HDCP, Blu-ray, nor HD-DVD really exist quite yet as a fully functioning system.
HDCP has been in shipping displays, though mostly in TVs, for a while now, and there is an increasing number of monitors that are shipping with it. I will not buy a new monitor without it.
Seeing as HD and Blu-ray players are hella expensive, hella clunky, and neither has won the political war of shitfullness...i couldn't give a crap if it has HDCP in it or not.
I would just like to point out that these are COMPUTER monitors not TVs, which happen to specifically be targeted towards graphic designers, video editors and the like. As someone who uses a 23" Cinema Display for exactly this purpose, I must say that without doubt the Cinema Display is an exceptional monitor, albeit a little pricey.
When you calibrate a monitor such as the cinema display you actually need to turn the brightness DOWN quite a bit. Mine is at about 75%. I just purchased an LG monitor for my PC at home that is so bright it hurts my eyes, even at the lowest setting (besides that the picture quality is pretty good, especially for the $150 I paid for it). Ive had to go into the Nvidia control panel and reduce the gamma manually to make it tollerable.
So why the heck to you need a monitor that is so bright? Its a BAD thing. I hope Apple doesnt release a display that is much brighter.
As far as using the monitor as a TV, why would you want to? The best practice is for your TV to match the exact resolution that your video source is outputting. Any higher OR lower resolution will result in a degredation in quality due to upsampling or downsampling. Like JeffD mentioned, all LCD TVs currently are not 1080i/p, many have about 900 lines of vertical resolution. So you cant compare an LCD TV to and LCD monitor, they simply arent the same thing.
Aesthetically, I would rather crap on my desk than put a Dell on it. Dell is perhaps second ugliest next to Benq (which make perhaps the worst monitors I have ever seen).
So to say that the Dell is a better monitor because it is brighter, has analog inputs (why would you pay for such a monitor and use them?), and can be used as a TV is just plain absurd. Now, pricewise, I agree, Apple needs to reduce their prices (and perhaps increase the response time). I think they will soon, but of course as with anything Apple, you can always expect to pay more for what you get.
So why the heck to you need a monitor that is so bright? Its a BAD thing. I hope Apple doesnt release a display that is much brighter.
...
Aesthetically, I would rather crap on my desk than put a Dell on it. Dell is perhaps second ugliest next to Benq (which make perhaps the worst monitors I have ever seen).
I too have my brightness turned down, but because I am a bit sensitive, my 17" Samsung is pretty close to its lowest setting. I've considered getting some neutral density gels to see if I can somehow place them around the backlight bulb.
Regarding the analog inputs, there have been many times where I thought I didn't need a feature that I later wished I had, having additional inputs on a monitor was one of those kinds of features. Using a monitor as a TV isn't ideal primary use, but it would make it a fine fall-back device, or for those in tight quarters, such as a small apartment or college dorm.
I don't think the larger, more recent Dell monitors are ugly, I'm not sure what you are basing that on.
I have both an Apple 20" Cinema Display and also an HP 23" LCD monitor. The HP blows the Apple monitor away, plain and simple, in sharpness, quality and especially in brightness.
A friend of mine also has the Dell 24" LCD monitor, and it's even better than both of the monitors I use.
the truth is apple needs to step their monitor game up, straight up.
I switched last year and got a mini, wanted a nice apple monitor to go with it and suddenly....mini+cinema display = imac price? wtf no, I didn't want an all in one computer at the time and didn't want the weakness of a mini for the price of an imac. So I bought another brands monitor.
Nice looking aluminum isn't worth the price compared to dell. ESPECIALLY the 20", at least the other two are HD.
If apple really wants to kick in the marketshare and provide the full user experience they NEED at least one at a smaller size and better prices if they''re gonna get away with skimping on features.
17" Widescreen HD - 599
21" Widescreen HD - 899
24" Widescreen HD - 1199.99
30" Widescreen HD - 2299.99
Apple always wants to do things first so they should be the first to make the push to a whole HD line with pretty fair prices. They'll sell like hotcakes. Almost no one will get a mini without getting a 17 HD apple display and the others will sell well as well.
Obviously future revisions of the imac need to be HD too to stay competitive, but that's inevitable. And the mini would need to be considerably weaker than the imac as not to canabalize imac sales. And hell MAKE IMACS 20 AND 23 INCH HD(as well as push imac prices up by 100).
That'd be perfect imo. Maybe I should start a thread about this?
