Thanks for that link (although it's a shame the writers don't seem to appreciate the difference between screen size and resolution - "22 inch not wide enough for HD"? "24 inches a better width to support Vista's sidebar"? ). This is great news - up until now, the largest screen with L.E.D. lighting that I was aware of was 13" or so (widescreen). I was therefore expecting, with the next update, for the 15" MB Pro to go L.E.D. backlighting, but not the 17". This announcement would suggest that it is at least possible to get the 17" lit with L.E.D. backlighting.
As for the iMac - L.E.D. backlighting is more expensive at the moment, so I don't think we'll see it in an iMac. Hopefully the next update to the Cinema Displays will have it, though.
I hope so but I don't think Apple can afford to go LED at iMac sizing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
Thanks for that link (although it's a shame the writers don't seem to appreciate the difference between screen size and resolution - "22 inch not wide enough for HD"? "24 inches a better width to support Vista's sidebar"? ). This is great news - up until now, the largest screen with L.E.D. lighting that I was aware of was 13" or so (widescreen). I was therefore expecting, with the next update, for the 15" MB Pro to go L.E.D. backlighting, but not the 17". This announcement would suggest that it is at least possible to get the 17" lit with L.E.D. backlighting.
As for the iMac - L.E.D. backlighting is more expensive at the moment, so I don't think we'll see it in an iMac. Hopefully the next update to the Cinema Displays will have it, though.
Oh God I know I'm going to love LED backlighting. Frankly I'm surprised about the Contrast Ratios that Samsung is claiming here. I would have thought that they'd be higher than 1000:1
Infact after checking out Samsungs sight I'd guess that this number is incorrct. I bet the CR is 10,000:1 which is more inline with LED technology.
I hope so but I don't think Apple can afford to go LED at iMac sizing.
Oh God I know I'm going to love LED backlighting. Frankly I'm surprised about the Contrast Ratios that Samsung is claiming here. I would have thought that they'd be higher than 1000:1
Infact after checking out Samsungs sight I'd guess that this number is incorrct. I bet the CR is 10,000:1 which is more inline with LED technology.
You're mixing up OLED with LED-backlit LCD.
LCD is still LCD, and inherently has contrast issues.
OLED is where the real breakthrough in contrast ratios comes in.
Dude, I just got a 20-in iMac...like on April 5th, my b-day. Does Apple have any type of exchange policy if they come out with new ones right after my purchase? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
LCD is still LCD, and inherently has contrast issues.
OLED is where the real breakthrough in contrast ratios comes in.
No I'm pretty familiar with both. LED backlighting for LCD improves contrast rations greatly because an LED can shut all they way off so that blacks now can truly become black. Anytime you see a LED based backlight you should see a corollary bump in Contrast Ratio because of this However CCFL backlighting has gotten much better as witnessed by the 15,000:1 ratios of some panels
I hope so but I don't think Apple can afford to go LED at iMac sizing.
Good point, I wondered if this was something that was going to start off at the pro level and work its way down. I don't know how much this is going to cost.
Edit: I notice it has 250cd/m2 brightness. Isn't that dim compared to today's iMacs and Cinema Displays? Aren't they in the 400cd/m2 range now?
Good point, I wondered if this was something that was going to start off at the pro level and work its way down. I don't know how much this is going to cost.
Edit: I notice it has 250cd/m2 brightness. Isn't that dim compared to today's iMacs and Cinema Displays? Aren't they in the 400cd/m2 range now?
Yes, but it doesn't really matter. Ultimate brightness specs don't matter unless you are in a very high lighting situation.
Generally, once you correct the monitor for color, the brightness comes way down. LED backlighting loses less brightness over its lifetime than flourescent does, so you won't be turning it up as much as it ages.
I'm in need of a new computer that I hope to keep a few years (this Dell is 6 years old)I'm hoping (yet not holding my breath) that Apple releases a mid-priced, mid-powered tower soon. I don't need the power and HD/RAM options of the Pro, nor do I want to pay for them. If I were to "settle" for a new iMac, I can forget about new screen technology like SED and OLED. I'd have to replace the whole computer instead of just the monitor.
No I'm pretty familiar with both. LED backlighting for LCD improves contrast rations greatly because an LED can shut all they way off so that blacks now can truly become black. Anytime you see a LED based backlight you should see a corollary bump in Contrast Ratio because of this However CCFL backlighting has gotten much better as witnessed by the 15,000:1 ratios of some panels
Taking this technology and placing it in a LCD TV is much more expensive.
Samsung's LNR460D is supposed to be shipping but at around $8000 so I'm
not thinking that any large scale LED based panels will be affordable for the foreseeable
future. I love that they are thinner, cooler and have no mercury though.
