Did I say it was? I said I was looking at the Mac Pro and 23" Cinema Display - this has been removed from the Apple line-up and replaced with 24" LED monitor that can connect to one range of computers.
Google 23" Apple Cinema Display and you will find them still for sale.
Quote:
The LED backlighting could be expensive, but the rest of that rubbish is not even remotely expensive - throw in the fact that any 90% of other monitors in the market live in a world where other things, with different types of connectors can be plugged into a monitor - you know like DVDs, games consoles, even products they make like AppleTV...
It's a shockingly overpriced and niche product.
What ever you believe it cost to put camera, speakers, and power on a monitor it costs something more than a monitor without these items. If you find it over priced their is no reason for you to buy it.
i think this gets a little over stated. The screens are treated to minimize reflection but they do not entirely eliminate it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weepul
No CRT of any moderate quality that I've seen has had untreated glass. While they are glossy (smooth-surfaced), they have an antireflection coating which, unlike matte LCDs, actually dims the reflection instead of just blurring it out.
This isn't a comparable monitor. The Samsung SyncMaster doesn't have LED backlight, webcam, speakers, and power out.
Your next argument likely is to be you see no value in having those items on a monitor. Be that has it may the fairest comparison to make is of similarly equipped monitors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
But even £200 gets you a good 24-inch Samsung SyncMaster with HDCP DVI..
But even £200 gets you a good 24-inch Samsung SyncMaster with HDCP DVI. The £200-300 display segment isn't what I'd call 'bargain-basement'. The really low end consumer spends that on the whole machine including the screen.
A whole computer bundle with monitor at that price is not going to have a 24" monitor now or soon.
The Samsung 24" SyncMaster monitor with HDCP that I bought last week at about that price is a dithering display and has a poor viewing angle. I can see the dithering too. A five degree change of viewpoint on the vertical can have a dramatic effect on brightness and a noticeable effect on color, not so bad on horizontal, but still not comparable to an ACD. They claim 20k:1 dynamic contrast (a really BS number), 1k:1 static contrast, which is still BS, my ACD is better in real life. The model was 2443BWX if that matters. The panel is definitely not comparable to IPS or equivalent quality. I would call it a bargain basement monitor for the size class - that's why I bought it, I think it's good for what I need it to be, replace my 21" flat tube on my work bench, I'm not going to pretend that the Sammy is a high quality display, just good enough.
That is an important point but was it necessary for Apple to use this kind of display when marketing to consumers? They shoved cheap screens in the low end laptops. They didn't need to use high end IPS 24-inch panels in these.
Consumers look at price first and quality second. Essentially, what is the best display I can afford. £650 is bordering on the price of Apple's cheapest laptop. When you can buy a 24" display for £170, a lot of people won't even consider Apple's offering.
So that begs the question, are these meant for consumers? The isight camera is for anyone. The glossy display is down to personal tastes (not my preference). The price tag alone suggests it's not meant as a consumer item. For Apple to have clear tags to define Pro and non-pro computers, the Cinema lineup sends a confusing message. Unless the message is that it's for anyone who has £650 to spend on a screen.
It depends on their mind set.
Anybody that visits the Apple site or Store is looking at quality first.
If I were to visit the Detroit Auto Show, my first stop is not see the budget cars. If anything, the most expensive on the lot. And from there, it is basically down hill, wishing the somebody would give me an offer I couldn't refuse. And hoping it is not too far from the top.
Apple has made it quite clear that they are not in the cheap seats. At the same time, however, their mandate is to bring quality to the masses at an equitable price. No matter what anybody has said, Apple has never overprice or gouged its users. True, some products may appear to be overpriced, but in reality, you pay for what you get.
When Apple introduced the Mac in '84, word processor and spreadsheet software cost over $500 and it was in DOS to boot. Apples solution was $125 and was included with the Mac. Jobs at that time declared that no software should be more than $125. Something that Apple has attempted to do since.
Now I know that I am going to be dumped on by the price Apple charges for RAM. But on the other hand, installing, servicing and supporting it are included. I am sure that having an Apple Genius install RAM is the last thing that Apple wants their employees doing. Considering all the costs, e.g., training, servicing, support, rent, warehousing, inventory control, accounting, purchasing, dealing with manufacturers, shipping from overseas, customs, brokeraging, etc., and knowing that somebody will lowball you no matter what, why bother. If you can do it yourself or some mailorder house will do it cheaper, go for it. I don't know how much you make an hour, but the act of searching the net to find the cheapest price and then trying to verify that it is good product is one factor we don't consider when we are on the cheap.
