Apple's 17" LCD and the RDF

Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
OK. I know a bunch of people here must own one of these. 17" viewable is more or less akin to a 19" CRT, although they say it supports 1280 x 1024 so the comparison to the 21" CRT size is somewhat legit....



But what of the color quality and text sharpness? Apple seems to me to be marketing this thing in a totally disingenuous way, saying that the color quality (contrast, saturation, gamut, etc.) is far superior to that of conventional CRT monitors. Based on what I've heard from graphics professionals, that's a load of shit. Comments?



Also, does the LCD that comes with this monitor change from one quarter to the next? That is, does Apple buy them from the cheapest seller, or, do they require a manufacturer to meet a certain set of specs, and then buy from them exclusively? In other words are the key parts in these LCD monitors more akin to the G4 (all come from one source, and even if they didn't would be identical anyway) or the Hard Drive (come from all over the freakin' place)?



It would seem to me that unless Apple ensured a very consistent specs from one manufacturer to another (gamut, dot pitch, etc.), color calibration would be impossible using their profiles (at a minimum). So would trouble-shooting and support. What's the deal in this regard? Are all 17" LCDs the same on the inside?



[ 03-27-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]</p>

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 9
    x704x704 Posts: 276member
    To my recollection, around a year ago (maybe two) Apple invested in a company (I think it was Samsung, definately an "S" & asain based, not Sony). They bought a pretty heavty stake of it (5 or 10%). This was to help secure a supply of LCD's for it's various products. I assume Apple still has stake in this company & that most if not all of it's LCD products come from this company ... either that & I'm crazy & dreamt all of this . Perhaps someone else can verify this.



    As far as colour quality I personaly don't consider it a big issue since my job makes me work on a 6 year old monitor. I'm sure an Apple LCD would have better quality then this old beast that they refuse to replace. The color is terrible on it. When I was temping I found that a lot of places used old monitors that had poor color. For these places obviously being 99% accurate with colour is not an issue, neither is it for me. Apple's monitors seem to have relatively good colour. I guess it's really just a question of your standards for colour accuracy? Does the colour have to be perfect? If so then I'd suggest you get a nice CRT. If "Close enough" is good enough for you then I doubt you'll have issue with Apple's LCD's.



    Edit: corrected tense, added paragraph



    [ 03-27-2002: Message edited by: X704 ]</p>
  • Reply 2 of 9
    serranoserrano Posts: 1,806member
    they market the 17 as having excellent color but to my knowledge the 23 is the only one they market as suitable for true color publication work... the 23 is supposedly superior to the 17 in quality of display...
  • Reply 3 of 9
    satchmosatchmo Posts: 2,699member
    On a related note, the reason cited for Apple's higher prices LCD's are that it's a true digital display.



    But I still can't see the difference between a digital LCD vs an analog LCD display.
  • Reply 4 of 9
    gordygordy Posts: 973member
    never mind.



    [ 03-27-2002: Message edited by: gordy ]</p>
  • Reply 5 of 9
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    I hear what you're saying 704...would make sense that they leverage stock in a company like Samsung to keep a consistent and high-quality flow of LCD parts coming to Apple. Color-wise, accuracy is important to me as I am a photographer among other things...however the standard set is up to me and not someone else. Have you tried downloading any photos for display on this monitor, say from a digital camera? If so how did they look compared to the actual scene / print out?
  • Reply 6 of 9
    prestonpreston Posts: 219member
    The reason Apple charges so much for it's LCDs is that they look GREAT.. they are very bright and sharp, colour accuracy is good too. They also have very wide viewing angles unlike cheaper LCDs.



    Pres
  • Reply 7 of 9
    barvowbarvow Posts: 64member
    Moogs...



    Apple does own part of Samsung for the reason cited above about ensuring quality. The color of any screen, CRT or LCD must be calibrated with a

    particular printing system in mind. If you're working with a 4-color press system, glossy paper, etc. you will calibrate differently from newsprint. If you are outputting to an inkjet printer, incorrect settings of paper type can sometimes make a bigger difference in final product than the screen color. In short, you can't get away with not calibrating to SOME standard. Even if you just learn to "eyeball" the screen and make manual adjustments to print out on a printer you know well. You probably know all this, and I'm not trying to preach.



    Apple sells calibration hardware through the Apple store. I'm not sure how well it works. Apple's screens are exceptional compared to most anyone else's. I would suggest that you look at the only real competition they have: the Formac 1740, with 17.4" viewable (slightly larger than the Apple screen), better contrast ratio, faster refresh, for less ghosting, and they now are shipping (or will by next week) a fully integrated calibration hardware/software system from Pantone that they say allows full calibration of the LCD to match your output.

    Regular price of the monitor is $899 and the calibration version is $1149 for the ADC version.

    I've seen one of their screens hooked up to a G4

    and it was just excellent. As soon as they are shipping I will buy one. I guess now I AM preaching!
  • Reply 8 of 9
    bodhibodhi Posts: 1,424member
    [quote]But what of the color quality and text sharpness? Apple seems to me to be marketing this thing in a totally disingenuous way, saying that the color quality (contrast, saturation, gamut, etc.) is far superior to that of conventional CRT monitors. Based on what I've heard from graphics professionals, that's a load of shit. Comments?<hr></blockquote>



    Another Urban Legend. LCD screens from two years ago...yes, you would not want to use one for graphics work. Today's screens are awesome and the viewing angle is incredible. There is absolutely no problem doing graphics work on an Apple LCD.



    Up until now with the iMacs, 99% of all Apple LCD's have been supplied by Samsung.



    [ 03-28-2002: Message edited by: Bodhi ]</p>
  • Reply 9 of 9
    reynardreynard Posts: 160member
    I have had my 17 display for about two weeks and I truly love it. However, I do not use my computer for work, nor anything that requires absolute color fidelity. So I cant offer any sophisticated analysis. I can say there are no dead pixels, it seems sharper than most LCDs I see on display at electronic stores. Looking at photographs from my digital camera the color seems accurate. What I saw was what I got when I printed them. Finally, its small footprint is more important a factor than I expected. A 17" CRT is not such a hog, but as you get bigger, that front-to-back depth gets obtrusive. I would have had to push my desk about 6" from the wall. Oh, one more thing...it has 2 USB ports on the back. I'm glad I got it.
Sign In or Register to comment.