does anyone know why apple still uses panels that are so slow?
they still use like 14ms ones when the faster panels are now like 4-6ms?
it really makes a difference with motion. i cant stand watching movies on the current apple screens. way too much motion artifact.
There's a few of things here.
1) Apple is always conservative with the monitor specs.
2) The fast monitors throw out accuracy to gain speed often using cheaper 6bit panels that only support 64 shades of red, green and blue while Apple's monitors have to shove around 8bits per pixel giving 256 shades.
Read the reviews that have come out the past year or so. It's not just subjective. Some reviews use test equipment as well. But for the purpose this will serve for most people the totality of good reviews for this unit should tell us enough. Apple's monitors have been compared to newer units from Hp, Dell, and even Gateway, and have not done well. I haven't made those comparisons myself, but when major mags make them I'm sure they aren't blowing smoke.
Quote:
The Samsung 225BW monitor you're singing the praises of has a lower dot pitch (same resolution, but 22" instead of 20") than the Apple and is only a 6bit TN panel as opposed to Apple's higher quality 8bit S-IPS. I also find a lot of the cheaper 22" monitors have glossy screens instead of Apple's anti-glare coating. Unfortunately those kinds of specs often don't get reported.
I'm tired of hearing about dot pitch. Most of that is unimportant in the higher resolutions. Unless you find yourself staring at the screen, rather than doing work, or play, there is no problem. This is very sharp. It doesn't have a glossy screen either. I don't know where your info is from, but I investigated this before I bought it, as I do with everything.
Quote:
226BW - same panel.
I haven't checked out the newer 226BW. It uses a much faster panel. I've read that Samsung has changed the panel on this unit.
Quote:
Interesting. You reckon it's not so good for games???
He was asking about the integrated graphics chip in the computer, not the monitor.
Quote:
Personally, I prefer the higher dot-pitch on the Apple displays and some of the other manufacturers such as NEC who do a 20" the same resolution as Apple and using an S-IPS panel too so full 8bit. It's about £100 more than the Samsung 226BW but still £170 cheaper than the Apple 20", at least till Apple get around to reducing prices in the UK as they've done in the USA.
I've seen a few monitors also where the colour dithering on the 6bit panels is very obvious but I'm not sure if that was because it was running WindowsXP and the dithering is very obvious on text anyway unless you spend some time tuning it.
You would have to have this monitor in front of you. There is NO dithering. It is sharp. Pixel pitch is 0.282 mm. That's fine enough, unless you're doing highly detailed graphics work, which people buying this won't be doing.
It matters to anybody who needs accurate representation of colours.
In any single frame, a Dell 20" E207WFP is physically incapable of displaying more than 6 bits per colour per pixel. That adds up to 262144 unique colours. The controller plays tricks like "blurring" consecutive pixels together, or quickly pulsing the pixel back and forth between two slightly different colours, to make it look like there are more colours than there really are.
A 20" Apple display can reproduce 8 bits per color per pixel. That's 16777216 unique colours, always available in every pixel.
That's why you get the 2007WFP, which is still cheaper (in the UK, at least) than the ACD and (90% of the time) uses an S-IPS panel. I got mine for £200 on eBay.
Not even close to enough of a price drop. A widescreen Dell 20" monitor capable of the same resolution is $229. The Apple Cinema Displays are beautiful.... but not more than twice the price worth of beautiful.
Nevertheless, this means price drops in the iMac line. Hopefully starting from the next update.
Read the reviews that have come out the past year or so. It's not just subjective. Some reviews use test equipment as well. But for the purpose this will serve for most people the totality of good reviews for this unit should tell us enough. Apple's monitors have been compared to newer units from Hp, Dell, and even Gateway, and have not done well. I haven't made those comparisons myself, but when major mags make them I'm sure they aren't blowing smoke.
ALL reviews are subjective no matter what the reviewer says. Anyway, my point wasn't which was 'better', it was that there are compromises in all products and you as a consumer have to define for yourself which compromises you're happy with. A good reviewer will point out WHO the product is aimed at as otherwise there can be two totally different results. For instance a gamer reviewing an Apple display will say it's slow, has mucky blacks and expensive. A graphics pro reviewing a cheap Dell will say it's got graduation problems, bad reflections and looks like crap. Swap them round and you'll get a winner each way. A 'normal' user that doesn't care about colour accuracy or speed will probably be more than happy just knowing they got a bargain cheap monitor.
The Samsung (and all others using the Chi Mei 22" TN panel) has some compromises in quality and dot pitch in order to get fast response times and low price. The Apple doesn't but is consequently more expensive. Either that's important to you or it isn't. Which one is 'better' is subjective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I'm tired of hearing about dot pitch. Most of that is unimportant in the higher resolutions. Unless you find yourself staring at the screen, rather than doing work, or play, there is no problem. This is very sharp.
That's your subjective opinion. I gave mine. To me, I want high resolution in a small space so dot pitch is important. I don't want grainy screens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
It doesn't have a glossy screen either. I don't know where your info is from, but I investigated this before I bought it, as I do with everything.