So back to the displays. Anybody who has had the opportunity to visit an Apple store and has actually seen these new babies just drool. Standing next to the old Cinema displays, it puts them to shame. To some it is a far off dream. Not everybody can afford them. But that isn't Apple's fault.
Like buying a car, you buy what you can afford. At least you should. But at least, one should do their homework first. That can take time. Your 'cheaper' display is cheaper for good reasons. Just like the car. But when it comes down to dollar and cents, Apple doesn't begrudge your decision and neither should we begrudge Apple for theirs.
Right now I am in the process of spending a maximum of $420 on a Christmas gift for my brother-in-law, who I can't really stand. Now one would think that either I am rich, a fool or both. Actually, it is a collective effort. The family decided that if we were to hold spending down from thirty to fifty dollars a gift that we could pool our moneys, each draw a name and divide the pot equally. Now we are all going to get something of quality and if we don't like it, we only have to go back to one store to return it. I for one know that I will be spending my refund at the Apple store. Of course I have let it be known that an Apple gift certificate would be most appropriate for me.
I'm with ya bro. Not just for graphic work, but for anyone who doesn't have the odd genetic ability to mask out all the glare. 100% deal breaker.
Then again, an Apple-branded external monitor is not critical - I can live with an "off-brand" monitor (although I'd prefer to buy Apple). The real problem is that the MacBook Pro models are ALL glossy-only. And there are no simple alternatives. I suspect it will be a pain in the ass buying a non-Apple laptop and hacking OS X onto it. But if Apple continues on the glossy-only path, that's what I'll be forced to do next year. Makes me sick to think about it. -(
Get over it....Back in the days, most screens - also at companies doing graphical work - were GLOSSY crt screens. you know the trinitron ones?
Listen, guys. I don't like spending money any more than the next guy, but everyone who complains about the price of Apple's monitors has -clearly- never tried to buy any other monitor with an IPS panel. They're all exorbitantly expensive. Sure, we pay a little Apple Tax, but it's not nearly as much as everyone seems to believe. Here's a pretty comprehensive list of every currently available LCD with S-IPS panels:
i think this gets a little over stated. The screens are treated to minimize reflection but they do not entirely eliminate it.
I can easily see myself in an iMac's screen when it's off. I can barely see myself in my CRT's screen when it's off in comparable brightness room lighting. *shrug*
I do agree the iMac screen is highly reflective. What a screen reflects can depend on conditions. I can see an anti-reflective coating absorbing non-direct ambient light. I've never seen a CRT absorb light that shines directly onto the screen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weepul
I can easily see myself in an iMac's screen when it's off. I can barely see myself in my CRT's screen when it's off in comparable brightness room lighting. *shrug*
I do agree the iMac screen is highly reflective. What a screen reflects can depend on conditions. I can see an anti-reflective coating absorbing non-direct ambient light. I've never seen a CRT absorb light that shines directly onto the screen.
They exist, you might not have noticed. It is possible they might have been somewhat high end, but many of the Trinitron and Diamondtron based monitors do have nice smooth anti-reflective optical surfaces, which is roughly equivalent in optical properties as multicoating. Apple's Studio CRTs had them too.
I'll see if this works:
The little disk that looks like a mirror is actually just a cheapie uncoated glass UV filter taped to the screen for comparison.
The model shown had a list price of about $1000 six years ago.
Could you put the monitor next to a current 24in iMac? I want to be able to dual monitor using similar height and Look (Asthetics) for the iMac. Especially in my wife's desk, and if it does look good and heights measure up, then even for business is great.
Ah, that's the fly in the ointment. I don't think it is possible.
Yes that is indeed far less reflective than the glossy monitor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
They exist, you might not have noticed. It is possible they might have been somewhat high end, but many of the Trinitron and Diamondtron based monitors do have nice smooth anti-reflective optical surfaces, which is roughly equivalent in optical properties as multicoating. Apple's Studio CRTs had them too.
This isn't a comparable monitor. The Samsung SyncMaster doesn't have LED backlight, webcam, speakers, and power out.
Your next argument likely is to be you see no value in having those items on a monitor. Be that has it may the fairest comparison to make is of similarly equipped monitors.