Right, but with LED, it's still one backlight, that's on or off. In other words, if you have one white pixel on the screen, then the back needs to be fully on. This means that all those "black" pixels are a nice gray.
On those TVs, they're essentially lying to oyu about the contrast ratio: they're comparing the black when it's fully off, to the white when it's fully on.
It's completely irrelevant: you only care about contrast ratio when there's an image on the screen. Manufacturers that play that game are flat out lying to you.
LED doesn't offer any effective contrast ratio benefits over any other backlight technology.
Has the uneven color fading issue been resolved for OLED? I recall that blue fades the fastest, and since people seem to like their displays to have a bluish tint, then that's a problem.
Dude, I just got a 20-in iMac...like on April 5th, my b-day. Does Apple have any type of exchange policy if they come out with new ones right after my purchase? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
A member since 04 and over 500 posts do you really need to ask this?
Anyway, in a word, NO. Apple doesn't do trade-ins but I think they do (or did) have a 30 day satisfaction guarantee (maybe not anymore so you'd need to check). That being said, I wouldn't be holding my breath for any of this speculation to become reality (not in the next 25 days at any rate)...
Has the uneven color fading issue been resolved for OLED? I recall that blue fades the fastest, and since people seem to like their displays to have a bluish tint, then that's a problem.
It's always going to be true that blue fades fasteat.
Today, even after all the development, greens fade faster than reds. It's in the nature of the higher energy bands.
But, once they get to over 10 thousand hours, it begins to get better. From what I know, the blue is up to almost 30 thousand.
But, as OLEDS fade fairly slowly altogether, the color can be adjusted over time. Mostly, we don't use our monitors too much above 150 cd/m², so there is plenty of room.
Even with CRT's, the blue is a problem. That's why we can't adjust them to 5,000k properly, and have to settle for 6,500k. It's why the Europeans had 6,500k as their standard for so long, and we have been moving to it here as well. Only monitors such as the Barco's were brightenough to go to 5,000k.
A member since 04 and over 500 posts do you really need to ask this?
Anyway, in a word, NO. Apple doesn't do trade-ins but I think they do (or did) have a 30 day satisfaction guarantee (maybe not anymore so you'd need to check). That being said, I wouldn't be holding my breath for any of this speculation to become reality (not in the next 25 days at any rate)...
Dave
Thanks. Yup, I needed to ask, because, believe it or not, it is my first Mac since having one (Apple II GS) as a kid). I've been using Macs (with OS X) at various employments over the years, but never got around to getting one at home.
But this totally answered my question so thank you.
OK, but where, exactly, is the "fat" in the current design that Ives is supposedly being charged with removing?
We know Steve is absolutely obsessed with making everything as small and thin as possible, so it's not like the "chin" was some arbitrary element-- clearly the current iMac needs the space so it can be thin as possible (the alternative would be to drop the chin and make the whole machine about an inch thicker).
And we know that getting overly aggressive about pushing the size/heat dissipation envelope has caused problems with thermal management on some earlier machines.
So even if new iMacs are using the latest Intel chipset, I don't recall reading about radical reductions in power consumption/heat, so how do you make everything smaller without it melting?
People are acting like the current machine's size was just aesthetics, but if they could have made it any smaller, they would have. I can't see what's changed that would allow that shrink now. Redesign, new colors, move things around, new materials, sure. But radically downsized? Don't buy it.
My guess is that the screen slab will be 'thinned' once the hard drive is replaced with a 'flash' and bits like usb keyboard and mouse ports, which contribute to thickening the slab, are built into the pedestal.
I'm hoping there will be touch screen capabilities. I think its possible with iphone going that way. Even if it is just in a limited sense, it will be a quantum leap in static design.
My guess is that the screen slab will be 'thinned' once the hard drive is replaced with a 'flash' and bits like usb keyboard and mouse ports, which contribute to thickening the slab, are built into the pedestal.
Nobody is replacing the hard drives in iMacs with flash drives.
That's ridiculous, and these silly rumours must stop before expectations get out of hand.
iMacs are Apple's gateway to the Digital Lifestyle. High-resolution photos, High Definition home movies and buying lots and lots of movies and music from the iTMS means that iMac hard drives need more space than ever.
Flash tops out right now at 32GB or so, and the smallest hard drive in an iMac is 160GB.
Not to mention the problems with wear and tear from daily use and pricing issues.
Flash may have its uses in narrower markets and portable computers, but iMac hard drives aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
Comments
Is this LED-backlit panel destined for the next iMac rev?
Thanks for that link (although it's a shame the writers don't seem to appreciate the difference between screen size and resolution - "22 inch not wide enough for HD"?
As for the iMac - L.E.D. backlighting is more expensive at the moment, so I don't think we'll see it in an iMac. Hopefully the next update to the Cinema Displays will have it, though.