I didn't say it did. I said that often the important features of a monitor to some people are missed - ie. if it's 6bit or 8bit or if it's glossy or matte.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I haven't checked out the newer 226BW. It uses a much faster panel. I've read that Samsung has changed the panel on this unit.
Therein lies another thing to watch. The 225BW used the infamous Chi Mei 6bit TN panel. The 226BW uses either a Samsung panel if you get the S model or a AU Optronics panel if you get the A model. Both are TN panels still though. Very similar specs.
Dell also do this kind of switcheroo with their 2007 monitors but they actually switch between S-IPS panels and S-PVA not just different manufacturers of the same kind of panel so you're never quite sure what you're going to get. The problem they had earlier last year with banding was in their S-IPS panels too!
For some people, Apple's apparent slowness in 'upgrading' to faster panels is a bonus. They're very conservative in switching panels so you've a good idea this years ACD is going to match up well with last years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
You would have to have this monitor in front of you. There is NO dithering. It is sharp. Pixel pitch is 0.282 mm. That's fine enough, unless you're doing highly detailed graphics work, which people buying this won't be doing.
There IS dithering. It's a 6bit panel. You don't get 16 million colours without dithering. Whether you can see it or not is dependent on many factors, especially since OSX dithers itself anyway. Where the 6bit panels fall is large graduated areas of single colours since you've only got 64 shades of R,G or B to play with instead of 256.
Ah... this very same debate has been waged for decades. Apple display are never the cheapest nor have the best published specs. Make of it what you will, the situation is unlikely to change. Apple simply doesn't want to get into the commodity display market.
On the other hand, apple monitors are typically some of the best. They haven't been updated in a while but this too seems somewhat normal. Near the end of a product's life-cycle, it seems logical that competing products have pulled ahead slightly. While being the best, always, is an admirable goal, failing to achieve such a goal is to be expected.
I for one can't wait to see apple's next gen displays, they should leapfrog the competition nicely. The same holds true for dell displays and any other major manufacturer for that manner.
I have here Dell 24" and Apple 20" monitors. And I just made 256x256 picture and painted it with gradient, from black to white. Dell show pretty ugly color bands, I clearly can see purple and green stripes. No need to squint. On Apple you can see banding too, but it's not that apparent, it's way smoother, and there's no color tints, it's neutral gray.
At home I have Apple 23" and at work they gave me Dell 24" so I see both every day for many hours. And when I was deciding what to buy, I considered to get Dell because of all it's fancy inputs. Now when I actually use it, I'm really glad I got Apple. Yes, Dell have inputs and can tilt and card readers (none of which I ever needed to use). But it's color reproduction suck. And when you drag window with text (or sharp black-white image) you see ugly pink ghosting.
ALL reviews are subjective no matter what the reviewer says. Anyway, my point wasn't which was 'better', it was that there are compromises in all products and you as a consumer have to define for yourself which compromises you're happy with. A good reviewer will point out WHO the product is aimed at as otherwise there can be two totally different results. For instance a gamer reviewing an Apple display will say it's slow, has mucky blacks and expensive. A graphics pro reviewing a cheap Dell will say it's got graduation problems, bad reflections and looks like crap. Swap them round and you'll get a winner each way. A 'normal' user that doesn't care about colour accuracy or speed will probably be more than happy just knowing they got a bargain cheap monitor.
Agreed. All of the 15 or so reviews I've read on this model do just that.
As Samsung is not proposing this model for hi end graphics, but rather for business, and home use, it sits prefectly within the parameters for those uses.
It also has not received one bad review. Most consider the quality of the image to be at the least "very good" with some giving it a top score.
Quote:
The Samsung (and all others using the Chi Mei 22" TN panel) has some compromises in quality and dot pitch in order to get fast response times and low price. The Apple doesn't but is consequently more expensive. Either that's important to you or it isn't. Which one is 'better' is subjective.
Several web sites stated that Samsung changed to a Samsung display panel early in the production run. I'm not about to open this to find out though.
Quote:
That's your subjective opinion. I gave mine. To me, I want high resolution in a small space so dot pitch is important. I don't want grainy screens.
Of course, but coming from a long background of profession graphics work, my standards are not low. Have you seen a late production model of this for any length of time, or are you going soley by the rez and size specs? Because, unless you get to within 18" of the screen, it's not grainy.
I didn't say it did. I said that often the important features of a monitor to some people are missed - ie. if it's 6bit or 8bit or if it's glossy or matte.
Therein lies another thing to watch. The 225BW used the infamous Chi Mei 6bit TN panel. The 226BW uses either a Samsung panel if you get the S model or a AU Optronics panel if you get the A model. Both are TN panels still though. Very similar specs.
Dell also do this kind of switcheroo with their 2007 monitors but they actually switch between S-IPS panels and S-PVA not just different manufacturers of the same kind of panel so you're never quite sure what you're going to get. The problem they had earlier last year with banding was in their S-IPS panels too!
For some people, Apple's apparent slowness in 'upgrading' to faster panels is a bonus. They're very conservative in switching panels so you've a good idea this years ACD is going to match up well with last years.
