Apple's LCD displays suck?

junkyard dawgjunkyard dawg
Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
Check out this link:



<a href="http://www.pixelmonger.com/hg_cmput.html"; target="_blank">http://www.pixelmonger.com/hg_cmput.html</a>;



Judging by that comparison of an Apple cinema display to an SGI display, the Apple display is crap when it comes to color. Pretty lame when you consider how much the Apple LCD costs.



Anyone else have this sort of a problem with an Apple LCD display?
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 25
    jet powersjet powers Posts: 288member
    Scotty of pixelmonger is a great guy, practically a minor deity on the world of DV, but I wouldn;t recommend (and neither would he, for that metter) that you take his word as the be-all and end-all on this topic.



    In this case, he fully admits that his might be defective, and that Apple's customer support sucks, not the product line itself.



    I gotta say, as an aspiring dv production guy, I wouldn't use LCD for serious color work, anyway.



    Oh, and the usual "go away you troll" I usually append to all response-to-JYD posts applies.



    TING5
  • Reply 2 of 25
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    I've used the 22" cinema display, and, quite frankly, it's stunning. I'm amazed. But, if you're into graphics work that requires precise color, you probably shouldn't be looking for an LCD screen anyway.



    I won't dispute the reviewer's claim that it wasn't suitable for his needs, but if you're a casual user who has a lot of money and wants a really good widescreen, it's great. I'd buy one if I had the money. The 14" screen on my PowerBook is nice enough for me, though things at the bottom of the screen are lighter than things at the top. He would probably say my screen is terrible. It all depends on what you use it for.
  • Reply 3 of 25
    junkyard dawgjunkyard dawg Posts: 2,801member
    [quote] Oh, and the usual "go away you troll" I usually append to all response-to-JYD posts applies.



    TING5

    <hr></blockquote>



    Thanks, dick. I'll know where to go next time I need a blowjob.
  • Reply 4 of 25
    jet powersjet powers Posts: 288member
    [quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:

    <strong>



    Thanks, dick. I'll know where to go next time I need a blowjob.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Hey if I'm the "dick," then in any blowjob transaction, you'll be the one with the lips, fella.



    ting5
  • Reply 5 of 25
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    I think you two need to add a few of these:

    before you kill each other.
  • Reply 6 of 25
    ghost_user_nameghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member
    I'd just like to reiterare my love of the SGI 1600SW display. Still one of the finest LCDs out there, and it's color is spot on. Take a look at SGI's new 22" 1600x1024 flat panel. It's a bit nicer than the 1600SW... you pay for it though... at $5000 a pop.



    I run two 1600SW displays, and I'd never consider running anything else for right now.
  • Reply 7 of 25
    pixelpusherpixelpusher Posts: 73member
    I've only been lucky enough to sit in front of the Cinema Display once, but I was completely blown away by it. It's overall looks, it's clarity and sharpness. Second to none. Period.



    It's color rendition was not up to par with what I had expected, though. Since Apple discontinued all their CRT's I would've thought it wasn't a problem anymore. But since LCD is a fairly new technology I guess it just needs a little more time to mature in that respect.



    So I still swear by my 17" Studio Display CRT. I think it's the best monitor Apple has ever produced in terms of sharpness and color fidelity. But it's getting too small...



    [ 07-11-2002: Message edited by: Pixelpusher ]</p>
  • Reply 8 of 25
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    The 23" Cinema HD is supposed to have much better color fidelity than the 22".
  • Reply 9 of 25
    emaneman Posts: 7,204member
    [quote]Originally posted by Amorph:

    <strong>The 23" Cinema HD is supposed to have much better color fidelity than the 22".</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Since I'm not a pro or anything I'm sure I can't really tell, but to me the 23" Cinema didn't look much better than the 22".
  • Reply 10 of 25
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Supposedly there are LCD's out there that are approved by their manufacturers for color correct work.



    What exactly about LCD's holds them back in the area of color? Is it the 24 bit limit? I read somewhere (in print and on the net) that 19" 999USD 1600x1200 panels are set to debut from quite a few manufacturers, because as long as we stick to 8bpp (24bit) the circuitry is simple enough, and the glass prices for larger panels is just about right. In the self same articles I read that there would be more expensive models of the same size with 30bit (10bpp) color control. Many digital devices that record images above 8bpp (12 and 14 bit) nonetheless output 24bit (8bpp) on their final output. I guess graphic artists (or those working with film) prefer 68Million or even billions of colors for some projects. I wonder how far we can push DVI, I thought 8 bits was the limit, but it appears we can at least do 10.