I do see them as being useful - LED backlight definitely - and you're right, comparable displays are more expensive. The Samsung LED XL24 is nearly double the price of the Apple display. I just don't see many consumers buying them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
The Samsung 24" SyncMaster monitor with HDCP that I bought last week at about that price is a dithering display and has a poor viewing angle. I can see the dithering too...
I'm not going to pretend that the Sammy is a high quality display, just good enough.
I bought a cheap display too a couple of months back to replace my CRT and I get the same thing - dithering and poor viewing angle. The point is that Apple aren't ripping off customers with what they offer but they haven't made a sale to either of us. How many people have bought one of these on the forum or are planning to buy one?
If I was in the market for this kind of display, I'd be waiting for a 20" matte version at £400 at MW. If they don't make a matte one, I'd just get a Dell equivalent.
One problem here as Nvidia2008 points out is that this display only works with the new laptops. You can't use it with any of the desktops yet. People who have the money to spend on higher quality screens may still have high end iMacs and Mac Pros, which they will have to replace to use this display.
At the very least, they should make some DVI to mini-displayport adaptor. I wonder if the laptop adaptor works the opposite way round.
ROFL! I'm sure they will sell just not to print/design industry that supported Apple for years.
Apple are so happy with their new consumer base growth, they completely put the graphic community in the back burner. 3 UBS, no DVI, no HDMI, but they offer miniport, good Job for making a $900 black mirror!
Apple are so happy with their new consumer base growth, they completely put the graphic community in the back burner. 3 UBS, no DVI, no HDMI, but they offer miniport, good Job for making a $900 black mirror!
How exactly have they done that? They didn't drop any of their other displays from the line up and you can still buy 3rd-party displays for graphic work. The only issue right now is trying to use a new Mac notebook, save for the 17" and low-end MB, with matte display monitor, but we both know cheap adapters are coming.
They did; the 23" ACD is discontinued. Also, remember that 500+ day cycle on the Mac Pro?
Yes, they did drop it from their main page, but you can still buy it from the Apple Store. They also sell the 20" and 30" monitors or buy a 3rd-party monitor that is better quality and designed specifically for graphics works, so I don't know where this sky is falling attitude is coming from since their are considerable options available.
Comments
Did I say it was? I said I was looking at the Mac Pro and 23" Cinema Display - this has been removed from the Apple line-up and replaced with 24" LED monitor that can connect to one range of computers.
Google 23" Apple Cinema Display and you will find them still for sale.
The LED backlighting could be expensive, but the rest of that rubbish is not even remotely expensive - throw in the fact that any 90% of other monitors in the market live in a world where other things, with different types of connectors can be plugged into a monitor - you know like DVDs, games consoles, even products they make like AppleTV...
It's a shockingly overpriced and niche product.
What ever you believe it cost to put camera, speakers, and power on a monitor it costs something more than a monitor without these items. If you find it over priced their is no reason for you to buy it.
No CRT of any moderate quality that I've seen has had untreated glass. While they are glossy (smooth-surfaced), they have an antireflection coating which, unlike matte LCDs, actually dims the reflection instead of just blurring it out.
Your next argument likely is to be you see no value in having those items on a monitor. Be that has it may the fairest comparison to make is of similarly equipped monitors.
But even £200 gets you a good 24-inch Samsung SyncMaster with HDCP DVI..
But even £200 gets you a good 24-inch Samsung SyncMaster with HDCP DVI. The £200-300 display segment isn't what I'd call 'bargain-basement'. The really low end consumer spends that on the whole machine including the screen.
A whole computer bundle with monitor at that price is not going to have a 24" monitor now or soon.
The Samsung 24" SyncMaster monitor with HDCP that I bought last week at about that price is a dithering display and has a poor viewing angle. I can see the dithering too. A five degree change of viewpoint on the vertical can have a dramatic effect on brightness and a noticeable effect on color, not so bad on horizontal, but still not comparable to an ACD. They claim 20k:1 dynamic contrast (a really BS number), 1k:1 static contrast, which is still BS, my ACD is better in real life. The model was 2443BWX if that matters. The panel is definitely not comparable to IPS or equivalent quality. I would call it a bargain basement monitor for the size class - that's why I bought it, I think it's good for what I need it to be, replace my 21" flat tube on my work bench, I'm not going to pretend that the Sammy is a high quality display, just good enough.