My housemate just received her Dell Ultrasharp 24 and it is amazing!!! I mean amazing. It has a native resolution of 1920x1200, DVI-D Input as well as VGA if you needed it. Composite RGB video inputs (sorry for the lack of proper terminology), as well as slew of USB ports and several different flash memory readers... and the image quality is better than any ACD i've seen. It arrived two days after she ordered it with no extra cost other than standard low level shipping, all for 870 something dollars... Wow Dell, Wow.
My housemate just received her Dell Ultrasharp 24 and it is amazing!!! I mean amazing. It has a native resolution of 1920x1200, DVI-D Input as well as VGA if you needed it. Composite RGB video inputs (sorry for the lack of proper terminology), as well as slew of USB ports and several different flash memory readers... and the image quality is better than any ACD i've seen. It arrived two days after she ordered it with no extra cost other than standard low level shipping, all for 870 something dollars... Wow Dell, Wow.
I mentioned this in another thread. I am using one a work and feel exactly the same way. This is possibly the best product Dell has put out as far as price and performance go. I kick myself everyday that I didn't know about this deal before I bought my 23" Apple display.
My housemate just received her Dell Ultrasharp 24 and it is amazing!!! I mean amazing. ...
It arrived two days after she ordered it with no extra cost other than standard low level shipping, all for 870 something dollars... Wow Dell, Wow.
I suppose the price went up a bit, Costco had it for $825 a couple weeks ago, with free shipping. I think it is still a good deal.
There isn't much else that competes against it from anybody on that price, so I think it is a bit unfair to single out Apple when no one else has anything close to Dell's pricing. The cost of Samsung's 24" display is even higher than Apple's for some reason.
Apple's LCD prices are flat out absurd. I personally think that anyone that pays all that extra money for less features on a purely "omg it's pretty!!" idea is just dumb.
Dell uses the same panels, and I'm willing to bet the same manufacturer as Apple, probably just a different casing in the end.
For all the people talking about HDCP like it's not important you are damn wrong. Windows Vista is going to limit the resolution of HD content if you don't have a compatible video card and moniter. There are already lawsuits against Samesung for making a DVD player which it's HDCP protection can be circumvented. The MPAA is not going to let any new HiDef content be played on non HDMI and HDCP moniters, they've made that very clear. It would be foolish to purchese a moniter without the support.
Apple will in the end bow to the content industry and make people have HDCP moniters in order to watch HiDef content.
Comments
Originally posted by vinea
The biggest problem with the cinema displays IMHO isn't the price (tho' I would prefer cheaper) but the lack of HDCP.
Why is HDCP helpful?
Originally posted by icfireball
Why is HDCP helpful?
You can't watch HD movies* without HDCP.
*from HD-DVD/BluRay discs.
Originally posted by DHagan4755
I believe the price of everything Apple computer related will drop once the entire range of Macs has been transitioned to using Intel processors.
Exhibit A: Intel processors are more expensive than the G5 procs they replaced:
Exhibit B: Apple likes its margins.
Detective! Detective! We need a detective to piece all of this together!
Originally posted by Placebo
Exhibit A: Intel processors are more expensive than the G5 procs they replaced:
We don't know anything whatsoever about what Apple pays Intel, what Apple pays/paid IBM or what Apple pays/paid Freescale.
No, public pricing lists do not apply.
No, really, they don't. They're pointless.
No, comparing based on them doesn't have any merit either.
Originally posted by TenoBell
HDCP, Blu-ray, nor HD-DVD really exist quite yet as a fully functioning system.
HDCP has been in shipping displays, though mostly in TVs, for a while now, and there is an increasing number of monitors that are shipping with it. I will not buy a new monitor without it.
Originally posted by Haxz0r Jim Duggan
HDCP is a DRM, and I won't be buying a monitor WITH it...
Even if you never use it? With that sort of stand, then you wouldn't have anything to do with the iTunes software, iPod, DVDs or MacOS for Intel.
When you calibrate a monitor such as the cinema display you actually need to turn the brightness DOWN quite a bit. Mine is at about 75%. I just purchased an LG monitor for my PC at home that is so bright it hurts my eyes, even at the lowest setting (besides that the picture quality is pretty good, especially for the $150 I paid for it). Ive had to go into the Nvidia control panel and reduce the gamma manually to make it tollerable.
So why the heck to you need a monitor that is so bright? Its a BAD thing. I hope Apple doesnt release a display that is much brighter.
As far as using the monitor as a TV, why would you want to? The best practice is for your TV to match the exact resolution that your video source is outputting. Any higher OR lower resolution will result in a degredation in quality due to upsampling or downsampling. Like JeffD mentioned, all LCD TVs currently are not 1080i/p, many have about 900 lines of vertical resolution. So you cant compare an LCD TV to and LCD monitor, they simply arent the same thing.
