that a larger Apple monitor would carry, and the shrinking popularity of desktop systems, I can't imagine that Apple would put out a $2,000 monitor.
It is also worth considering that half of the computer-buying public does not have 20-20 vision, the ability to make a monitor with a higher than retina pixel density doesn't make more sense, which means a physically larger display would be required for these users to benefit. My dual monitor home setup with a 27" and a 20" for palettes works well, providing just enough room for them to fit between a pair of large audio monitors to fit on a six foot table. My dual 27" setup at work is great but it takes up a lot of desk space.
Aha, thanks for explaining. Yup, with all new tech, it certainly does take its time for prices to come down for the average consumer. We all should love early adaptors, as they make these prices go down.
I have never seen a 10bit monitor, and even though people articles tell me things look 'awesome' I wonder if we are really able to differentiate between an 8bit and a 10bit monitor. Wiki tells me: " The human eye can discriminate up to ten million colors" Of course, putting these side by side they probably won't be build with the same tech but differ in many other aspects apart from 8- or 10bit.
Anyone here who has seen what images on a 10 bit monitor looks like?
That's what I was afraid of. Looking at that article, I instantly knew I have to sit down for this, in darkness and without any possible interruptions, in order to grasp the material here. So, thanks for blocking my Tuesday morning!
Comments
Apple has a history of being very late to update their external monitors. At least with the move to retina I understand why it would take longer this time.
Clearly there are other factors at play. Why only 2 USB ports when it seems like everyone on these boards need more and it's a trivial thing to do? Apple has a long history of confounding their customer base in this way.
Reviewing the Specs on the LG 27MB85R-B listed in the post shows this monitor to have a Mini DP In and no Thunderbolt 2 inputs. The Similar but more costly LG 27MB85Z-B replaces the Mini DP Input with two Thunderbolt 2 inputs - Am I missing something? Sub $600 Thunderbolt display seems too good to be true.
Clearly there are other factors at play. Why only 2 USB ports when it seems like everyone on these boards need more and it's a trivial thing to do? Apple has a long history of confounding their customer base in this way.
An analogy like that, which refers to a small piece of a product, as opposed to a product itself, is not terribly useful.
What might those 'other' factors be?
Right? But all that money spent on Beats??? And let's not mention the iWatch.
Yes, and then releasing an overpriced one with glossy display. Sold my LED Cinema Display when a laptop I received from work would not connect to it. Replaced with a Dell UltraSharp and have been a happy camper ever since. I didn't realize how much the glare had been bothering me until I got a matte display and realized I was no longer fiddling with the angle of the monitor all day long.
As of now, the 5K Retina Display iMac cannot be used as an external monitor owing to the power requirements. The question is, once Macs start shipping with Thunderbolt 3 (which would have enough juice to drive the monitor), would the current 5K iMacs support them (since they are not Thunderbolt 3), or will it suffice if just the connecting Mac had Thunderbolt 3, making the 5K iMac a passive screen?
It's truly puzzling -- and disappointing -- that Apple has not done a significant display upgrade for a few years now. One would think that this might have been a low-cost no-brainer initiative, given what they already have in place.
Not really puzzling. Displays have gotten ahead of the hardware interface as manufacturers race to the bottom in price.
For the latest and greatest 5K monitors: No computer made in the world when Apple came out with the iMac 5K even had a DisplayPort 1.3 chip to connect the monitor to the GPU. Apple had to custom develop it's own version of a DisplayPort 1.3 chip when the DisplayPort 1.3 standard wasn't even released yet This means that no computer can connect to a 5K display without the kludge of using up 2 DisplayPort 1.2 ports or 2 HDMI ports.
4K Monitors until the past few months were very expensive - > $3,000. Definitely not consumer friendly - Apple's territory. But when they got really cheap, Apple already supported 4K Monitors via the DisplayPort 1.2 standard HDMI ports on every Mac.
Since Apple doesn't compete with cheap, and the Thunderbolt Monitor isn't an HDMI monitor, and Intel hasn't yet come out with Thunderbolt 3 support, the writing was obvious: No new Apple Monitors until Apple can make the best one at high end consumer prices.
As of now, the 5K Retina Display iMac cannot be used as an external monitor owing to the power requirements. The question is, once Macs start shipping with Thunderbolt 3 (which would have enough juice to drive the monitor), would the current 5K iMacs support them (since they are not Thunderbolt 3), or will it suffice if just the connecting Mac had Thunderbolt 3, making the 5K iMac a passive screen?
The current 5K iMacs only support DisplayPort 1.2 through Thunderbolt 2 ports. They are UNABLE to have the bandwidth necessary to run an external 5K display, NOR can they make a passive 5K screen. That would require the 5K iMac to have Thunderbolt 3 ports.
Aha, thanks for explaining. Yup, with all new tech, it certainly does take its time for prices to come down for the average consumer. We all should love early adaptors, as they make these prices go down.
I have never seen a 10bit monitor, and even though
peoplearticles tell me things look 'awesome' I wonder if we are really able to differentiate between an 8bit and a 10bit monitor. Wiki tells me: " The human eye can discriminate up to ten million colors" Of course, putting these side by side they probably won't be build with the same tech but differ in many other aspects apart from 8- or 10bit.Anyone here who has seen what images on a 10 bit monitor looks like?
