It's exactly this kind of performance that will make this panel appeal to professionals. In the real world, grayscale banding is one of the biggest problems, and you're never quite sure if you've retouched an image properly and what's going to come off the press! Hopefully this level of gradient reproduction will reduce the number of nasty surprises!
I could have used a display like this last year, when I had to retouch a series of full-colour watercolour paintings that had to be reproduced via variety of production methods (including flexography).
Between the delicate and subtle tones of the watercolour, and the minimum dot size of the flexography process, comping and retouching Kathy's illustrations proved quite challenging! As the lead designer, I can tell you that it took a team of about a dozen of us, including an uber-experienced artworker and some really top-notch printers, to tweak those illustrations so that they all looked as though they were part of a set - across a wide variety of production methods.
This project was without doubt one of the hardest I have been involved in - even worse than working with jewellery!
In the end, we were even tweaking the various print processes on press. We got to the point where we were even able to tell the difference between 1% iterations of process yellow, on press. Unbelievable I know, there will be a lot of experienced print designers out there who will scoff at that claim, but we spent that much time pouring over the repro that that's what it came to. From their reactions, I think it was the first time that the pressmen had worked with designers who were willing to take the time to make sure that the final outcome was a close to perfection as humanly possible.
[rant]So, to all you so called 'professionals' out there, who claim that the iMacs glossy screen is suitable for pro level work – this is where your argument falls flat on its arse, and where your definition of 'pro' is revealed as stopping short of the mark.
There are a lot of tinkerers out there who are self proclaimed 'professionals'.[/rant]
We originally used glossy screen iMacs on this project, and found them to be entirely unsuitable. Whilst you might be able to get away with using a glossy iMac with more forgiving mediums like photography, when it comes to delicate watercolour illustrations, the artificially boosted colour saturation and contrast results in an on-screen representation that is nowhere near what's going on in the real world. Throw in different substrates and technical considerations like flexographys minimum dot, and you've created a rod for your own back. When we moved to Cinema Displays, we were quite shocked at the difference - it literally sent a shiver up our spine when we realised the mess that we would have gotten ourselves into had we continued using the iMacs.
Whilst the matte Cinema Displays aren't perfect, the beauty of their 'neutral' reproduction is that they don't artificially boost what you are working with. You aren't lulled into a false sense of security. Which makes perfect sense, because how can you expect a low cost consumer device like the iMac to be able to do the same job as proper 'pro' kit. And yet there remain plenty of self appointed professionals out there who still claim that the iMac is suitable for pro work.
The glossy nature of the new Cinema Display severely limits its real world applications, and amongst 'real professionals' remains a deal-breaker. I don't know any artworkers or photographers that genuinely work in darkened colour-critical rooms. The people doing the real day-to-day spadework rarely get a chance to pick their working environment. If this display is limited to those lucky enough to work in these perfect conditions, then Apple aren't going to sell too many of these displays. And let's face facts – those that are prepared to go to the lengths of creating a dedicated colour critical room will be buying Eizos rather than Apple Cinema Displays.
But I'm glad to hear that the LED backlit panel itself is capable of such fine reproduction – it's just a pity that it's hidden behind a sheet of reflective glass that makes the whole exercise moot.
We originally used glossy screen iMacs on this project, and found them to be entirely unsuitable. Whilst you might be able to get away with using a glossy iMac with more forgiving mediums like photography, when it comes to delicate watercolour illustrations, the artificially boosted colour saturation and contrast results in an on-screen representation that is nowhere near what's going on in the real world.
The colors on glossy screens are not necessarily artificially boosted. On top of that you are supposed set up the monitors using color profiles. The colors on matte screens aren't automatically neutral or correct either without proper color profiles.
Quote:
The glossy nature of the new Cinema Display severely limits its real world applications, and amongst 'real professionals' remains a deal-breaker. I don't know any artworkers or photographers that genuinely work in darkened colour-critical rooms.