That is an important point but was it necessary for Apple to use this kind of display when marketing to consumers? They shoved cheap screens in the low end laptops. They didn't need to use high end IPS 24-inch panels in these.
Consumers look at price first and quality second. Essentially, what is the best display I can afford. £650 is bordering on the price of Apple's cheapest laptop. When you can buy a 24" display for £170, a lot of people won't even consider Apple's offering.
So that begs the question, are these meant for consumers? The isight camera is for anyone. The glossy display is down to personal tastes (not my preference). The price tag alone suggests it's not meant as a consumer item. For Apple to have clear tags to define Pro and non-pro computers, the Cinema lineup sends a confusing message. Unless the message is that it's for anyone who has £650 to spend on a screen.
It depends on their mind set.
Anybody that visits the Apple site or Store is looking at quality first.
If I were to visit the Detroit Auto Show, my first stop is not see the budget cars. If anything, the most expensive on the lot. And from there, it is basically down hill, wishing the somebody would give me an offer I couldn't refuse. And hoping it is not too far from the top.
Apple has made it quite clear that they are not in the cheap seats. At the same time, however, their mandate is to bring quality to the masses at an equitable price. No matter what anybody has said, Apple has never overprice or gouged its users. True, some products may appear to be overpriced, but in reality, you pay for what you get.
When Apple introduced the Mac in '84, word processor and spreadsheet software cost over $500 and it was in DOS to boot. Apples solution was $125 and was included with the Mac. Jobs at that time declared that no software should be more than $125. Something that Apple has attempted to do since.
Now I know that I am going to be dumped on by the price Apple charges for RAM. But on the other hand, installing, servicing and supporting it are included. I am sure that having an Apple Genius install RAM is the last thing that Apple wants their employees doing. Considering all the costs, e.g., training, servicing, support, rent, warehousing, inventory control, accounting, purchasing, dealing with manufacturers, shipping from overseas, customs, brokeraging, etc., and knowing that somebody will lowball you no matter what, why bother. If you can do it yourself or some mailorder house will do it cheaper, go for it. I don't know how much you make an hour, but the act of searching the net to find the cheapest price and then trying to verify that it is good product is one factor we don't consider when we are on the cheap.
So back to the displays. Anybody who has had the opportunity to visit an Apple store and has actually seen these new babies just drool. Standing next to the old Cinema displays, it puts them to shame. To some it is a far off dream. Not everybody can afford them. But that isn't Apple's fault.
Like buying a car, you buy what you can afford. At least you should. But at least, one should do their homework first. That can take time. Your 'cheaper' display is cheaper for good reasons. Just like the car. But when it comes down to dollar and cents, Apple doesn't begrudge your decision and neither should we begrudge Apple for theirs.
Right now I am in the process of spending a maximum of $420 on a Christmas gift for my brother-in-law, who I can't really stand. Now one would think that either I am rich, a fool or both. Actually, it is a collective effort. The family decided that if we were to hold spending down from thirty to fifty dollars a gift that we could pool our moneys, each draw a name and divide the pot equally. Now we are all going to get something of quality and if we don't like it, we only have to go back to one store to return it. I for one know that I will be spending my refund at the Apple store. Of course I have let it be known that an Apple gift certificate would be most appropriate for me.
Wishing you a Merry Christmas.
I'm with ya bro. Not just for graphic work, but for anyone who doesn't have the odd genetic ability to mask out all the glare. 100% deal breaker.
Then again, an Apple-branded external monitor is not critical - I can live with an "off-brand" monitor (although I'd prefer to buy Apple). The real problem is that the MacBook Pro models are ALL glossy-only. And there are no simple alternatives. I suspect it will be a pain in the ass buying a non-Apple laptop and hacking OS X onto it. But if Apple continues on the glossy-only path, that's what I'll be forced to do next year. Makes me sick to think about it. -(
Get over it....Back in the days, most screens - also at companies doing graphical work - were GLOSSY crt screens. you know the trinitron ones?
Glossy makes better contrast than matte.
http://www.pchardwarehelp.com/guides/s-ips-lcd-list.php
I'll stay away from the glossy v. matte holy war, but please, do a little research once in a while...
i think this gets a little over stated. The screens are treated to minimize reflection but they do not entirely eliminate it.