You're 90 degrees out.
It's much easier reading up and down than left and right. That's why newspaper columns are narrow. It's why music staves are on top of each other, rather than on separate pages.
This should work ok:
http://www.amazon.com/StarTech-com-Mini-DisplayPort-Adapter-Cable/dp/B002XVYZ82
They won't do a major update until they can ride the design out for a few years. They have to go all-in with Retina and the tech needs to catch up.
As far as the adjustment goes, I would bet most of their sales aren't going to iMac users given that they have a built-in large display. I'd expect them to be to laptop, Mini and Mac Pro users for the most part (which combined make up about 85% of their sales).
From their accessory sales, it looks as though they could be selling quite a lot of displays. They made $6b in accessory sales in 2013-2014, which includes $99 Apple TV (~8-10m units) and $99-199 Airports. I'm not sure what other expensive accessories they sell but if $4b is from $999 displays, they're still selling 4m units and there are ~18m Mac buyers.
It's not enough to make it into a top chart:
http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS24548013
but that would only be about 1/4 of some of the biggest manufacturers, which isn't bad considering they don't sell one below $999.
The bandwidth of TB3 (40Gbps) is enough for 10-bit at 5K, even 12-bit:
http://www.macrumors.com/2014/04/21/thunderbolt-third-generation-details/
If you had a single color gradient across a 5k display with 24-bit (same as 32-bit color with alpha but the monitor doesn't need to know the alpha values as the compositing happens on the GPU), you'd get 256 lines of color spread across 5120 pixels. 10bpc or 30-bit would give 1024. 12bpc or 36-bit would give 4096.
5120x2880 x 24-bit x 60Hz = 21.2Gbps
5120x2880 x 30 x 60 = 26.5Gbps
5120x2880 x 36 x 60 = 31.9 Gbps
Although the eye can't make out more distinct colors than millions, it can make out gradient bands so the monitor needs to be able to produce more than 256 color variants per channel. There are test charts here for people to open on their displays:
http://www.photoanswers.co.uk/Advice/Search-Results/Techniques/Test-your-monitor-with-our-test-charts/
Click the 'click here to load' links, which just open images with gradients. If you can see banding or can't make out some content then the monitor could be improved.
There's a difference between the display being able to reproduce the colors and accepting higher quality input though. A GPU has to be able to output higher than 8-bit content for it to be worthwhile for the display to accept higher than 8-bit input. Someone would have to produce content or film higher than 8-bit, have software that maintains it, have a GPU that processes and outputs it and have a display that takes it as input. For most users, having a display that can just take 8-bit content in and interpolate the colors would have the same effect. Higher than 8-bit content would show more accurately for people who produce higher than 8-bit content though so if they can do it, great but I suspect the GPUs will limit them.
TB3 isn't due until Skylake. This makes me wonder if the next Macs will skip Broadwell. If they do, everything's getting pushed back until the 2nd half of the year again so only the Watch before Summer and maybe a special edition Macbook Air. If they don't, Broadwell updates will be soon but they won't support the Retina TB display.
Just curious- what is the point of a curved display? You say it's not great for video and "images". What does that leave? I feel like I'm missing the boat on this one. I understand it makes 150 foot movie screens feel more immersive, but in any other context it seems like it would just make the display seem smaller.
I solved all of these questions and problems by buying a Retina iMac.
I do graphic design, video editing and production, website work, coding, gaming when I have time etc. etc.
It really is the perfect machine. With 27" I don't need dual displays, and the Retina resolution is fantastic. The machine itself is a beast and competes with the Mac Pro for raw power. I also have Windows on it for when I need it it.
Its just an insane machine, and I can't imagine a better scenario for me, or most people that want a simple and elegant solution with the best display available and lots of Mac or Windows power.
Advanced studios are either on Vizio professional monitors or NEC professional versions (no the once that you see the most on Amazon for sale).
Otherwise buy.... whatever.
For the record, has Apple fixed the problem of foam that degradates unevenly causing yellow ugly spills on the display panel over 2-3 years of daily work?
Considering the huge number of third-party monitors out there, the price tag that a larger Apple monitor would carry, and the shrinking popularity of desktop systems, I can't imagine that Apple would put out a $2,000 monitor.
It is also worth considering that half of the computer-buying public does not have 20-20 vision, the ability to make a monitor with a higher than retina pixel density doesn't make more sense, which means a physically larger display would be required for these users to benefit. My dual monitor home setup with a 27" and a 20" for palettes works well, providing just enough room for them to fit between a pair of large audio monitors to fit on a six foot table. My dual 27" setup at work is great but it takes up a lot of desk space.
That is a very complex question ... the nearer we get to the perfect monitor (whatever that may be) we are left with imperfect humans looking at them.
http://wp.tx.ncsu.edu/color-science-lab/current-research/color-perception/
That's what I was afraid of. Looking at that article, I instantly knew I have to sit down for this, in darkness and without any possible interruptions, in order to grasp the material here. So, thanks for blocking my Tuesday morning!