Display upgrades

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 56
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ecking


    You can't say those are competely useless and no one would use them. That'd be invaluable to me as an independant editor.



    HDMI is just DVI with audio; the Cinema Display doesn't have speakers and if it did, they'd suck. HDCP is a legitimate request, and it'll probably happen eventually.



    Composite and Component are analog, require conversion and would produce horrifying quality. Suit yourself, though.
  • Reply 22 of 56
    dell -> ugly plastic that squicks : juck

    apple -> nice allu hard stiff frame drooole ....



    * the word: Del in duth is : a hoocker, slut, ugly bitch,...
  • Reply 23 of 56
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by vorm-krijger


    dell -> ugly plastic that squicks : juck

    apple -> nice allu hard stiff frame drooole ....



    * the word: Del in duth is : a hoocker, slut, ugly bitch,...



    I'm laughing. But not for the same reasons you probably are...
  • Reply 24 of 56
    yes ... typo's are so funny
  • Reply 25 of 56
    Those weren't typos...
  • Reply 26 of 56
    aflaaakaflaaak Posts: 208member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by alexius


    Or another wire to put away and bring out the couple times a month that you unload your camera.



    I much prefer a USB cable directly into my camera, as that little card is annoying to take in and out of my Canon.



    Ick, card readers. Save em for overpriced printers with little LCDs.



    If you have a newer camers that supports USB 2, no problem. I have a G3 which does not, which makes my USB 2 Card Reader a heck of a lot faster for transfering photos than direct from the camera.
  • Reply 27 of 56
    You know you can get a memory card for your camera that does wifi, if you have a SD memory card slot that is. So you can transfer pictures wirelessly.



    BTW, first post 8)
  • Reply 28 of 56
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bigboyfatcat


    You know you can get a memory card for your camera that does wifi, if you have a SD memory card slot that is. So you can transfer pictures wirelessly.



    BTW, first post 8)



    I've been waiting to upgrade my display til Apple comes out with a new display I feel an upgrade coming.
  • Reply 29 of 56
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Aflaaak


    If you have a newer camers that supports USB 2, no problem. I have a G3 which does not, which makes my USB 2 Card Reader a heck of a lot faster for transfering photos than direct from the camera.



    I don't think cameras are necessarily that fast when connected to the computer rather than reading its card separately. I can do a direct connection, but using a card reader seems to be quicker than directly my brand new camera.
  • Reply 30 of 56
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iDave


    I noticed Dell lowered the price on their 30" display almost immediately after Apple lowered theirs and not before. Funny how these things work. I think Dell makes fine displays, with more inputs and outputs than Apple's (although no Firewire). Am considering one myself. Hate the big fat logo on the front though.



    It took Dell a little while to drop their price, it wasn't a near immediate drop. The price differences between the two 30" monitors is also less than what I see between their 23" / 24" models.
  • Reply 31 of 56
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mrtotes


    The 20-23-30 range always seemed unbalanced to me anyway.



    There may be a sensible explanation - the dot pitch of the 23" is closer to what you see on the 20" and 30" than you would with a 24".
  • Reply 32 of 56
    sandausandau Posts: 1,230member
    well, if they upgrade the cinema displays, i sure hope they have an up and down adjustment (height) rather than just a stupid hinge. Once again, Apple builds a pretty thing with basic functionality missing.



    20.1" widescreens from dell can now be had for $289. It doesn't have the extras (hub, multi input). Very nice display for a great price. This is with free shipping (E207WFP):

    http://configure.us.dell.com/dellsto...kc=&oc=E207WFP



    note, the dell has 1680x1050 resolution, DVI w/ HDCP and 5ms response time. This kicks the Apple display up and down the block by specs and much less than half the price. Heck, get TWO for a total of $578 and you'll STILL have $121 left over to buy an iPod compared to the Apple at $699. You'd literally have to be smoking banana peels and plastic straws to buy a $699 20.1" Apple cinema display today.





    and iSight built in? I don't think so, lots of people connect their laptops to cinemas...dual iSight in iChat? lol. I don't think Apple would think that is a good option. I think they'll just make a 'pro' iSight with incredible resolution, clip it on the top like you do now....and it probably will work as the 'infrared' input too. - also, this model fits Apple's style, get 'em to buy the dang attachments and make more $$. No reason to give away stuff for free if you can make another dime off your customer.
  • Reply 33 of 56
    gongon Posts: 2,437member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Chucker


    I've never understood people's fascination with card readers. How many different devices with different card types are you gonna have? And if you only have one type, or two or three, wouldn't it be redundant and, quite frankly, ugly, to have slots for all sorts of cards you're never going to own?



    In the outer edge of the display frame they aren't really even visible. I use the CF slot and that's it.



    There probably are apps in your /Applications that you never use. Is that not ugly and redundant, or do you just ignore it?
    Quote:

    That said, card readers are a useful accessory, but you can buy them for less than $10 so it's not like dell is giving you anything valuable by adding them. You'd be much more flexible by buying an external one, because you could take it with you,



    Umm, the very few times I've had to unload photos on the go, I have taken the USB cable. That's where it makes sense to me. The builtin card reader is far more valuable for me than an external one because it does not add to my desk clutter.
    Quote:

    4 USB ports is nice, but also something you could easily add for another ten bucks if you were so inclined. The Dell, on the other hand, has no FireWire whatsoever.