I don't hang around photo print shops as much as I used to. But here in New York its common to see people set up workstation in windowless rooms or create cubicles that limit ambient light for critical color work. I've never heard of it being as big of a problem as people make it sound on these boards.
I don't hang around photo print shops as much as I used to. But here in New York its common to see people set up workstation in windowless rooms or create cubicles that limit ambient light for critical color work. I've never heard of it being as big of a problem as people make it sound on these boards.
It's not an issues. If color is mission critical to a studio or art agency then they're going to be shelling out thousands for their monitor and the room will be controlled and all other necessary steps will be taken to maintain color fidelity.
Expecting a 900 monitor to be some bastion of graphic supremacy is wholly absurd. $900 doesn't buy you a professional monitor today ..it didn't by you one 5 years ago and in the future it won't either.
Expecting a 900 monitor to be some bastion of graphic supremacy is wholly absurd. $900 doesn't buy you a professional monitor today ..it didn't by you one 5 years ago and in the future it won't either.
The current matte Cinema displays are pretty good and even cheaper than that. I would regard a SWOP certified display as a professional display. All Apple really had to do was put an LED backlight behind them for more uniform brightness.
The current model is just for the MacBook line (sadly, not my Air that I just bought this year). Hopefully, they will be releasing a further set of displays in two weeks that will be compatible with more of their current models (including the current MacPro) and also of even better quality than the current one. The price will be a little higher, but that's fine with me; I need a new monitor.
One thing I noticed about the current LED model (saw one on display in town) is it is much warmer than my Cinema Display. I don't like that.
Astigmatism? Make your arguments based on facts, not FUD. The tone of your writing makes you sound more like a maladjusted person with an axe to grind rather than someone that wants to have a sane discussion.
Oh so now that you lost the argument completely you resort to personal attacks? How ordinary...
Oh so now that you lost the argument completely you resort to personal attacks? How ordinary...
As opposed to someone that went to the profanity and personal attacks straight away?
But seriously, the tone of almost every one of your posts was abrasive.
I'm not sure which argument that was I that I lost. I really didn't take a specific side in the discussion as a whole, I had mostly commented on the merits or lack of certain arguments along the way. You're also forgetting the times where I did say that Apple has better displays.
Their is no white LED. They use blue LED bulbs with a yellow filter to make them white.
I have a couple of awesome LED flashlights from Fenix that get pretty hot on turbo mode and was quite surprised at the heat they can produce. However, normally you don't use them on turbo for that long and the normal setting is rather cool. The display I saw in the shop was rather hot.
If you know something about LEDs, how is the LED screen used for notebooks so cool? (I realize there is a difference in brightness) My MBA's screen never gets warm; the power supply area does over the left side of the keyboard, but not the screen. Is it the thickness (rather, thinness) that helps dissipate the heat easier? I'd love for a 23" display to only be about 1cm thick; would also make it lighter, maybe...
Or is it the power converter (I assume it's inside the display) that is making them hot?
I have a couple of awesome LED flashlights from Fenix that get pretty hot on turbo mode and was quite surprised at the heat they can produce. However, normally you don't use them on turbo for that long and the normal setting is rather cool. The display I saw in the shop was rather hot.
If you know something about LEDs, how is the LED screen used for notebooks so cool? (I realize there is a difference in brightness) My MBA's screen never gets warm; the power supply area does over the left side of the keyboard, but not the screen. Is it the thickness (rather, thinness) that helps dissipate the heat easier? I'd love for a 23" display to only be about 1cm thick; would also make it lighter, maybe...
Or is it the power converter (I assume it's inside the display) that is making them hot?
There may be more than one kind of white LED. I've heard that the kind used in display backlights were UV LEDs that emitted light onto phosphors. I have absolutely nothing to back that up. Another way to make white light is to mix light from different LEDs in each of the three primary colors, I haven't heard of that being used in display backlights. I've only heard about that technique being used in video lighting so you can quickly and efficiently make lights of any color, even different color temperatures of white, without gels.