Is this LED-backlit panel destined for the next iMac rev?
I hope so but I don't think Apple can afford to go LED at iMac sizing.
Thanks for that link (although it's a shame the writers don't seem to appreciate the difference between screen size and resolution - "22 inch not wide enough for HD"?
As for the iMac - L.E.D. backlighting is more expensive at the moment, so I don't think we'll see it in an iMac. Hopefully the next update to the Cinema Displays will have it, though.
Oh God I know I'm going to love LED backlighting. Frankly I'm surprised about the Contrast Ratios that Samsung is claiming here. I would have thought that they'd be higher than 1000:1
Infact after checking out Samsungs sight I'd guess that this number is incorrct. I bet the CR is 10,000:1 which is more inline with LED technology.
I hope so but I don't think Apple can afford to go LED at iMac sizing.
Oh God I know I'm going to love LED backlighting. Frankly I'm surprised about the Contrast Ratios that Samsung is claiming here. I would have thought that they'd be higher than 1000:1
Infact after checking out Samsungs sight I'd guess that this number is incorrct. I bet the CR is 10,000:1 which is more inline with LED technology.
You're mixing up OLED with LED-backlit LCD.
LCD is still LCD, and inherently has contrast issues.
OLED is where the real breakthrough in contrast ratios comes in.
You're mixing up OLED with LED-backlit LCD.
LCD is still LCD, and inherently has contrast issues.
OLED is where the real breakthrough in contrast ratios comes in.
That would depend on how the LED backlight is implemented. If you have one LED per pixel, that provides real possibilities for improving contrast.
You're mixing up OLED with LED-backlit LCD.
LCD is still LCD, and inherently has contrast issues.
OLED is where the real breakthrough in contrast ratios comes in.
No I'm pretty familiar with both. LED backlighting for LCD improves contrast rations greatly because an LED can shut all they way off so that blacks now can truly become black. Anytime you see a LED based backlight you should see a corollary bump in Contrast Ratio because of this However CCFL backlighting has gotten much better as witnessed by the 15,000:1 ratios of some panels
56 inch 10,000:1 CR DLP
56 inch 4,000:1 CR DLP
Taking this technology and placing it in a LCD TV is much more expensive.
Samsung's LNR460D is supposed to be shipping but at around $8000 so I'm
not thinking that any large scale LED based panels will be affordable for the foreseeable
future. I love that they are thinner, cooler and have no mercury though.
That would depend on how the LED backlight is implemented. If you have one LED per pixel, that provides real possibilities for improving contrast.
I hope so but I don't think Apple can afford to go LED at iMac sizing.
Good point, I wondered if this was something that was going to start off at the pro level and work its way down. I don't know how much this is going to cost.
Edit: I notice it has 250cd/m2 brightness. Isn't that dim compared to today's iMacs and Cinema Displays? Aren't they in the 400cd/m2 range now?
That would depend on how the LED backlight is implemented. If you have one LED per pixel, that provides real possibilities for improving contrast.
That's right. But, now we're really talking expensive!
Also, the power use would be much too high. This would essentially an LED monitor behind the LCD screen.
What companies are talking about is sections of the screen being turned up or down. not ideal, but likely good enough.
Good point, I wondered if this was something that was going to start off at the pro level and work its way down. I don't know how much this is going to cost.
Edit: I notice it has 250cd/m2 brightness. Isn't that dim compared to today's iMacs and Cinema Displays? Aren't they in the 400cd/m2 range now?
Yes, but it doesn't really matter. Ultimate brightness specs don't matter unless you are in a very high lighting situation.
Generally, once you correct the monitor for color, the brightness comes way down. LED backlighting loses less brightness over its lifetime than flourescent does, so you won't be turning it up as much as it ages.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2113001,00.asp
I'm in need of a new computer that I hope to keep a few years (this Dell is 6 years old)I'm hoping (yet not holding my breath) that Apple releases a mid-priced, mid-powered tower soon. I don't need the power and HD/RAM options of the Pro, nor do I want to pay for them. If I were to "settle" for a new iMac, I can forget about new screen technology like SED and OLED. I'd have to replace the whole computer instead of just the monitor.
That would depend on how the LED backlight is implemented. If you have one LED per pixel, that provides real possibilities for improving contrast.
Sure, if you want to pay $50,000 in patent licensing fees to BrightSide
Besides, they don't make LEDs that small unless you're going for an OLED panel.
No I'm pretty familiar with both. LED backlighting for LCD improves contrast rations greatly because an LED can shut all they way off so that blacks now can truly become black. Anytime you see a LED based backlight you should see a corollary bump in Contrast Ratio because of this However CCFL backlighting has gotten much better as witnessed by the 15,000:1 ratios of some panels
56 inch 10,000:1 CR DLP
56 inch 4,000:1 CR DLP
Taking this technology and placing it in a LCD TV is much more expensive.
