The Hi Definition format will not stay at 1920x1080. Most movies will soon be shot on HD cameras with much higher resolutions than that. Panavision and Arriflex have already announced cameras to be released in Feb. that have more than double that amount of pixels. Video/film post people will want monitors that can display 2k, 4k and 8k images. Consumer TVs will probably stay at the current HD resolution for a long time, but professionals will need better than even the new 30" monitor can provide.
The Hi Definition format will not stay at 1920x1080. Most movies will soon be shot on HD cameras with much higher resolutions than that. Panavision and Arriflex have already announced cameras to be released in Feb. that have more than double that amount of pixels. Video/film post people will want monitors that can display 2k, 4k and 8k images. Consumer TVs will probably stay at the current HD resolution for a long time, but professionals will need better than even the new 30" monitor can provide.
'Need' being a relative term. I imagine the best guys in video are mostly able to work with what would be considered substandard equipment, and all they lose for it is some time and a bit of convenience, they still get results that are better than everyone else's.
Not to say people shouldn't have any technology that helps, but it seems usually people who focus on tech are newbies, then the better they become the more strictly they focus on the actual task and the craft. The top pros slightly return interest to tech, no longer illusioned by it, but able to appreciate even the small efficiencies, and see what new varieties of the craft a new tech enables. People can also taper, think they're good enough, and become an efficient producer and professional in their own way, but not an artist and not a top pro.
Before non-linear, old Hollywood used an upright Movieola for rough cuts and then projected the workprint and dialog track on a dual system projector / mag/optical sound player.
Newer Hollywood used a flatbed KEM or Steenbeck and then projected the result.
Even now, projection is used for performance evaluation and final quality checking.
The larger LCD monitors just make viewing the composition of wide shots closer to the final result.
Beginning non-linear editors often make the mistake of using too many close ups because a close up on a small screen is easier to see than the details of a wide shot.
This can result in huge heads on a big screen for minutes at a time.
Looking at Sharp Aquos LCD TVs - the 30" is $2k, and
the 45" is 7K, street price.
So a 45" apple monitor would be $11K to $12K USD (50%
premium over the Sharp 45" TV).
Those pieces are not even remotely comparable to computer monitors. The Apple 30" monitor is still unique as far as I am aware and represents pretty good value for money.
Those pieces are not even remotely comparable to computer monitors. The Apple 30" monitor is still unique as far as I am aware and represents pretty good value for money.
$12K is my guess about the cost of a 45" apple monitor,
and I think that my reasoning is fairly valid. If you
want to dispute me, post your own estimate and reasoning,
not just some blather about the uniqueness of the Apple
monitor.
LCD TVs show that price is roughly linear based on
screen area (not diagonal). Providing that this is also
true for LCD monitors, the 45" would cost about $12K.
$12K is my guess about the cost of a 45" apple monitor,
and I think that my reasoning is fairly valid. If you
want to dispute me, post your own estimate and reasoning,
not just some blather about the uniqueness of the Apple
monitor.
LCD TVs show that price is roughly linear based on
screen area (not diagonal). Providing that this is also
true for LCD monitors, the 45" would cost about $12K.
And what an earth are YOU talking about? There is no such thing 45" computer monitor and its unlikely we'll see one, so your entire post is spurious nonsense.
Show me another company's 30" at that resolution and price point, hmm?
There is no need to get that big. Are you just bored or something? Have you seen the size of the 30" in person yet? DOOOD we are talking overkill.
I don't know about that. I have a 20" wide next to a 17" and I still use up the space, and i don't find it too much. Especially when video editing, where I could always use more. Then again, I'm not I'm the "average" user in that sense.
The biggest problem regarding resolution independence and OS X is that OS X doesn't have a resolution independent cursor or title bar. Those are the "big" things. Then there are all the little things, like the tiny text in so many web graphics and raster interface elements. Even if we get a big cursor or use a third party hack to make one, it's still difficult to hit tiny buttons like the traffic light buttions. Still, I think we might see advancements in this regard as early as OS 10.5. We might even get a large cursor in Tiger, due to the popularity of the 30" display.