There IS dithering. It's a 6bit panel. You don't get 16 million colours without dithering. Whether you can see it or not is dependent on many factors, especially since OSX dithers itself anyway. Where the 6bit panels fall is large graduated areas of single colours since you've only got 64 shades of R,G or B to play with instead of 256.[/QUOTE]
Two last things.
The first I already mentioned was that it's thought that Samsung changed the panel to one of their own at least a half year ago, if not further back, and two, it can't have the same screen as the 226BW, because the G to G specs are very different, and that depends mostly on the panel itself.
Also, I'm not comparing this directly to the Apple units. I mentioned the reviews of the Dells, Hps, and even Gateways for that. But, it's a much less expensive choice for those who don't want to spend the money, want an HDMI, don't need the Firewire and USB ports, and aren't doing any kind of pro level graphics work. For those that are, better choices exist outside of Apple's line these days, for less money, and longer warrantees.
The first I already mentioned was that it's thought that Samsung changed the panel to one of their own at least a half year ago, if not further back, and two, it can't have the same screen as the 226BW, because the G to G specs are very different, and that depends mostly on the panel itself.
Yes, they did. The 225BW uses the Chi Mei panel. The 226BW uses either a Samsung panel or a AOU panel. It's still a 6bit TN panel so no real difference. Samsung, seemingly can't meet demand for the panel alone so even they have to buy in panels from other manufacturers.
BTW, to add to this thread, the UK has had it's price drops on Apple monitors today too. Massive price cuts too...
20" is £399 (down £130 from £529)
23" is £599 (down £180 from £779)
30" is £1199 (down a massive £350 from £1549)
Prices are inc VAT.
Without VAT it's £339, £509 and £1020 which in US dollars is $668, $1003 and $2010 as opposed to the US pricing of $599, $899 and $1799. ie. we get progressively more ripped off the higher the monitor spec but at least it's not as much as it was yesterday.
To contrast, Dell's Ultrasharp 2007WFP 20" is £319 inc VAT, their 2407 is £571 (on special offer down from £759) and their 3007 is £1287.80 inc VAT.
ie. Apple is way cheaper than Dell on the 30" now and would also be a lot cheaper on the 23v24 if not for Dell's special offers.
On the low end, Dell also does cheaper 20" and 22" below £300 using cheaper panels and more plastic or non widescreen monitors, where Apple doesn't even try.
Yes, they did. The 225BW uses the Chi Mei panel. The 226BW uses either a Samsung panel or a AOU panel. It's still a 6bit TN panel so no real difference. Samsung, seemingly can't meet demand for the panel alone so even they have to buy in panels from other manufacturers.
BTW, to add to this thread, the UK has had it's price drops on Apple monitors today too. Massive price cuts too...
20" is £399 (down £130 from £529)
23" is £599 (down £180 from £779)
30" is £1199 (down a massive £350 from £1549)
Prices are inc VAT.
Without VAT it's £339, £509 and £1020 which in US dollars is $668, $1003 and $2010 as opposed to the US pricing of $599, $899 and $1799. ie. we get progressively more ripped off the higher the monitor spec but at least it's not as much as it was yesterday.
To contrast, Dell's Ultrasharp 2007WFP 20" is £319 inc VAT, their 2407 is £571 (on special offer down from £759) and their 3007 is £1287.80 inc VAT.
ie. Apple is way cheaper than Dell on the 30" now and would also be a lot cheaper on the 23v24 if not for Dell's special offers.
On the low end, Dell also does cheaper 20" and 22" below £300 using cheaper panels and more plastic or non widescreen monitors, where Apple doesn't even try.
Pricing over there is really odd.
But it seems that the prices are somewhat closer than they were before, as we only got a fairly small cut.
Why would Dell's be so much more expensive over there?
But it seems that the prices are somewhat closer than they were before, as we only got a fairly small cut.
Why would Dell's be so much more expensive over there?
It's the UK. Everything is more expensive.
The Samsung 225BW is around £270-285 inc VAT btw as a price comparison (£230-243 ex VAT) whereas on NewEgg I spotted it as $299 (equiv to about £150). It's roughly in line with the cheaper Dell models here.
I did the math and bought the Dell UltraSharp 2007WFP 20-inch LCD, and I love it. I am color conscious, but don't care about the color of the bezel. The E-model 20" widescreen Dell is a lower quality screen designed for gamers to give faster response, but has a washed out appearence in my book. I bought the higher-spec WFP model through the Dell outlet for $229, and it has been perfect since November, something I cannot say about my aluminum-framed and pinkish-hued Apple 23" that set me back $1999. The Dell came with a 3-year warranty, something Apple is unwilling to provide without charging me as much as another Dell monitor).
There is a typically exhaustive side-by-side shootout of the Apple v. Dell 20" widescreen monitors (both of which use the same LCD panel, the LG.Philips LCD LM201W01) on the excellent hardware review site, AnandTech.com ( http://www.anandtech.com/displays/showdoc.aspx?i=2400 ). Before you write him off as another PC dweeb wanting to criticize Apple, understand that the site owner and principal test guru has switched to a MacBook Pro after years of being one of the definitive sources of online objectivity in PC hardware testing. He's a recent Mac convert, and now claims he can't imagine doing his job without his Mac laptop and OS X.
