new 40"/44" cinema display coming?

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
Macosrumors says:



http://www.macosrumors.com/20050129A.php



"On the Apple Displays front, conflicting rumors regarding timetables persist. However, we can confirm that Apple is working on a display in the 40 to 44-inch range which pushes the upper limits of Dual-Link DVI technology in terms of resolution while also managing a surprisingly good price tag."



This will be amazing for graphic professionals and video editors. I think the 30" is already great, but some people are buying two for dual monitor performance. That means the 40" or 44" will fit the bill even better for that kind of work.



I know Macosrumors is not very reliable, but they were correct about the 30" display a year before Apple launched it.



I can't wait to buy one!
«1345

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 84
    19841984 Posts: 955member
    The Surgeon General warns that quoting MOSR can be dangerous to your health.
  • Reply 2 of 84
    gugygugy Posts: 794member
    Pretty funny!

    Well I hope they are right!
  • Reply 3 of 84
    ryanhryanh Posts: 116member
    That would be ridiculous.

    The 30" is enormous on its own and you can drive two at once. Apple should be going the other way and making monitors to pimp out with the Mac mini.



    But you're right, it is a MOSR rumour. They are just as funny as http://www.crazyapplerumors.com but attempting to be serious.
  • Reply 4 of 84
    e1618978e1618978 Posts: 6,073member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ryanh

    That would be ridiculous.

    The 30" is enormous on its own and you can drive two at once. Apple should be going the other way and making monitors to pimp out with the Mac mini.



    But you're right, it is a MOSR rumour. They are just as funny as http://www.crazyapplerumors.com but attempting to be serious.




    I hate using two monitors. If there are indeed people using two 30" cinema displays, I am willing to bet they will pay more than twice as much to get the same screen area in a single monitor.



    I personally would be happy with a single 30" monitor, but I doubt that is true for everyone.



    There was a recent topic like this, about the possibility of a 45" monitor (that I estimated to cost $12K retail). Somebody had a kinipshit about the whole idea of a 45" monitor - if Apple makes one I am going to search for that thread and rub it in a little.
  • Reply 5 of 84
    ryanhryanh Posts: 116member
    Haha.

    I just don't know if anyone needs that many pixels even for working on video or rendering graphics. The 30" seems plenty big to me.
  • Reply 6 of 84
    gugygugy Posts: 794member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ryanh

    Haha.

    I just don't know if anyone needs that many pixels even for working on video or rendering graphics. The 30" seems plenty big to me.




    Well, many people do like graphic designers, 3D and video editors demand real state screen. They now are using dual 30", but they would use a single 40" if they could.



    But the real idea behind a monitor like that would be for content viewing.



    Steve jobs said this is the year of HD. So people will suppose start creating content for the same and they will want to see it in the big screen in their living rooms or offices. Right now many people are paying top dollar for plasmas monitors way bigger that 40", so if Apple can come up with a monitor in the $3k or $4k price range with hi-resolution for computing work many people will be interested. Not just professionals but consumers that use IDVD and IMovie as well.
  • Reply 7 of 84
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    hey, if this rumor is true, there could finaly be a 30 inch imac...it is about time...
  • Reply 8 of 84
    At that size, they should get into the television market. Sheesh.
  • Reply 9 of 84
    in my opinion a 40" is too big. is huge also a 30", thinking that is on the desk, 30 cm distance from me. wath shoul apple (and other vendors) do in make density higer, something like 30 ppi monitor. in most case is the resolution of a inkjet printer, so it be useful for dtp and for hdv will outperform requirements
  • Reply 10 of 84
    Quote:

    Originally posted by 1984

    The Surgeon General warns that quoting MOSR can be dangerous to your health.



    ...and "It's not fun to laugh at the surgeon general" ?
  • Reply 11 of 84
    IMO, Apple should stick with the current sizes and work on boosting resolution and on making OS X resolution independent. I'm actually a bit surprised that they haven't already, considering the display technology in OS X. Anyways, I'd much rather have an ultra-high resolution 20" display than a current resolution 40-50 incher. The improvement in viewing would be tremendous, with less eyestrain and longer viewing ability.



