17" Cinema Display, now that iMac is widescreen?
Apple will introduce a 17" Cinema Display soon
How can they not, now that the iMac has a widescreen option?
I love my 15" Studio Display (old school--with the E.T. neck stand), but the resolution is just not enough to have BBEdit open with a page and the glossary, or FireWorks MX and it's "Panels."
A 17" CD would be perfect.
How can they not, now that the iMac has a widescreen option?
I love my 15" Studio Display (old school--with the E.T. neck stand), but the resolution is just not enough to have BBEdit open with a page and the glossary, or FireWorks MX and it's "Panels."
A 17" CD would be perfect.
Comments
15" & 17" standard
19" & 23" wide
Remember that if they change the 17" standard to a 17" widescreen, the display area actually DECREASES.
But the *business* side of me sees that i only *need* at 17" CD.
It would be significantly less expensive, and would have just the right resolution for my needs, as a web developer.
Print people need more res, and Apple ought to accomodate them as well.
We had to get a 17" Studio Display for our print guy when we handed his 21" CRT off to the new girl, because the 22" is just to darn much money.
Ifn' there was a 19" CD, we'd prolly have gotten that.
And if'n there was a 17" CD, we'd be gettin' me that, when it comes time to get me a new machine.
Unless, of course, we just get me that new iMac...
I understand the eMac, you just cannot put a decent LCD into a lower priced computer... As George Sr. would say, "wouldn't be prudent...!"
But those HD Cinema Displays just ruin ANYTHING else for me...!
Two, please!
Actually, perhaps they could even ditch the 15"? If they could get that 17" down to the $600-750 range, people would probably buy that in droves!
But he's right: the jump from $999 to the mid-$2000 range IS quite a leap, with nothing in that nice 19", mid-$1000's range.
<strong>Remember that if they change the 17" standard to a 17" widescreen, the display area actually DECREASES.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly! I just don't understand why people how such a desire for those, do they want to lie down and watch? They shouldn't be called "widescreen", the name should be
Lowscreen
In apple's case, it is just plain silly paying more for special sized LCD screens (which I presume they have to, and the end users too, of course).
But here?s the really big news: The iMac with the 17-inch widescreen flat-panel LCD screen delivers nearly 65 percent more screen area than the 15-inch.<hr></blockquote>
But I don't want to *pay* for the screen area that would be bigger than a normal ratio 17".
Remember, I like my 15", but there's not enough room for pallettes and stuff. A wider screen would take care of this for me.
Of course if you have two monitors, both 17" wide, and one is widescreen, it will have less pixels--but you'll still have more than the 15" that it's likely to be as tall as.
It sounds to me like you want a 19"
As displays get bigger, ratios in the 3:2, 16:10 and 16:9 range are actually more ergonomic since they closely mimic your field of view, which depending on the shape of your eyes and their position in your skull is approx 160 degrees horizontally and 90-100 degrees vertically. However, given the size of most computer displays and the users position, none of them would fill your field of view either horizontally or vertically, so unless you're using a 22"/23" cinema display and sitting up close, this cannot be the main factor.
It's probably just that people generally find these ratios more appealing and that video and broadcasting is going in this directio too. So in the interests of display consistency, many displays (both computer and TV) will migrate to a wider ratio.
Of course, we will see the existing 22" and 23" displays as well.
I do not see Apple coming out with a separate 15" display anymore.
<strong>I bet we'll see...
15" & 17" standard
19" & 23" wide
Remember that if they change the 17" standard to a 17" widescreen, the display area actually DECREASES.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How is this? I'm considering a 17" imac. Wouldn't the display area increase with widescreen?
iMac, 1440x900=1296000
17" studio display, 1280x1024=1310720
About the same thing.
For a given diagnal a squarer display will have a larger surface area, but different aspect ratios are more pleasing for video and could be better for different kinds of work.