As for me, I don't need another FW400 port (or two). Bump it to FW800 and we'll talk - I haven't plugged in a FW400 device except a DVD burner in over a year. The 20" Dell has plenty of USB ports for my memory sticks and camera card readers, and even lets me plug in S-VHS and composite video. (The sub-$600 24" Dell ups the ante to component video in as well.) Until Apple can justify the several hundred dollars higher price based on higher performance, I'll have to have a slightly less attractive monitor on my desktop. The money I saved would actually let me put two of the Dells side-by-side rather than a single Apple Cinema display, and where I come from, more actual screen real estate is better than just a prettier bezel and FW400 ports I don't need.
I did the math and bought the Dell UltraSharp 2007WFP 20-inch LCD, and I love it. I am color conscious, but don't care about the color of the bezel. The E-model 20" widescreen Dell is a lower quality screen designed for gamers to give faster response, but has a washed out appearence in my book. I bought the higher-spec WFP model through the Dell outlet for $229, and it has been perfect since November, something I cannot say about my aluminum-framed and pinkish-hued Apple 23" that set me back $1999. The Dell came with a 3-year warranty, something Apple is unwilling to provide without charging me as much as another Dell monitor).
There is a typically exhaustive side-by-side shootout of the Apple v. Dell 20" widescreen monitors (both of which use the same LCD panel, the LG.Philips LCD LM201W01) on the excellent hardware review site, AnandTech.com ( http://www.anandtech.com/displays/showdoc.aspx?i=2400 ). Before you write him off as another PC dweeb wanting to criticize Apple, understand that the site owner and principal test guru has switched to a MacBook Pro after years of being one of the definitive sources of online objectivity in PC hardware testing. He's a recent Mac convert, and now claims he can't imagine doing his job without his Mac laptop and OS X.
As for me, I don't need another FW400 port (or two). Bump it to FW800 and we'll talk - I haven't plugged in a FW400 device except a DVD burner in over a year. The 20" Dell has plenty of USB ports for my memory sticks and camera card readers, and even lets me plug in S-VHS and composite video. (The sub-$600 24" Dell ups the ante to component video in as well.) Until Apple can justify the several hundred dollars higher price based on higher performance, I'll have to have a slightly less attractive monitor on my desktop. The money I saved would actually let me put two of the Dells side-by-side rather than a single Apple Cinema display, and where I come from, more actual screen real estate is better than just a prettier bezel and FW400 ports I don't need.
The one thing I noticed right away was the Apple LCD said A5, and the DELL said B5.
Apple has stated many times that they get the manufacturers first pick which is the finest quality LCD's, and everyone else gets what's left. - A & B - a Manufacturers distinction code maybe?
The one thing I noticed right away was the Apple LCD said A5, and the DELL said B5.
Apple has stated many times that they get the manufacturers first pick which is the finest quality LCD's, and everyone else gets what's left. - A & B - a Manufacturers distinction code maybe?
I bought the higher-spec WFP model through the Dell outlet for $229, and it has been perfect since November, something I cannot say about my aluminum-framed and pinkish-hued Apple 23" that set me back $1999.
This is not uncommon. If you stick a PC calibrated monitor on a Mac it's often too blue. You sometimes have to spend a while fiddling with the ColorSync profiles to get back to Mac colours or reset the monitor to a 1.8 gamma and D65 white point. I'm often quite saddened to see PC monitors stuck on Mac Minis in PC World (it's like CompUSA) here with the most horrible blue hue to the screen. The sales staff have just plonked a PC monitor on without setting it up.
If you work with two different monitors side by side, one Mac and one Windows it can be quite jarring until they are calibrated with the Mac seemingly pink and the PC blue. Depending on which one you're used to first, one of them is wrong.
This is not uncommon. If you stick a PC calibrated monitor on a Mac it's often too blue. You sometimes have to spend a while fiddling with the ColorSync profiles to get back to Mac colours or reset the monitor to a 1.8 gamma and D65 white point. I'm often quite saddened to see PC monitors stuck on Mac Minis in PC World (it's like CompUSA) here with the most horrible blue hue to the screen. The sales staff have just plonked a PC monitor on without setting it up.
If you work with two different monitors side by side, one Mac and one Windows it can be quite jarring until they are calibrated with the Mac seemingly pink and the PC blue. Depending on which one you're used to first, one of them is wrong.
I've ColorSync -tuned my Cinema display a bunch of times, and it still looks pink. I've frequently read that Apple had this as an apparent problem with a bunch of the 23" Aluminum-framed series for a while, and wondered if I shouldn't return it, but warranty has run out, and it's one piece of equipment I never bought the extended warranty for.
I've ColorSync -tuned my Cinema display a bunch of times, and it still looks pink. I've frequently read that Apple had this as an apparent problem with a bunch of the 23" Aluminum-framed series for a while, and wondered if I shouldn't return it, but warranty has run out, and it's one piece of equipment I never bought the extended warranty for.