    The vast majority of people don't have multiple FW devices, while most have 2+ USB. Many FW devices have passthrough which further diminishes the need for a hub, while USB devices usually do not have builtin hubs.
    Quote:

    So in terms of actual valuable features that have something to do with a monitor (gasp!), this leaves us with VGA, Composite, S-Video and Component. You will notice they all have two things in common: they're for video, and they're analog. But the screen is digital, and so is your computer's input data. So, the Dell screens (except for the 30-incher, which has none of these ports) use an analog-to-digital converter so they can do something with those analog signals. That kind of conversion, however, is bound to give you terrible quality, especially at the 1920x1200 resolution we're talking about!

    The only input that will actually give you proper quality is DVI, since that's the only digital one.



    Component is a generally accepted port even for high end HD hometheater equipment, and I use VGA for the computer because Apple didn't see fit to furnish iBook with DVI.
    Quote:

    Now, if you want the monitor to double as a TV so you can watch low-resolution, analog, pixelated and converted stuff, go ahead, but it's way too expensive for that purpose.



    I think you are wrong here in the absolute sense, because if the price for the display is right for DVI monitor duty, then obviously if you have other uses besides that, the same price is more reasonable since you get more.



    FYI, you are badly underestimating how good the quality is. 480p content through component from a PS2 looks fine. 1920x1200 through VGA from the iBook looks fine - at least, it's a lot better than the CRT I used to have.



    What about all those flatscreen TV's? They have to do analog-digital conversion too. If your display's builtin scaler does not do a good enough job with some kind of content (IMO the Dell's is a little questionable when the input is interlaced), you have the option of getting a picture source that does the scaling before the stuff gets to your display.



    Not all content even needs to look good. If you want to see the news, it's not like you're watching for the $$$ special effects. Get a cheap tuner, plug it in, go.
  • Reply 34 of 56
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gon


    There probably are apps in your /Applications that you never use. Is that not ugly and redundant, or do you just ignore it?



    I remove them.



    Quote:

    1920x1200 through VGA from the iBook looks fine - at least, it's a lot better than the CRT I used to have.



    Glad I'm not your optometrist.
  • Reply 35 of 56
    brianusbrianus Posts: 146member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sandau


    and iSight built in? I don't think so, lots of people connect their laptops to cinemas...dual iSight in iChat? lol. I don't think Apple would think that is a good option. I think they'll just make a 'pro' iSight with incredible resolution, clip it on the top like you do now....and it probably will work as the 'infrared' input too. - also, this model fits Apple's style, get 'em to buy the dang attachments and make more $$. No reason to give away stuff for free if you can make another dime off your customer.



    I see your point, but remember, before this year there was no such thing as "built in iSight". Now all Macs with displays, both consumer and pro, have it; they're not making any extra $$ off their iMac, MB and MBP customers that way. I wouldn't be surprised if they decide the Mac mini crowd don't deserve it, the laptoppers with external displays already have it and the Pros can afford a clip-on, but that only makes the cinema displays look more out of date (compared to the Mac product line) and less featured (compared to the competition) than they already were.
  • Reply 36 of 56
    idaveidave Posts: 1,283member
    Now that Apple has confirmed plans for resolution independence in Leopard, I expect we'll see higher resolution displays next spring, if not before.



    link
  • Reply 37 of 56
    gugygugy Posts: 794member
    I hope you are right.

    I am looking forward to a larger than 30" display. Hopefully 42" +
  • Reply 38 of 56
    idaveidave Posts: 1,283member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gugy


    I am looking forward to a larger than 30" display. Hopefully 42" +



    Aren't you afraid you'd strain your neck looking at it?



    What do you suppose is the resolution limit of dual-link DVI? I'd love to have a 30" display at about 200 ppi. I think there comes a point where screen size could actually be too big. Giant screens are fine for TV since you're sitting several feet back, but a computer display is only about two feet from your face.
  • Reply 39 of 56
    gugygugy Posts: 794member
    I have one 23" and one 30". I would not mind to replace my 23" for another 30". so dual 30" display. That still great.

    When I say I would love to have a 42"+ is to have a single monitor doing what a dual set up 30" could do.

    For a designer this set up is a dream come true.



    Yes, it's true that this will eventually hit a limit. I think dual 42" would be too much. But there is always an option to use those monitors as the TV on your living room. That would be a great way to market the monitors.
  • Reply 40 of 56
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gugy


    I have one 23" and one 30". I would not mind to replace my 23" for another 30". so dual 30" display. That still great.

    When I say I would love to have a 42"+ is to have a single monitor doing what a dual set up 30" could do.

    For a designer this set up is a dream come true.



    Yes, it's true that this will eventually hit a limit. I think dual 42" would be too much. But there is always an option to use those monitors as the TV on your living room. That would be a great way to market the monitors.



    If you are looking for a good large display for presentation purposes, I suggest looking at the 1080p TVs. You can get a good 42" 1080p unit for $1700. The problem is that it's not suitable for desktop use though because it's just under the resolution of the 23" with about double the pixel size. Any living room display would probably be 1080p at most because you don't sit nearly so close.



    A 42" screen at the same dot pitch as a computer monitor would probably require a quad-link DVI. It does exist, but only in certain workstation graphics cards from ATI's Fire GL line, in the nVidia Quadro line and Matrox offered one too.
Sign In or Register to comment.