Another thing to consider is that LEDs aren't necessarily a lot more efficient in making light than fluorescent bulbs. Other considerations are at play as well. Eliminating mercury use is one, I think the size of LEDs allow them to be placed in ways to make them spread light better. It may be easier to power manage, fluorescent bulbs require special high voltage circuits to operate.
The colors on glossy screens are not necessarily artificially boosted. On top of that you are supposed set up the monitors using color profiles.
We weren't able to calibrate the iMac displays to our satisfaction.
Like all iMac screens that I've worked with (including the white iMacs), the glossy iMac screens boost subtle tints. Our failure to eliminate this characteristic through calibration, would suggest that this is a characteristic of the hardware panel employed rather than the software setup.
There may be more than one kind of white LED. I've heard that the kind used in display backlights were UV LEDs that emitted light onto phosphors. I have absolutely nothing to back that up. Another way to make white light is to mix light from different LEDs in each of the three primary colors, I haven't heard of that being used in display backlights.
The current MacBooks and LED ACD are using blue LED's with a yellow filter to make white light.
The other type are RGB LED panels that do use Red, Green, and Blue LED's to make different colors. Those are the real advancement in LED backlighting and at this point are very expensive.
I would expect to see RGB LED panels in the desktop ACD. With the delay in the 17" MBP we may see an RGB LED display in that also.
The current MacBooks and LED ACD are using blue LED's with a yellow filter to make white light.
A yellow filter doesn't really make sense, LEDs emit a very narrow spike and there's not much light outside that spike. I don't know how you can get enough red with a yellow filter in front of blue.
I cannot find the explanation for how it works now. But their are no LED's that emit pure white light.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
A yellow filter doesn't really make sense, LEDs emit a very narrow spike and there's not much light outside that spike. I don't know how you can get enough red with a yellow filter in front of blue.
I cannot find the explanation for how it works now. But their are no LED's that emit pure white light.
That's true, there is no pure white LED, though pretty much nothing emits pure white light. So far, I've only found two methods for making white using LED: mixing three colors of LEDs and coating the LED with phosphors.
White light is of course a mixture of colours and if you were to use LEDs on their own you would need 3 LEDs to make white light. Manufacturers have a cunning way around this problem, they use phosphors, these convert high energy blue light into lower energy colours such as red, yellow and green. So by covering your LED with phosphors a blue LED can appear white.
What you said did have a fair amount of truth in it:
The 'white' of white LEDs comes from the narrow-band blue naturally emitted by GaN LEDs, plus a broad spectrum yellow generated by a phosphor coating on the die which absorbs a proportion of the blue and converts it to yellow.
'GaN' die are actually InGaN heterostructures, which can produce operational wavelengths from green to ultra-violet by varying the relative amounts of indium and gallium during production.
Although this blue die + yellow phosphor approach yields light which appears white, it has little green and almost no red content leading to inferior colour rendering compared with incandescent bulbs and even 'tri-phosphor' florescent tubes. 'Warm white' LEDs, which include a red-producing phosphor, are an attempt to improve this situation as well as make LEDs illumination more acceptable in living spaces.
Just a guess, I think it may be this last kind that is used for most LED-based display backlights. It sounds like a lot of the pocket flashlights are using yellow phosphors to fudge white, at least it explains why their light looks a little odd to me.
This still doesn't address the heat question. I think some of it is that the screen is a lot larger surface area than a flashlight. From what I've found, it looks like LED lighting isn't as efficient as proponents have been trying to say, which is disappointing.
I tend to agree. When I first started looking at LED flashlights, they were claimed to be both much cooler and much more efficient than standard lights. Perhaps a few years ago, yes and yes, but then they weren't as bright, either.