There was also a problem with yellow, edges, I think.
Comments
does anyone know why apple still uses panels that are so slow?
they still use like 14ms ones when the faster panels are now like 4-6ms?
it really makes a difference with motion. i cant stand watching movies on the current apple screens. way too much motion artifact.
There's a few of things here.
1) Apple is always conservative with the monitor specs.
2) The fast monitors throw out accuracy to gain speed often using cheaper 6bit panels that only support 64 shades of red, green and blue while Apple's monitors have to shove around 8bits per pixel giving 256 shades.
3) Apple's pretty bad DVD playback software.
Surely that's subjective?
Read the reviews that have come out the past year or so. It's not just subjective. Some reviews use test equipment as well. But for the purpose this will serve for most people the totality of good reviews for this unit should tell us enough. Apple's monitors have been compared to newer units from Hp, Dell, and even Gateway, and have not done well. I haven't made those comparisons myself, but when major mags make them I'm sure they aren't blowing smoke.
The Samsung 225BW monitor you're singing the praises of has a lower dot pitch (same resolution, but 22" instead of 20") than the Apple and is only a 6bit TN panel as opposed to Apple's higher quality 8bit S-IPS. I also find a lot of the cheaper 22" monitors have glossy screens instead of Apple's anti-glare coating. Unfortunately those kinds of specs often don't get reported.
I'm tired of hearing about dot pitch. Most of that is unimportant in the higher resolutions. Unless you find yourself staring at the screen, rather than doing work, or play, there is no problem. This is very sharp. It doesn't have a glossy screen either. I don't know where your info is from, but I investigated this before I bought it, as I do with everything.
226BW - same panel.
I haven't checked out the newer 226BW. It uses a much faster panel. I've read that Samsung has changed the panel on this unit.
Interesting. You reckon it's not so good for games???
He was asking about the integrated graphics chip in the computer, not the monitor.
Personally, I prefer the higher dot-pitch on the Apple displays and some of the other manufacturers such as NEC who do a 20" the same resolution as Apple and using an S-IPS panel too so full 8bit. It's about £100 more than the Samsung 226BW but still £170 cheaper than the Apple 20", at least till Apple get around to reducing prices in the UK as they've done in the USA.
I've seen a few monitors also where the colour dithering on the 6bit panels is very obvious but I'm not sure if that was because it was running WindowsXP and the dithering is very obvious on text anyway unless you spend some time tuning it.
You would have to have this monitor in front of you. There is NO dithering. It is sharp. Pixel pitch is 0.282 mm. That's fine enough, unless you're doing highly detailed graphics work, which people buying this won't be doing.
It matters to anybody who needs accurate representation of colours.
In any single frame, a Dell 20" E207WFP is physically incapable of displaying more than 6 bits per colour per pixel. That adds up to 262144 unique colours. The controller plays tricks like "blurring" consecutive pixels together, or quickly pulsing the pixel back and forth between two slightly different colours, to make it look like there are more colours than there really are.
A 20" Apple display can reproduce 8 bits per color per pixel. That's 16777216 unique colours, always available in every pixel.
That's why you get the 2007WFP, which is still cheaper (in the UK, at least) than the ACD and (90% of the time) uses an S-IPS panel. I got mine for £200 on eBay.
Not even close to enough of a price drop. A widescreen Dell 20" monitor capable of the same resolution is $229. The Apple Cinema Displays are beautiful.... but not more than twice the price worth of beautiful.
Nevertheless, this means price drops in the iMac line. Hopefully starting from the next update.
Read the reviews that have come out the past year or so. It's not just subjective. Some reviews use test equipment as well. But for the purpose this will serve for most people the totality of good reviews for this unit should tell us enough. Apple's monitors have been compared to newer units from Hp, Dell, and even Gateway, and have not done well. I haven't made those comparisons myself, but when major mags make them I'm sure they aren't blowing smoke.
ALL reviews are subjective no matter what the reviewer says. Anyway, my point wasn't which was 'better', it was that there are compromises in all products and you as a consumer have to define for yourself which compromises you're happy with. A good reviewer will point out WHO the product is aimed at as otherwise there can be two totally different results. For instance a gamer reviewing an Apple display will say it's slow, has mucky blacks and expensive. A graphics pro reviewing a cheap Dell will say it's got graduation problems, bad reflections and looks like crap. Swap them round and you'll get a winner each way. A 'normal' user that doesn't care about colour accuracy or speed will probably be more than happy just knowing they got a bargain cheap monitor.
The Samsung (and all others using the Chi Mei 22" TN panel) has some compromises in quality and dot pitch in order to get fast response times and low price. The Apple doesn't but is consequently more expensive. Either that's important to you or it isn't. Which one is 'better' is subjective.
I'm tired of hearing about dot pitch. Most of that is unimportant in the higher resolutions. Unless you find yourself staring at the screen, rather than doing work, or play, there is no problem. This is very sharp.
That's your subjective opinion. I gave mine. To me, I want high resolution in a small space so dot pitch is important. I don't want grainy screens.