Err...
In Tiger you can have your menu bar up to 3 times the size of the norm. And you can change your cursor size easily. In fact, by changing the DPI in Tiger you can do all of the above. Windows can be 3x the size, controls too, etc. Icons will also be 256x256 in Tiger.
I'd prefer higher res normal sized screens, like 1920x1024 on a powerbook or something. With the scaling in Tiger it would look no bigger/smaller than on a normal powerbook screen, just higher quality.
And what an earth are YOU talking about? There is no such thing 45" computer monitor and its unlikely we'll see one, so your entire post is spurious nonsense.
Show me another company's 30" at that resolution and price point, hmm?
We are in a forum called "Future Hardware", and
the topic is "Apple's future 45" LCD Monitor" -
you are objecting to the whole disussion? That
seems kind of strange.
If you don't want to talk about imaginary products,
I suggest the "Current Hardware" forum.
I was not saying that the 30" monitor has competition, or
that it is overpriced, or that a 45" monitor is a
good idea, or will be produced soon (although I suspect
it will be produced eventually). I am saying that if it
was produced it would probably cost $12K based on cost
per square inch.
I had only one point, and none of your replies have
I can't see computer screen getting any bigger, as 30inch is big (maybe hugh) enough for any purpose. Don't know if anyone have used a 30inch screen, it's simple hugh and not easy to manage (I used it in an Apple store).
What would be a good idea is a super wide screen (e.g. same height as current 30inch screen, but wider)
If you don't want to talk about imaginary products,
I suggest the "Current Hardware" forum.
I was not saying that the 30" monitor has competition, or
that it is overpriced, or that a 45" monitor is a
good idea, or will be produced soon (although I suspect
it will be produced eventually). I am saying that if it
was produced it would probably cost $12K based on cost
per square inch.
I had only one point, and none of your replies have
anything to do with that one point.
I don't object to the discussion, I object to some of the ill-informed stupidity within it.
With regard to pricing, if Apple were to introduce a 45" monitor screen for $12k it would not sell; therefore such a monitor will not cost $12k. Your comparison to an unrelated product by an unrelated company is irrelevant.
I agree with hanxu that the practical direction for such monitors to go would be with a wider aspect ratio as the 30" is just about as tall as you want to get for eye comfort and natural scanning. 2.35:1 would be perfect.
I agree with hanxu that the practical direction for such monitors to go would be with a wider aspect ratio as the 30" is just about as tall as you want to get for eye comfort and natural scanning. 2.35:1 would be perfect.
Moreover, I think people who need that many pixels (like myself) just need to setup dual monitors. The only real advantage for having all that screen space in the same place is for viewing movies, and in that case a video projector is the way to go.
I hope you guys do realize that dual-link DVI can drive 3740*2400, which is the resolution used in a ViewSonic and a IBM 22.2" LCD. I think a 45" LCD with such a resolution is justifiable.
The point of such high resolution on a monitor isn't just for "pleasure", its also meant for digital photographers who are taking pictures with higher resolution all the time, and 9MP LCD would allow me to view my Canon EOS-20D pictures down to every pixel on the screen (3504 x 2336)! :-D
With that said, imagine this for a moment:
Nforce4SLI driven computer with 2*nVidia Quadro FX 4400, each card sporting 2*Dual-link DVIs, driving a total of 4 30" Apple Cinema Display, all for around $20k...
Comments
Originally posted by onlooker
How much would a 45" cinema display cost?
Looking at Sharp Aquos LCD TVs - the 30" is $2k, and
the 45" is 7K, street price.
So a 45" apple monitor would be $11K to $12K USD (50%
premium over the Sharp 45" TV).