    Would 10bpp (30bit) color be enough ???
  • Reply 11 of 25
    leonisleonis Posts: 3,427member
    Beside color thing there is one more thing I don't like those LCD displays



    The pixels are bigger than the dots on CRTs. When you switch the desktop background with some very bright picture or those with complex pattern you will know what I mean



    LCD still does suffer some geometry distortion....top right hand corner always is streched...just like CRT



    Maybe my eyes are too picky



    [ 07-11-2002: Message edited by: Leonis ]</p>
  • Reply 12 of 25
    rightnow 92rightnow 92 Posts: 36member
    [quote]Originally posted by Matsu:

    <strong>Supposedly there are LCD's out there that are approved by their manufacturers for color correct work.



    What exactly about LCD's holds them back in the area of color? Is it the 24 bit limit? I read somewhere (in print and on the net) that 19" 999USD 1600x1200 panels are set to debut from quite a few manufacturers, because as long as we stick to 8bpp (24bit) the circuitry is simple enough, and the glass prices for larger panels is just about right. In the self same articles I read that there would be more expensive models of the same size with 30bit (10bpp) color control. Many digital devices that record images above 8bpp (12 and 14 bit) nonetheless output 24bit (8bpp) on their final output. I guess graphic artists (or those working with film) prefer 68Million or even billions of colors for some projects. I wonder how far we can push DVI, I thought 8 bits was the limit, but it appears we can at least do 10.



    Would 10bpp (30bit) color be enough ???</strong><hr></blockquote>



    As far as I know, the problem with LCD's is not their bitdepth but the physically the pigments used to dye the cells. The pigments themselves aren't quite the right hues of red, green, or blue. Also, they're not as translucent as they should be (ie, if it's a red cell, it's absorbing more than a negligable amount of red light-ideally it should be letting all red light through).



    There are two solutions to this. The best solution is to simply get better pigments. But this is going to be many millions of dollars in R&D and won't happen anytime soon anyway.



    The easier "quick fix" is to use ColorSync. Honestly, I don't know if ColorSync can really be used to fix it currently since ColorSync was designed for CRTs. But if ColorSync was re-written to allow for true LCD support as well, this would definately help.



    Of course, this too creates a problem. Similar to when you enlarge a small picture and get jagged edges, you get the same thing in your colors when you make such changes. If you have Photoshop, try taking a really dark image and using Levels. Then go to Levels again, and look at the histogram... there's all those steps. (This is why graphics professionals are pushing for 64 bit images because they really need it...). If DVI was bumped up to 16 bits per channel, although you wouldn't notice it w/o ColorSync, images passing through ColorSync would look a lot better. I don't know if 10 bits would really help things here, though, although that may be easier to do w/ current DVI (I don't really know it's specs).



    [ 07-12-2002: Message edited by: rightnow 92 ]</p>
  • Reply 13 of 25
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    [quote]Originally posted by Luca Rescigno:

    <strong>I think you two need to add a few of these:

    before you kill each other. </strong><hr></blockquote>



    This board is seriously lacking one of those crazy weapon smilies.
  • Reply 14 of 25
    cubitcubit Posts: 846member
    Apple LCDs do NOT "Suck" In fact, they are for all but the absolutely required color fidelity of the highest end graphics PRODUCTION user outstanding. More than that, the two Cinema displays and one 15" I've been using (and the one on my LCD iMac) have been perfect, not a pixel out, not a problem of ANY kind (except for a wierd software conflict when I first moved my Cube up to 9.2 and 10.1 that I got help on from the Genius Bar). I spend months each year in Japan and have worked with Mitsubishi, National Panasonic, Sony and other displays and there is no comparison at all--Apple got it right with the Cinema 22 and I love to run my DVDs on it with Soundsticks. Who needs a DVD player?



    I am looking forward to the first dip in HDTV form before I take a 23 inch plunge, but I must admit that I could see no real difference to the naked eye when I eyeballed the two side by side in Akihabara last month.
  • Reply 15 of 25
    junkyard dawgjunkyard dawg Posts: 2,801member
    Cool, so this example I posted is a defective LCD then? It sounds like most people's LCDs from Apple are among the best in quality.



    At some point I want to get an LCD display, but for now my 19" Trinitron CRT is awesome...maybe in a few years when it wears out I'll be looking...