It doesn't have a glossy screen either. I don't know where your info is from, but I investigated this before I bought it, as I do with everything.
I didn't say it did. I said that often the important features of a monitor to some people are missed - ie. if it's 6bit or 8bit or if it's glossy or matte.
I haven't checked out the newer 226BW. It uses a much faster panel. I've read that Samsung has changed the panel on this unit.
Therein lies another thing to watch. The 225BW used the infamous Chi Mei 6bit TN panel. The 226BW uses either a Samsung panel if you get the S model or a AU Optronics panel if you get the A model. Both are TN panels still though. Very similar specs.
This was dissected quite well over on http://forums.pureoverclock.com/show...1&postcount=20
Dell also do this kind of switcheroo with their 2007 monitors but they actually switch between S-IPS panels and S-PVA not just different manufacturers of the same kind of panel so you're never quite sure what you're going to get. The problem they had earlier last year with banding was in their S-IPS panels too!
For some people, Apple's apparent slowness in 'upgrading' to faster panels is a bonus. They're very conservative in switching panels so you've a good idea this years ACD is going to match up well with last years.
You would have to have this monitor in front of you. There is NO dithering. It is sharp. Pixel pitch is 0.282 mm. That's fine enough, unless you're doing highly detailed graphics work, which people buying this won't be doing.
There IS dithering. It's a 6bit panel. You don't get 16 million colours without dithering. Whether you can see it or not is dependent on many factors, especially since OSX dithers itself anyway. Where the 6bit panels fall is large graduated areas of single colours since you've only got 64 shades of R,G or B to play with instead of 256.
On the other hand, apple monitors are typically some of the best. They haven't been updated in a while but this too seems somewhat normal. Near the end of a product's life-cycle, it seems logical that competing products have pulled ahead slightly. While being the best, always, is an admirable goal, failing to achieve such a goal is to be expected.
I for one can't wait to see apple's next gen displays, they should leapfrog the competition nicely. The same holds true for dell displays and any other major manufacturer for that manner.
There's no dithering. It's a 8bit panel.
There IS dithering. It's a 6bit panel.
Any sources to support your statement? I would really appreciate.
At home I have Apple 23" and at work they gave me Dell 24" so I see both every day for many hours. And when I was deciding what to buy, I considered to get Dell because of all it's fancy inputs. Now when I actually use it, I'm really glad I got Apple. Yes, Dell have inputs and can tilt and card readers (none of which I ever needed to use). But it's color reproduction suck. And when you drag window with text (or sharp black-white image) you see ugly pink ghosting.
Any sources to support your statement? I would really appreciate.
Big long thread about the Chi Mei 22" TN panel on AnandTech...
http://forums.anandtech.com/messagev...readid=1958386
ALL reviews are subjective no matter what the reviewer says. Anyway, my point wasn't which was 'better', it was that there are compromises in all products and you as a consumer have to define for yourself which compromises you're happy with. A good reviewer will point out WHO the product is aimed at as otherwise there can be two totally different results. For instance a gamer reviewing an Apple display will say it's slow, has mucky blacks and expensive. A graphics pro reviewing a cheap Dell will say it's got graduation problems, bad reflections and looks like crap. Swap them round and you'll get a winner each way. A 'normal' user that doesn't care about colour accuracy or speed will probably be more than happy just knowing they got a bargain cheap monitor.
Agreed. All of the 15 or so reviews I've read on this model do just that.
As Samsung is not proposing this model for hi end graphics, but rather for business, and home use, it sits prefectly within the parameters for those uses.
It also has not received one bad review. Most consider the quality of the image to be at the least "very good" with some giving it a top score.
The Samsung (and all others using the Chi Mei 22" TN panel) has some compromises in quality and dot pitch in order to get fast response times and low price. The Apple doesn't but is consequently more expensive. Either that's important to you or it isn't. Which one is 'better' is subjective.
Several web sites stated that Samsung changed to a Samsung display panel early in the production run. I'm not about to open this to find out though.
That's your subjective opinion. I gave mine. To me, I want high resolution in a small space so dot pitch is important. I don't want grainy screens.
Of course, but coming from a long background of profession graphics work, my standards are not low. Have you seen a late production model of this for any length of time, or are you going soley by the rez and size specs? Because, unless you get to within 18" of the screen, it's not grainy.
I didn't say it did. I said that often the important features of a monitor to some people are missed - ie. if it's 6bit or 8bit or if it's glossy or matte.
Therein lies another thing to watch. The 225BW used the infamous Chi Mei 6bit TN panel. The 226BW uses either a Samsung panel if you get the S model or a AU Optronics panel if you get the A model. Both are TN panels still though. Very similar specs.
This was dissected quite well over on http://forums.pureoverclock.com/show...1&postcount=20
Dell also do this kind of switcheroo with their 2007 monitors but they actually switch between S-IPS panels and S-PVA not just different manufacturers of the same kind of panel so you're never quite sure what you're going to get. The problem they had earlier last year with banding was in their S-IPS panels too!
For some people, Apple's apparent slowness in 'upgrading' to faster panels is a bonus. They're very conservative in switching panels so you've a good idea this years ACD is going to match up well with last years.