    'Course I'd take anything over my current 19" CRT, but for now it will have to do.
  • Reply 12 of 84
    gongon Posts: 2,437member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by gelosilente

    in my opinion a 40" is too big. is huge also a 30", thinking that is on the desk, 30 cm distance from me.



    Dude. Your problem is that you sit too close to the monitor. Sit like you normally sit, then reach out with both your hands. You shouldn't be able to touch the monitor. That leaves space on the desk for the full length of your forearms, keyboard and mouse before the monitor. You requested more DPI, but you can get more "virtual DPI" by using a bigger, higher resolution screen and sitting farther from it.



    Republic, I second the comment about getting into the TV market. If I buy a big TFT screen on my limited budget, I definitely want to attach my game console(s) to it, and to be able to use it as a TV. It wouldn't make any sense to have a 23" TFT screen at HDTV resolution and then have a crappy 28" widescreen TV next to it. Apple is the only one offering only DVI on their screens, others have DVI+VGA, many have SVHS and composite, and component video is appearing in some HDTV capable screens. At least Apple should add the VGA input IMO, as many high end screen users will want to connect a second computer.



    Contraptions to throughput SVHS/composite/component from the computer to the screen are silly if they eat up lots of processing power for nothing. Also I suspect a lot of them have lag (unacceptable for game console use) and cost a lot.
  • Reply 13 of 84
    gargar Posts: 1,201member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by gugy

    Well, many people do like graphic designers, 3D and video editors demand real state screen. They now are using dual 30", but they would use a single 40" if they could.



    But the real idea behind a monitor like that would be for content viewing.



    Steve jobs said this is the year of HD. So people will suppose start creating content for the same and they will want to see it in the big screen in their living rooms or offices. Right now many people are paying top dollar for plasmas monitors way bigger that 40", so if Apple can come up with a monitor in the $3k or $4k price range with hi-resolution for computing work many people will be interested. Not just professionals but consumers that use IDVD and IMovie as well.




    i know a lot of graphic designers who will laugh their ass of by the idea of a $3k screen to do their bussiness on.

    in their bussiness, they have to make money by saving money.

    they'll buy an 20"iMacG5 or a powermac G5 1.8SP and keep their old bulky crt screen.

    why not an powermac G5 1.8DP or 2.0DP?

    because a premium of $500-$1000 more not.



    better yet: they look at their ageing G4 867DP and their 22"laCie crt, shrug and go on with their work.



    at most bigger design studio's it's even worse. still using os 9.1 and quark Xpress 4.1 on old G4 400Mhzes.

    those studio bosses are as happy as hell with this new shinny Mac mini: a workstation for $500, yeah!!



    btw: video editing etc. is something different. in that branche they used to spend $50k or more for a workplace a couple of years ago.



    btw2: content viewing on a mac and paying $4k for a screen? it's a niche in a niche in a niche. i think your wife would kill you, if she knew, you spend $4k on a screen to use for iDVD and iMovie. (she was angry already about that $2500 for that powermac.)
  • Reply 14 of 84
    e1618978e1618978 Posts: 6,073member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by gar

    [B]i know a lot of graphic designers who will laugh their ass of by the idea of a $3k screen to do their bussiness on.



    Any graphic designer that earns $80K or more will spend the money.



    Including overhead (building, secretaries, management etc) the labor cost of that person will be $120K or more - $10 to $20K is not an unreasonable amount to spend to make sure that person is as productive as possible.
  • Reply 15 of 84
    gargar Posts: 1,201member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by e1618978

    Any graphic designer that earns $80K or more will spend the money.



    Including overhead (building, secretaries, management etc) the labor cost of that person will be $120K or more - $10 to $20K is not an unreasonable amount to spend to make sure that person is as productive as possible.




    do you know a lot of "graphic designers" who have a netto income of $80K ?

    you're glitterizing and glamorizing the bussiness a little to much. i was talking about the real day to day world here, not about the 0.03% top of the market.
  • Reply 16 of 84
    e1618978e1618978 Posts: 6,073member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by gar

    do you know a lot of "graphic designers" who have a netto income of $80K ?

    you're glitterizing and glamorizing the bussiness a little to much. i was talking about the real day to day world here, not about the 0.03% top of the market.