As they have increased in brightness, the heat they produce has increased as well. The latest flashlight I bought had a warning not to use it on high power for too long as it will get very hot; after just five minutes, it is pretty hot, but I have never pushed it beyond that because I didn't need to. Can only imagine using it for an hour or so, but this is the trade off for a flashlight: lighting performance over heat performance, perhaps.
On high power, though, the thing is pretty amazingly bright, much more so (I believe) than the Cinema Display on my desk. I say "believe" because the flashlight is direct light and the display has the colorized blocks that the light must pass through, dulling the actual brightness.
A display would incorporate several LEDs (or an entire strip) to evenly distribute the lighting and would thus be able to produce less heat, I would assume. From looking at Apple's LED display, I think that much of the heat is fro the AC/DC converter which is internal, and, if the power bricks for the MacBook series are any indication, of the less expensive standard "linear" type, which is both heavy and hot. There is a more expensive type of converter called a switching-mode converter that weighs far less and produces less heat. I would gladly pay a little extra for one of these for my MacBook Air, or for my display.
About the light for LED flashlight: yes, it is an oddly pale white, but recently at least one maker, Gentos, has started producing a "warm white" which actually uses frosting in the lens to create a softer, fuller spectrum. Right now, these are found in lanterns, not flashlights.
My opinion? Nice, but overpriced. While the display is beautiful, as are the aesthetics, $900 is just too much of a price premium for the Apple name. Lower it to $600-700 and then we can talk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mklos
Why does Apple need a digital card reader when you can plug the camera into the back of the display, or on the Mac itself and let either iPhoto, Image Capture, or Aperture do the rest? This is PC thinking IMO. There's nothing like the ease of using of just getting photos off your camera on the Windows side, until recently. So instead, you had to take the card out of the camera, stick it into a card reader and then do whatever it is you wanted to do with the photos you took. Doing this on a Mac is 5 steps backwards IMO.
Did you really just say that? No offense, but your logic leaves a lot to be desired. By your rational, why have a built in CD/DVD drive when you could simply hook up an external via USB? If you have multiple cameras, as most professionals and many amateurs do, you don't want to have to get the camera, find the cords for it and hook it up every time you want to view files you have on your memory card. I wouldn't say this is something that MUST be added to the ACD had Apple done the common sense thing and put them on the MacBooks - but since they didn't, it would be another selling point. You may also find if you had that little slot in side the USB vs. Firewire arguments would go way, way down.
Optical disc are used far more than media cards. You cannot really compare the two in that way.
From what I see most people do just hook the camera into their computer to download pictures. My friends who do professional photography are the only people really concerned with card readers.
Mark my words, in the next few years Apple will be doing away with internal optical drives also.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oneaburns
Did you really just say that? No offense, but your logic leaves a lot to be desired. By your rational, why have a built in CD/DVD drive when you could simply hook up an external via USB? If you have multiple cameras, as most professionals and many amateurs do, you don't want to have to get the camera, find the cords for it and hook it up every time you want to view files you have on your memory card. I wouldn't say this is something that MUST be added to the ACD had Apple done the common sense thing and put them on the MacBooks - but since they didn't, it would be another selling point. You may also find if you had that little slot in side the USB vs. Firewire arguments would go way, way down.
LED is said to be more efficient than compact fluorescent. In the end that probably means LED produces a brighter light that compact fluorescent while consuming pretty much the same amount of energy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
This still doesn't address the heat question. I think some of it is that the screen is a lot larger surface area than a flashlight. From what I've found, it looks like LED lighting isn't as efficient as proponents have been trying to say, which is disappointing.
Optical disc are used far more than media cards. You cannot really compare the two in that way.
From what I see most people do just hook the camera into their computer to download pictures. My friends who do professional photography are the only people really concerned with card readers.
The people I know do exactly the opposite. Its far more convenient for them to pop the little card out of the camera and into the media card reader than to find the cable that came with the camera. The import process is the same.