There IS dithering. It's a 6bit panel. You don't get 16 million colours without dithering. Whether you can see it or not is dependent on many factors, especially since OSX dithers itself anyway. Where the 6bit panels fall is large graduated areas of single colours since you've only got 64 shades of R,G or B to play with instead of 256.[/QUOTE]
Two last things.
The first I already mentioned was that it's thought that Samsung changed the panel to one of their own at least a half year ago, if not further back, and two, it can't have the same screen as the 226BW, because the G to G specs are very different, and that depends mostly on the panel itself.
Also, I'm not comparing this directly to the Apple units. I mentioned the reviews of the Dells, Hps, and even Gateways for that. But, it's a much less expensive choice for those who don't want to spend the money, want an HDMI, don't need the Firewire and USB ports, and aren't doing any kind of pro level graphics work. For those that are, better choices exist outside of Apple's line these days, for less money, and longer warrantees.
The first I already mentioned was that it's thought that Samsung changed the panel to one of their own at least a half year ago, if not further back, and two, it can't have the same screen as the 226BW, because the G to G specs are very different, and that depends mostly on the panel itself.
Yes, they did. The 225BW uses the Chi Mei panel. The 226BW uses either a Samsung panel or a AOU panel. It's still a 6bit TN panel so no real difference. Samsung, seemingly can't meet demand for the panel alone so even they have to buy in panels from other manufacturers.
BTW, to add to this thread, the UK has had it's price drops on Apple monitors today too. Massive price cuts too...
20" is £399 (down £130 from £529)
23" is £599 (down £180 from £779)
30" is £1199 (down a massive £350 from £1549)
Prices are inc VAT.
Without VAT it's £339, £509 and £1020 which in US dollars is $668, $1003 and $2010 as opposed to the US pricing of $599, $899 and $1799. ie. we get progressively more ripped off the higher the monitor spec but at least it's not as much as it was yesterday.
To contrast, Dell's Ultrasharp 2007WFP 20" is £319 inc VAT, their 2407 is £571 (on special offer down from £759) and their 3007 is £1287.80 inc VAT.
ie. Apple is way cheaper than Dell on the 30" now and would also be a lot cheaper on the 23v24 if not for Dell's special offers.
On the low end, Dell also does cheaper 20" and 22" below £300 using cheaper panels and more plastic or non widescreen monitors, where Apple doesn't even try.
Yes, they did. The 225BW uses the Chi Mei panel. The 226BW uses either a Samsung panel or a AOU panel. It's still a 6bit TN panel so no real difference. Samsung, seemingly can't meet demand for the panel alone so even they have to buy in panels from other manufacturers.
BTW, to add to this thread, the UK has had it's price drops on Apple monitors today too. Massive price cuts too...
20" is £399 (down £130 from £529)
23" is £599 (down £180 from £779)
30" is £1199 (down a massive £350 from £1549)
Prices are inc VAT.
Without VAT it's £339, £509 and £1020 which in US dollars is $668, $1003 and $2010 as opposed to the US pricing of $599, $899 and $1799. ie. we get progressively more ripped off the higher the monitor spec but at least it's not as much as it was yesterday.
To contrast, Dell's Ultrasharp 2007WFP 20" is £319 inc VAT, their 2407 is £571 (on special offer down from £759) and their 3007 is £1287.80 inc VAT.
ie. Apple is way cheaper than Dell on the 30" now and would also be a lot cheaper on the 23v24 if not for Dell's special offers.
On the low end, Dell also does cheaper 20" and 22" below £300 using cheaper panels and more plastic or non widescreen monitors, where Apple doesn't even try.
Pricing over there is really odd.
But it seems that the prices are somewhat closer than they were before, as we only got a fairly small cut.
Why would Dell's be so much more expensive over there?
Pricing over there is really odd.
But it seems that the prices are somewhat closer than they were before, as we only got a fairly small cut.
Why would Dell's be so much more expensive over there?
It's the UK. Everything is more expensive.
The Samsung 225BW is around £270-285 inc VAT btw as a price comparison (£230-243 ex VAT) whereas on NewEgg I spotted it as $299 (equiv to about £150). It's roughly in line with the cheaper Dell models here.
There is a typically exhaustive side-by-side shootout of the Apple v. Dell 20" widescreen monitors (both of which use the same LCD panel, the LG.Philips LCD LM201W01) on the excellent hardware review site, AnandTech.com ( http://www.anandtech.com/displays/showdoc.aspx?i=2400 ). Before you write him off as another PC dweeb wanting to criticize Apple, understand that the site owner and principal test guru has switched to a MacBook Pro after years of being one of the definitive sources of online objectivity in PC hardware testing. He's a recent Mac convert, and now claims he can't imagine doing his job without his Mac laptop and OS X.