Samsung's LNR460D is supposed to be shipping but at around $8000 so I'm
not thinking that any large scale LED based panels will be affordable for the foreseeable
future. I love that they are thinner, cooler and have no mercury though.
Right, but with LED, it's still one backlight, that's on or off. In other words, if you have one white pixel on the screen, then the back needs to be fully on. This means that all those "black" pixels are a nice gray.
On those TVs, they're essentially lying to oyu about the contrast ratio: they're comparing the black when it's fully off, to the white when it's fully on.
It's completely irrelevant: you only care about contrast ratio when there's an image on the screen. Manufacturers that play that game are flat out lying to you.
LED doesn't offer any effective contrast ratio benefits over any other backlight technology.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2113001,00.asp
Has the uneven color fading issue been resolved for OLED? I recall that blue fades the fastest, and since people seem to like their displays to have a bluish tint, then that's a problem.
Dude, I just got a 20-in iMac...like on April 5th, my b-day. Does Apple have any type of exchange policy if they come out with new ones right after my purchase? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
A member since 04 and over 500 posts do you really need to ask this?
Anyway, in a word, NO. Apple doesn't do trade-ins but I think they do (or did) have a 30 day satisfaction guarantee (maybe not anymore so you'd need to check). That being said, I wouldn't be holding my breath for any of this speculation to become reality (not in the next 25 days at any rate)...
Dave
Has the uneven color fading issue been resolved for OLED? I recall that blue fades the fastest, and since people seem to like their displays to have a bluish tint, then that's a problem.
It's always going to be true that blue fades fasteat.
Today, even after all the development, greens fade faster than reds. It's in the nature of the higher energy bands.
But, once they get to over 10 thousand hours, it begins to get better. From what I know, the blue is up to almost 30 thousand.
But, as OLEDS fade fairly slowly altogether, the color can be adjusted over time. Mostly, we don't use our monitors too much above 150 cd/m², so there is plenty of room.
Even with CRT's, the blue is a problem. That's why we can't adjust them to 5,000k properly, and have to settle for 6,500k. It's why the Europeans had 6,500k as their standard for so long, and we have been moving to it here as well. Only monitors such as the Barco's were brightenough to go to 5,000k.
A member since 04 and over 500 posts do you really need to ask this?
Anyway, in a word, NO. Apple doesn't do trade-ins but I think they do (or did) have a 30 day satisfaction guarantee (maybe not anymore so you'd need to check). That being said, I wouldn't be holding my breath for any of this speculation to become reality (not in the next 25 days at any rate)...
Dave
Thanks. Yup, I needed to ask, because, believe it or not, it is my first Mac since having one (Apple II GS) as a kid). I've been using Macs (with OS X) at various employments over the years, but never got around to getting one at home.
But this totally answered my question so thank you.
OK, but where, exactly, is the "fat" in the current design that Ives is supposedly being charged with removing?
We know Steve is absolutely obsessed with making everything as small and thin as possible, so it's not like the "chin" was some arbitrary element-- clearly the current iMac needs the space so it can be thin as possible (the alternative would be to drop the chin and make the whole machine about an inch thicker).
And we know that getting overly aggressive about pushing the size/heat dissipation envelope has caused problems with thermal management on some earlier machines.
So even if new iMacs are using the latest Intel chipset, I don't recall reading about radical reductions in power consumption/heat, so how do you make everything smaller without it melting?
People are acting like the current machine's size was just aesthetics, but if they could have made it any smaller, they would have. I can't see what's changed that would allow that shrink now. Redesign, new colors, move things around, new materials, sure. But radically downsized? Don't buy it.
My guess is that the screen slab will be 'thinned' once the hard drive is replaced with a 'flash' and bits like usb keyboard and mouse ports, which contribute to thickening the slab, are built into the pedestal.
Look: http://ThunkDifferent.com
Touch: http://Trolltouch.com
My guess is that the screen slab will be 'thinned' once the hard drive is replaced with a 'flash' and bits like usb keyboard and mouse ports, which contribute to thickening the slab, are built into the pedestal.
Nobody is replacing the hard drives in iMacs with flash drives.
That's ridiculous, and these silly rumours must stop before expectations get out of hand.
iMacs are Apple's gateway to the Digital Lifestyle. High-resolution photos, High Definition home movies and buying lots and lots of movies and music from the iTMS means that iMac hard drives need more space than ever.
Flash tops out right now at 32GB or so, and the smallest hard drive in an iMac is 160GB.
Not to mention the problems with wear and tear from daily use and pricing issues.
Flash may have its uses in narrower markets and portable computers, but iMac hard drives aren't going anywhere anytime soon.