I can easily see myself in an iMac's screen when it's off. I can barely see myself in my CRT's screen when it's off in comparable brightness room lighting. *shrug*
I can easily see myself in an iMac's screen when it's off. I can barely see myself in my CRT's screen when it's off in comparable brightness room lighting. *shrug*
I do agree the iMac screen is highly reflective. What a screen reflects can depend on conditions. I can see an anti-reflective coating absorbing non-direct ambient light. I've never seen a CRT absorb light that shines directly onto the screen.
They exist, you might not have noticed. It is possible they might have been somewhat high end, but many of the Trinitron and Diamondtron based monitors do have nice smooth anti-reflective optical surfaces, which is roughly equivalent in optical properties as multicoating. Apple's Studio CRTs had them too.
I'll see if this works:
The little disk that looks like a mirror is actually just a cheapie uncoated glass UV filter taped to the screen for comparison.
The model shown had a list price of about $1000 six years ago.
Could you put the monitor next to a current 24in iMac? I want to be able to dual monitor using similar height and Look (Asthetics) for the iMac. Especially in my wife's desk, and if it does look good and heights measure up, then even for business is great.
Ah, that's the fly in the ointment. I don't think it is possible.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=600135
http://forums.macnn.com/58/imac-emac...inema-display/
Surprisingly, this important detail is lost in all the endless time-wasting on glossy vs matte.
They exist, you might not have noticed. It is possible they might have been somewhat high end, but many of the Trinitron and Diamondtron based monitors do have nice smooth anti-reflective optical surfaces, which is roughly equivalent in optical properties as multicoating. Apple's Studio CRTs had them too.
This isn't a comparable monitor. The Samsung SyncMaster doesn't have LED backlight, webcam, speakers, and power out.
Your next argument likely is to be you see no value in having those items on a monitor. Be that has it may the fairest comparison to make is of similarly equipped monitors.
I do see them as being useful - LED backlight definitely - and you're right, comparable displays are more expensive. The Samsung LED XL24 is nearly double the price of the Apple display. I just don't see many consumers buying them.
The Samsung 24" SyncMaster monitor with HDCP that I bought last week at about that price is a dithering display and has a poor viewing angle. I can see the dithering too...
I'm not going to pretend that the Sammy is a high quality display, just good enough.
I bought a cheap display too a couple of months back to replace my CRT and I get the same thing - dithering and poor viewing angle. The point is that Apple aren't ripping off customers with what they offer but they haven't made a sale to either of us. How many people have bought one of these on the forum or are planning to buy one?
If I was in the market for this kind of display, I'd be waiting for a 20" matte version at £400 at MW. If they don't make a matte one, I'd just get a Dell equivalent.
One problem here as Nvidia2008 points out is that this display only works with the new laptops. You can't use it with any of the desktops yet. People who have the money to spend on higher quality screens may still have high end iMacs and Mac Pros, which they will have to replace to use this display.
At the very least, they should make some DVI to mini-displayport adaptor. I wonder if the laptop adaptor works the opposite way round.
Apple are so happy with their new consumer base growth, they completely put the graphic community in the back burner. 3 UBS, no DVI, no HDMI, but they offer miniport, good Job for making a $900 black mirror!
Apple are so happy with their new consumer base growth, they completely put the graphic community in the back burner. 3 UBS, no DVI, no HDMI, but they offer miniport, good Job for making a $900 black mirror!
How exactly have they done that? They didn't drop any of their other displays from the line up and you can still buy 3rd-party displays for graphic work. The only issue right now is trying to use a new Mac notebook, save for the 17" and low-end MB, with matte display monitor, but we both know cheap adapters are coming.
How exactly have they done that? They didn't drop any of their other displays from the line up
They did; the 23" ACD is discontinued. Also, remember that 500+ day cycle on the Mac Pro?
They did; the 23" ACD is discontinued. Also, remember that 500+ day cycle on the Mac Pro?
Yes, they did drop it from their main page, but you can still buy it from the Apple Store. They also sell the 20" and 30" monitors or buy a 3rd-party monitor that is better quality and designed specifically for graphics works, so I don't know where this sky is falling attitude is coming from since their are considerable options available.
Wow, damn it looks sweet. I love the extra ports in the monitor. So anyone have a DVI - Mini Display Port conversion?
Yes, I have the Apple converter.
Yes, I have the Apple converter.
Is it output-only or can you put the adaptor onto the screen and use it with a DVI output computer?