Originally posted by wpadula
The Hi Definition format will not stay at 1920x1080. Most movies will soon be shot on HD cameras with much higher resolutions than that. Panavision and Arriflex have already announced cameras to be released in Feb. that have more than double that amount of pixels. Video/film post people will want monitors that can display 2k, 4k and 8k images. Consumer TVs will probably stay at the current HD resolution for a long time, but professionals will need better than even the new 30" monitor can provide.
'Need' being a relative term. I imagine the best guys in video are mostly able to work with what would be considered substandard equipment, and all they lose for it is some time and a bit of convenience, they still get results that are better than everyone else's.
Not to say people shouldn't have any technology that helps, but it seems usually people who focus on tech are newbies, then the better they become the more strictly they focus on the actual task and the craft. The top pros slightly return interest to tech, no longer illusioned by it, but able to appreciate even the small efficiencies, and see what new varieties of the craft a new tech enables. People can also taper, think they're good enough, and become an efficient producer and professional in their own way, but not an artist and not a top pro.
Originally posted by charliehorse
you need 30" for film editing!! dual 30" are mainly used in hollywood for film editing
So what did Hollywood do for all those long, cold decades before Apple released the 30"?
Originally posted by Amorph
So what did Hollywood do for all those long, cold decades before Apple released the 30"?
My first guess would be a 30" (or better) CRT? Plasma displays have been available before Apple's 30" LCD as well.
Heck they could just print the film and watch it from a 35-70mm projector as well.
Newer Hollywood used a flatbed KEM or Steenbeck and then projected the result.
Even now, projection is used for performance evaluation and final quality checking.
The larger LCD monitors just make viewing the composition of wide shots closer to the final result.
Beginning non-linear editors often make the mistake of using too many close ups because a close up on a small screen is easier to see than the details of a wide shot.
This can result in huge heads on a big screen for minutes at a time.
Nasty.
Originally posted by PBG4 Dude
My first guess would be a 30" (or better) CRT? Plasma displays have been available before Apple's 30" LCD as well.
30" or better plasma display's with anything near the resolution that Apple offer are not even available today, so that goes for the past as well.
Remember: size does NOT equal resolution!
Originally posted by e1618978
Looking at Sharp Aquos LCD TVs - the 30" is $2k, and
the 45" is 7K, street price.
So a 45" apple monitor would be $11K to $12K USD (50%
premium over the Sharp 45" TV).
Those pieces are not even remotely comparable to computer monitors. The Apple 30" monitor is still unique as far as I am aware and represents pretty good value for money.
Originally posted by charliehorse
you need 30" for film editing!! dual 30" are mainly used in hollywood for film editing
What ARE you talking about?
Originally posted by vinney57
Those pieces are not even remotely comparable to computer monitors. The Apple 30" monitor is still unique as far as I am aware and represents pretty good value for money.
$12K is my guess about the cost of a 45" apple monitor,
and I think that my reasoning is fairly valid. If you
want to dispute me, post your own estimate and reasoning,
not just some blather about the uniqueness of the Apple
monitor.
LCD TVs show that price is roughly linear based on
screen area (not diagonal). Providing that this is also
true for LCD monitors, the 45" would cost about $12K.
Originally posted by e1618978
$12K is my guess about the cost of a 45" apple monitor,
and I think that my reasoning is fairly valid. If you
want to dispute me, post your own estimate and reasoning,
not just some blather about the uniqueness of the Apple
monitor.
LCD TVs show that price is roughly linear based on
screen area (not diagonal). Providing that this is also
true for LCD monitors, the 45" would cost about $12K.
And what an earth are YOU talking about? There is no such thing 45" computer monitor and its unlikely we'll see one, so your entire post is spurious nonsense.
Show me another company's 30" at that resolution and price point, hmm?
Originally posted by onlooker
There is no need to get that big. Are you just bored or something? Have you seen the size of the 30" in person yet? DOOOD we are talking overkill.