Quote:
Mark my words, in the next few years Apple will be doing away with internal optical drives also.
I don't they pull the trigger on that too fast or Apple could put itself in a very precarious situation. It isn't like floppies where they were effectively already replaced, optical drives are still widely used. If you can't install software or burn a CD for the car (an iPod jack or aux input is not even standard on most new cars), they will not be buying a Mac.
Comments
"In our Extreme Grayscale Bars and Intensity and Grayscale tests, the display scored higher than any previous display we've tested.
CNET
Wow! That's quite a review.
It's exactly this kind of performance that will make this panel appeal to professionals. In the real world, grayscale banding is one of the biggest problems, and you're never quite sure if you've retouched an image properly and what's going to come off the press! Hopefully this level of gradient reproduction will reduce the number of nasty surprises!
I could have used a display like this last year, when I had to retouch a series of full-colour watercolour paintings that had to be reproduced via variety of production methods (including flexography).
http://www.mcclellands.co.uk/product-range/
Between the delicate and subtle tones of the watercolour, and the minimum dot size of the flexography process, comping and retouching Kathy's illustrations proved quite challenging! As the lead designer, I can tell you that it took a team of about a dozen of us, including an uber-experienced artworker and some really top-notch printers, to tweak those illustrations so that they all looked as though they were part of a set - across a wide variety of production methods.
This project was without doubt one of the hardest I have been involved in - even worse than working with jewellery!
In the end, we were even tweaking the various print processes on press. We got to the point where we were even able to tell the difference between 1% iterations of process yellow, on press. Unbelievable I know, there will be a lot of experienced print designers out there who will scoff at that claim, but we spent that much time pouring over the repro that that's what it came to. From their reactions, I think it was the first time that the pressmen had worked with designers who were willing to take the time to make sure that the final outcome was a close to perfection as humanly possible.
[rant]So, to all you so called 'professionals' out there, who claim that the iMacs glossy screen is suitable for pro level work – this is where your argument falls flat on its arse, and where your definition of 'pro' is revealed as stopping short of the mark.
There are a lot of tinkerers out there who are self proclaimed 'professionals'.[/rant]
We originally used glossy screen iMacs on this project, and found them to be entirely unsuitable. Whilst you might be able to get away with using a glossy iMac with more forgiving mediums like photography, when it comes to delicate watercolour illustrations, the artificially boosted colour saturation and contrast results in an on-screen representation that is nowhere near what's going on in the real world. Throw in different substrates and technical considerations like flexographys minimum dot, and you've created a rod for your own back. When we moved to Cinema Displays, we were quite shocked at the difference - it literally sent a shiver up our spine when we realised the mess that we would have gotten ourselves into had we continued using the iMacs.
Whilst the matte Cinema Displays aren't perfect, the beauty of their 'neutral' reproduction is that they don't artificially boost what you are working with. You aren't lulled into a false sense of security. Which makes perfect sense, because how can you expect a low cost consumer device like the iMac to be able to do the same job as proper 'pro' kit. And yet there remain plenty of self appointed professionals out there who still claim that the iMac is suitable for pro work.
The glossy nature of the new Cinema Display severely limits its real world applications, and amongst 'real professionals' remains a deal-breaker. I don't know any artworkers or photographers that genuinely work in darkened colour-critical rooms. The people doing the real day-to-day spadework rarely get a chance to pick their working environment. If this display is limited to those lucky enough to work in these perfect conditions, then Apple aren't going to sell too many of these displays. And let's face facts – those that are prepared to go to the lengths of creating a dedicated colour critical room will be buying Eizos rather than Apple Cinema Displays.
But I'm glad to hear that the LED backlit panel itself is capable of such fine reproduction – it's just a pity that it's hidden behind a sheet of reflective glass that makes the whole exercise moot.