Aesthetically, I would rather crap on my desk than put a Dell on it. Dell is perhaps second ugliest next to Benq (which make perhaps the worst monitors I have ever seen).
So to say that the Dell is a better monitor because it is brighter, has analog inputs (why would you pay for such a monitor and use them?), and can be used as a TV is just plain absurd. Now, pricewise, I agree, Apple needs to reduce their prices (and perhaps increase the response time). I think they will soon, but of course as with anything Apple, you can always expect to pay more for what you get.
Originally posted by 4fx
I agree, Apple needs to reduce their prices (and perhaps increase the response time).
Shouldn't that be "reduce response time" ie: faster response?
Originally posted by 4fx
So why the heck to you need a monitor that is so bright? Its a BAD thing. I hope Apple doesnt release a display that is much brighter.
...
Aesthetically, I would rather crap on my desk than put a Dell on it. Dell is perhaps second ugliest next to Benq (which make perhaps the worst monitors I have ever seen).
I too have my brightness turned down, but because I am a bit sensitive, my 17" Samsung is pretty close to its lowest setting. I've considered getting some neutral density gels to see if I can somehow place them around the backlight bulb.
Regarding the analog inputs, there have been many times where I thought I didn't need a feature that I later wished I had, having additional inputs on a monitor was one of those kinds of features. Using a monitor as a TV isn't ideal primary use, but it would make it a fine fall-back device, or for those in tight quarters, such as a small apartment or college dorm.
I don't think the larger, more recent Dell monitors are ugly, I'm not sure what you are basing that on.
A friend of mine also has the Dell 24" LCD monitor, and it's even better than both of the monitors I use.
I switched last year and got a mini, wanted a nice apple monitor to go with it and suddenly....mini+cinema display = imac price? wtf no, I didn't want an all in one computer at the time and didn't want the weakness of a mini for the price of an imac. So I bought another brands monitor.
Nice looking aluminum isn't worth the price compared to dell. ESPECIALLY the 20", at least the other two are HD.
If apple really wants to kick in the marketshare and provide the full user experience they NEED at least one at a smaller size and better prices if they''re gonna get away with skimping on features.
17" Widescreen HD - 599
21" Widescreen HD - 899
24" Widescreen HD - 1199.99
30" Widescreen HD - 2299.99
Apple always wants to do things first so they should be the first to make the push to a whole HD line with pretty fair prices. They'll sell like hotcakes. Almost no one will get a mini without getting a 17 HD apple display and the others will sell well as well.
Obviously future revisions of the imac need to be HD too to stay competitive, but that's inevitable. And the mini would need to be considerably weaker than the imac as not to canabalize imac sales. And hell MAKE IMACS 20 AND 23 INCH HD(as well as push imac prices up by 100).
That'd be perfect imo. Maybe I should start a thread about this?
Originally posted by CDonG4
My housemate just received her Dell Ultrasharp 24 and it is amazing!!! I mean amazing. It has a native resolution of 1920x1200, DVI-D Input as well as VGA if you needed it. Composite RGB video inputs (sorry for the lack of proper terminology), as well as slew of USB ports and several different flash memory readers... and the image quality is better than any ACD i've seen. It arrived two days after she ordered it with no extra cost other than standard low level shipping, all for 870 something dollars... Wow Dell, Wow.
I mentioned this in another thread. I am using one a work and feel exactly the same way. This is possibly the best product Dell has put out as far as price and performance go. I kick myself everyday that I didn't know about this deal before I bought my 23" Apple display.
Originally posted by CDonG4
My housemate just received her Dell Ultrasharp 24 and it is amazing!!! I mean amazing. ...
It arrived two days after she ordered it with no extra cost other than standard low level shipping, all for 870 something dollars... Wow Dell, Wow.
I suppose the price went up a bit, Costco had it for $825 a couple weeks ago, with free shipping. I think it is still a good deal.
There isn't much else that competes against it from anybody on that price, so I think it is a bit unfair to single out Apple when no one else has anything close to Dell's pricing. The cost of Samsung's 24" display is even higher than Apple's for some reason.
Dell uses the same panels, and I'm willing to bet the same manufacturer as Apple, probably just a different casing in the end.
For all the people talking about HDCP like it's not important you are damn wrong. Windows Vista is going to limit the resolution of HD content if you don't have a compatible video card and moniter. There are already lawsuits against Samesung for making a DVD player which it's HDCP protection can be circumvented. The MPAA is not going to let any new HiDef content be played on non HDMI and HDCP moniters, they've made that very clear. It would be foolish to purchese a moniter without the support.
Apple will in the end bow to the content industry and make people have HDCP moniters in order to watch HiDef content.