I don't know about that. I have a 20" wide next to a 17" and I still use up the space, and i don't find it too much. Especially when video editing, where I could always use more. Then again, I'm not I'm the "average" user in that sense.
Originally posted by tonton
The biggest problem regarding resolution independence and OS X is that OS X doesn't have a resolution independent cursor or title bar. Those are the "big" things. Then there are all the little things, like the tiny text in so many web graphics and raster interface elements. Even if we get a big cursor or use a third party hack to make one, it's still difficult to hit tiny buttons like the traffic light buttions. Still, I think we might see advancements in this regard as early as OS 10.5. We might even get a large cursor in Tiger, due to the popularity of the 30" display.
Err...
In Tiger you can have your menu bar up to 3 times the size of the norm. And you can change your cursor size easily. In fact, by changing the DPI in Tiger you can do all of the above. Windows can be 3x the size, controls too, etc. Icons will also be 256x256 in Tiger.
I'd prefer higher res normal sized screens, like 1920x1024 on a powerbook or something. With the scaling in Tiger it would look no bigger/smaller than on a normal powerbook screen, just higher quality.
Originally posted by vinney57
And what an earth are YOU talking about? There is no such thing 45" computer monitor and its unlikely we'll see one, so your entire post is spurious nonsense.
Show me another company's 30" at that resolution and price point, hmm?
We are in a forum called "Future Hardware", and
the topic is "Apple's future 45" LCD Monitor" -
you are objecting to the whole disussion? That
seems kind of strange.
If you don't want to talk about imaginary products,
I suggest the "Current Hardware" forum.
I was not saying that the 30" monitor has competition, or
that it is overpriced, or that a 45" monitor is a
good idea, or will be produced soon (although I suspect
it will be produced eventually). I am saying that if it
was produced it would probably cost $12K based on cost
per square inch.
I had only one point, and none of your replies have
anything to do with that one point.
What would be a good idea is a super wide screen (e.g. same height as current 30inch screen, but wider)
That just my idea. how do you think?
Originally posted by e1618978
We are in a forum called "Future Hardware", and
the topic is "Apple's future 45" LCD Monitor" -
you are objecting to the whole disussion? That
seems kind of strange.
If you don't want to talk about imaginary products,
I suggest the "Current Hardware" forum.
I was not saying that the 30" monitor has competition, or
that it is overpriced, or that a 45" monitor is a
good idea, or will be produced soon (although I suspect
it will be produced eventually). I am saying that if it
was produced it would probably cost $12K based on cost
per square inch.
I had only one point, and none of your replies have
anything to do with that one point.
I don't object to the discussion, I object to some of the ill-informed stupidity within it.
With regard to pricing, if Apple were to introduce a 45" monitor screen for $12k it would not sell; therefore such a monitor will not cost $12k. Your comparison to an unrelated product by an unrelated company is irrelevant.
I agree with hanxu that the practical direction for such monitors to go would be with a wider aspect ratio as the 30" is just about as tall as you want to get for eye comfort and natural scanning. 2.35:1 would be perfect.
Originally posted by vinney57
I agree with hanxu that the practical direction for such monitors to go would be with a wider aspect ratio as the 30" is just about as tall as you want to get for eye comfort and natural scanning. 2.35:1 would be perfect.
Moreover, I think people who need that many pixels (like myself) just need to setup dual monitors. The only real advantage for having all that screen space in the same place is for viewing movies, and in that case a video projector is the way to go.
The point of such high resolution on a monitor isn't just for "pleasure", its also meant for digital photographers who are taking pictures with higher resolution all the time, and 9MP LCD would allow me to view my Canon EOS-20D pictures down to every pixel on the screen (3504 x 2336)! :-D
With that said, imagine this for a moment:
Nforce4SLI driven computer with 2*nVidia Quadro FX 4400, each card sporting 2*Dual-link DVIs, driving a total of 4 30" Apple Cinema Display, all for around $20k...