As for me, I don't need another FW400 port (or two). Bump it to FW800 and we'll talk - I haven't plugged in a FW400 device except a DVD burner in over a year. The 20" Dell has plenty of USB ports for my memory sticks and camera card readers, and even lets me plug in S-VHS and composite video. (The sub-$600 24" Dell ups the ante to component video in as well.) Until Apple can justify the several hundred dollars higher price based on higher performance, I'll have to have a slightly less attractive monitor on my desktop. The money I saved would actually let me put two of the Dells side-by-side rather than a single Apple Cinema display, and where I come from, more actual screen real estate is better than just a prettier bezel and FW400 ports I don't need.
I did the math and bought the Dell UltraSharp 2007WFP 20-inch LCD, and I love it. I am color conscious, but don't care about the color of the bezel. The E-model 20" widescreen Dell is a lower quality screen designed for gamers to give faster response, but has a washed out appearence in my book. I bought the higher-spec WFP model through the Dell outlet for $229, and it has been perfect since November, something I cannot say about my aluminum-framed and pinkish-hued Apple 23" that set me back $1999. The Dell came with a 3-year warranty, something Apple is unwilling to provide without charging me as much as another Dell monitor).
There is a typically exhaustive side-by-side shootout of the Apple v. Dell 20" widescreen monitors (both of which use the same LCD panel, the LG.Philips LCD LM201W01) on the excellent hardware review site, AnandTech.com ( http://www.anandtech.com/displays/showdoc.aspx?i=2400 ). Before you write him off as another PC dweeb wanting to criticize Apple, understand that the site owner and principal test guru has switched to a MacBook Pro after years of being one of the definitive sources of online objectivity in PC hardware testing. He's a recent Mac convert, and now claims he can't imagine doing his job without his Mac laptop and OS X.
As for me, I don't need another FW400 port (or two). Bump it to FW800 and we'll talk - I haven't plugged in a FW400 device except a DVD burner in over a year. The 20" Dell has plenty of USB ports for my memory sticks and camera card readers, and even lets me plug in S-VHS and composite video. (The sub-$600 24" Dell ups the ante to component video in as well.) Until Apple can justify the several hundred dollars higher price based on higher performance, I'll have to have a slightly less attractive monitor on my desktop. The money I saved would actually let me put two of the Dells side-by-side rather than a single Apple Cinema display, and where I come from, more actual screen real estate is better than just a prettier bezel and FW400 ports I don't need.
The one thing I noticed right away was the Apple LCD said A5, and the DELL said B5.
Apple has stated many times that they get the manufacturers first pick which is the finest quality LCD's, and everyone else gets what's left. - A & B - a Manufacturers distinction code maybe?
That was two years ago. That same Dell monitor no longer has the USB ports or the video inputs.
No ofence, but you obviously have no idea what you are talking about, I deploy about a half dozen of these a month at work and they are all new...
Dell has two grades of displays, look at the Ultrasharps, they're comparable to the Apple displays, the cheap-o dells are worthless...
Apple Cinema Display 20 inch comparable dell 2007WFP
The one thing I noticed right away was the Apple LCD said A5, and the DELL said B5.
Apple has stated many times that they get the manufacturers first pick which is the finest quality LCD's, and everyone else gets what's left. - A & B - a Manufacturers distinction code maybe?
Or perhaps B5 is a newer production run.
I bought the higher-spec WFP model through the Dell outlet for $229, and it has been perfect since November, something I cannot say about my aluminum-framed and pinkish-hued Apple 23" that set me back $1999.
This is not uncommon. If you stick a PC calibrated monitor on a Mac it's often too blue. You sometimes have to spend a while fiddling with the ColorSync profiles to get back to Mac colours or reset the monitor to a 1.8 gamma and D65 white point. I'm often quite saddened to see PC monitors stuck on Mac Minis in PC World (it's like CompUSA) here with the most horrible blue hue to the screen. The sales staff have just plonked a PC monitor on without setting it up.
If you work with two different monitors side by side, one Mac and one Windows it can be quite jarring until they are calibrated with the Mac seemingly pink and the PC blue. Depending on which one you're used to first, one of them is wrong.
This is not uncommon. If you stick a PC calibrated monitor on a Mac it's often too blue. You sometimes have to spend a while fiddling with the ColorSync profiles to get back to Mac colours or reset the monitor to a 1.8 gamma and D65 white point. I'm often quite saddened to see PC monitors stuck on Mac Minis in PC World (it's like CompUSA) here with the most horrible blue hue to the screen. The sales staff have just plonked a PC monitor on without setting it up.
If you work with two different monitors side by side, one Mac and one Windows it can be quite jarring until they are calibrated with the Mac seemingly pink and the PC blue. Depending on which one you're used to first, one of them is wrong.
I've ColorSync -tuned my Cinema display a bunch of times, and it still looks pink. I've frequently read that Apple had this as an apparent problem with a bunch of the 23" Aluminum-framed series for a while, and wondered if I shouldn't return it, but warranty has run out, and it's one piece of equipment I never bought the extended warranty for.
I've ColorSync -tuned my Cinema display a bunch of times, and it still looks pink. I've frequently read that Apple had this as an apparent problem with a bunch of the 23" Aluminum-framed series for a while, and wondered if I shouldn't return it, but warranty has run out, and it's one piece of equipment I never bought the extended warranty for.
There was also a problem with yellow, edges, I think.