    [ 07-14-2002: Message edited by: Junkyard Dawg ]</p>
  • Reply 16 of 25
    leonisleonis Posts: 3,427member
    About LCD.



    I just found out buying a 18" LCD and a 15" LCD SONY (or NEC) Displays still cost a lot less than just buying one Cinema Display



    But those SONY and NEC LCDs do have pretty sucky viewing angle.



    However, LaCie's 18" LCD has the same viewing angle as Apple's



    I may think if I am getting a LCD setup I should get one 18" LaCie as the main + one 15" LCD (in black case) from either SONY or NEC as a palette monitor
  • Reply 17 of 25
    patchoulipatchouli Posts: 402member
    Apple doesn't make LCDs. They only design the case, up the price and sell it as an 'Apple Display'. I am sure they use more than one LCD maker as well, so you really have to be lucky to get the 'superior' one. Then again, if you don't compare them side by side, you most likely wouldn?t notice any flaws. So, even if some Apple Displays suck, it's due to whatever manufacturer they used for that particular unit.



    I saw the 22" and 23" ACD in a store here is NYC (DataVision). I can assure you, the 23" was far superior than the 22". The color was gorgeous, brighter, sharper and richer. However, if the 23" was not next to the 22" - you wouldn't realize just by looking at them separately at different occasions.



    I think it's hilarious when people claim that Apple, or Dell, or Compaq make superior LCD's than say Sony, IBM, Samsung, LG, and (place LCD maker here). When really, Apple, Dell and Compaq are using the LCDs from those very companies! Therefore, Apple's displays are not superior or better suited for design or whatever simply because they are Apple branded. (Same holds for the hardware inside of their computers - same as the hardware in every other computer - except for the processors).



    Getting a superior LCD is a gamble. If Apple only used your favorite LCD maker that you knew had excellent displays and didn't randomly change them - then it would be a different story.



    By the way, I have never noticed a convergence problem of any kind of any of the LCDs that I have owned.



    [ 07-14-2002: Message edited by: Patchouli ]</p>
  • Reply 18 of 25
    rbaldrbald Posts: 108member
    [quote]Originally posted by Chucker:

    <strong>



    This board is seriously lacking one of those crazy weapon smilies. </strong><hr></blockquote>

    Apple has less then 2% market share! Thats damn close to bankrupt if you ask me! Dell is the #1 pc manufacturer in the world and has posted huge profits this quarter in case you haven't noticed! So maybe you should shut your mouth!!!!!!
  • Reply 19 of 25
    rhumgodrhumgod Posts: 1,289member
    [quote]Originally posted by rbald:

    <strong>

    Apple has less then 2% market share! Thats damn close to bankrupt if you ask me! Dell is the #1 pc manufacturer in the world and has posted huge profits this quarter in case you haven't noticed! So maybe you should shut your mouth!!!!!!</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Get your figures straight before you spout off...



    [quote]Market research firm International Data Corp.'s (IDC) latest research numbers indicate a small increase in Apple's market share in the United States. For the current quarter (Q1, 2002) IDC shows Apple as the number six computer maker with a 3.48 percent market share. This is an increase of 0.4 points over Q4 2001 and a 0.25 point increase year over year. Worldwide, Apple is in ninth place with a 2.4 percent market share.<hr></blockquote>



    Last time I checked 3.48% was larger than "less than 2%".



    As far as your love for Dell, you can have them. My company used to buy Dells and they just plain suck! Mobos and hard drives died regularly and the best failure I have ever seen - we a Dell server next to a Compaq Alpha server and the Dell lost network connectivity regularly. After several tests, we uncovered the fact that the Dell box was not properly shielded. I guess that's what you get when, "Dude, you're gettin a Dell!"
  • Reply 20 of 25
    rbaldrbald Posts: 108member
    [quote]Originally posted by Rhumgod:

    <strong>



    Last time I checked 3.48% was larger than "less than 2%".



    As far as your love for Dell, you can have them. My company used to buy Dells and they just plain suck! Mobos and hard drives died regularly and the best failure I have ever seen - we a Dell server next to a Compaq Alpha server and the Dell lost network connectivity regularly. After several tests, we uncovered the fact that the Dell box was not properly shielded. I guess that's what you get when, "Dude, you're gettin a Dell!"</strong><hr></blockquote>The next quarter it will be down to 2% market share again! Apple a propietary company locked in a niche market! and you mac fools go back and get ripped off again and again!!!!!



    <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Sign In or Register to comment.