    Look it up on Monster - I looked under "Industrial designer III" and "Mechanical Designer IV" - both earn over 80K in the top quartile of pay in New York City, and they both could do with really big screens.



    Maybe 5% of graphic designers earn that much, but that will still be thousands of people. Combine that with the pro-sumer market, and the home theater pc market, and you have a viable product.
  • Reply 17 of 84
    gargar Posts: 1,201member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by e1618978

    Look it up on Monster - I looked under "Industrial designer III" and "Mechanical Designer IV" - both earn over 80K in the top quartile of pay in New York City, and they both could do with really big screens.



    Maybe 5% of graphic designers earn that much, but that will still be thousands of people. Combine that with the pro-sumer market, and the home theater pc market, and you have a viable product.




    A Graphic Designer is not an Industrial Designer or Mechanical Designer. Those are people who design planes, traines and automobiles or the innards of the mac you're working on.

    I was talking about the "Graphic Industry": those who print. A "Graphic" designer is someone who makes housestyles, books, brochures, ads etc. totally different bussiness.
  • Reply 18 of 84
    e1618978e1618978 Posts: 6,073member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by gar

    A Graphic Designer is not an Industrial Designer or Mechanical Designer. Those are people who design planes, traines and automobiles or the innards of the mac you're working on.

    I was talking about the "Graphic Industry": those who print. A "Graphic" designer is someone who makes housestyles, books, brochures, ads etc. totally different bussiness.




    I stand corrected - I don't know anyting about the graphic industry, but I am pretty sure that there are people who could use 45" monitors. As a software designer, I find my 21" CRT kind of limiting - back in the good old days of profitibility, my workstation was $20K. Maybe one day I will get a 30" or 45" monitor.
  • Reply 19 of 84
    slugheadslughead Posts: 1,169member
    What's wrong with having multiple monitors? I have 3 monitors that I could buy new for less than $1000 that have 4,626,432 pixels (1600 x 1200 + 1600 x 1200 + 1024 x 768 ).





    Of course, they're CRT so my desk is kind of bent in the middle...
  • Reply 20 of 84
    Quote:

    Originally posted by gar

    i know a lot of graphic designers who will laugh their ass of by the idea of a $3k screen to do their bussiness on.

    in their bussiness, they have to make money by saving money.

    they'll buy an 20"iMacG5 or a powermac G5 1.8SP and keep their old bulky crt screen.

    why not an powermac G5 1.8DP or 2.0DP?

    because a premium of $500-$1000 more not.







    DO you actually know anyone that "works" as a G/A? Sorry. They would never pigeon-hole themselves into an imac that doesn't come with the standard graphics cards featuring upgradeable 256 vmg. Two years from now will the imac serve-up bloated applications at a manageable rate of production? NO, you can't know. You cannot ask to work from home and then have to wait on pshop filters on 600mg files all day.



    You are being paid to produce, and anything that saves you time will make you more productive. So a 30" screen is more beneficial over a 17" or 20" screen. Having all your images, palettes, windows open at once without stealing surface area from your working plane will help maximize your time.



    When the first 23" Cinema Display came out it was over $3k (closer to $3,500). So todays 30" expense will be tomorrow's 40"-44".



    "You need to purchase at least 2 years "future proof," and It has to be somewhat upgradeable. So, a single lower spectrum G5 chip (at least 1.5 years old already) is not a jump-off point for graphic specailists.



    It's understandable to not have a lot of money when you're coming straight out of school, or just starting out. So focusing on the best cpu and monitor for your money is key. Can't go wrong with a top of the line Mac and a 22" CRT. With everyone switching to flat screens, you can find millions of great Lacie and Mitsubishi crt's on ebay.



    In contrast, if you're getting $30k per package design and you're doing 3-6 of these a year $3k ain't that wacky.



    You never "make money by saving it." You make money by risking it. You make money investing it. Invest in Yo-SELF!



    Cheers



    EDIT: If forgot to mention that 90% of us should not buy a 40-44" screen. After using a friends 30" my neck hurt after 2 hours. As I can normally view every inch of my screens, the 30" is so big it's like watching a tennis match. I'd hate to guess would happen with a much larger screen that you sit in front of?!?!?
Sign In or Register to comment.