We originally used glossy screen iMacs on this project, and found them to be entirely unsuitable. Whilst you might be able to get away with using a glossy iMac with more forgiving mediums like photography, when it comes to delicate watercolour illustrations, the artificially boosted colour saturation and contrast results in an on-screen representation that is nowhere near what's going on in the real world.
The colors on glossy screens are not necessarily artificially boosted. On top of that you are supposed set up the monitors using color profiles. The colors on matte screens aren't automatically neutral or correct either without proper color profiles.
The glossy nature of the new Cinema Display severely limits its real world applications, and amongst 'real professionals' remains a deal-breaker. I don't know any artworkers or photographers that genuinely work in darkened colour-critical rooms.
I don't hang around photo print shops as much as I used to. But here in New York its common to see people set up workstation in windowless rooms or create cubicles that limit ambient light for critical color work. I've never heard of it being as big of a problem as people make it sound on these boards.
I don't hang around photo print shops as much as I used to. But here in New York its common to see people set up workstation in windowless rooms or create cubicles that limit ambient light for critical color work. I've never heard of it being as big of a problem as people make it sound on these boards.
It's not an issues. If color is mission critical to a studio or art agency then they're going to be shelling out thousands for their monitor and the room will be controlled and all other necessary steps will be taken to maintain color fidelity.
Expecting a 900 monitor to be some bastion of graphic supremacy is wholly absurd. $900 doesn't buy you a professional monitor today ..it didn't by you one 5 years ago and in the future it won't either.
Glossy screens are what they are.
Expecting a 900 monitor to be some bastion of graphic supremacy is wholly absurd. $900 doesn't buy you a professional monitor today ..it didn't by you one 5 years ago and in the future it won't either.
The current matte Cinema displays are pretty good and even cheaper than that. I would regard a SWOP certified display as a professional display. All Apple really had to do was put an LED backlight behind them for more uniform brightness.
One thing I noticed about the current LED model (saw one on display in town) is it is much warmer than my Cinema Display. I don't like that.
Astigmatism? Make your arguments based on facts, not FUD. The tone of your writing makes you sound more like a maladjusted person with an axe to grind rather than someone that wants to have a sane discussion.
Oh so now that you lost the argument completely you resort to personal attacks? How ordinary...
Their is no white LED. They use blue LED bulbs with a yellow filter to make them white.
One thing I noticed about the current LED model (saw one on display in town) is it is much warmer than my Cinema Display. I don't like that.
Oh so now that you lost the argument completely you resort to personal attacks? How ordinary...
As opposed to someone that went to the profanity and personal attacks straight away?
But seriously, the tone of almost every one of your posts was abrasive.
I'm not sure which argument that was I that I lost. I really didn't take a specific side in the discussion as a whole, I had mostly commented on the merits or lack of certain arguments along the way. You're also forgetting the times where I did say that Apple has better displays.
You can adjust that to cool it down if you want.
Their is no white LED. They use blue LED bulbs with a yellow filter to make them white.
I have a couple of awesome LED flashlights from Fenix that get pretty hot on turbo mode and was quite surprised at the heat they can produce. However, normally you don't use them on turbo for that long and the normal setting is rather cool. The display I saw in the shop was rather hot.
http://www.fenixlight.com/newping.asp
If you know something about LEDs, how is the LED screen used for notebooks so cool? (I realize there is a difference in brightness) My MBA's screen never gets warm; the power supply area does over the left side of the keyboard, but not the screen. Is it the thickness (rather, thinness) that helps dissipate the heat easier? I'd love for a 23" display to only be about 1cm thick; would also make it lighter, maybe...
Or is it the power converter (I assume it's inside the display) that is making them hot?
Ahh, the things to worry about on Christmas Day!
I have a couple of awesome LED flashlights from Fenix that get pretty hot on turbo mode and was quite surprised at the heat they can produce. However, normally you don't use them on turbo for that long and the normal setting is rather cool. The display I saw in the shop was rather hot.
http://www.fenixlight.com/newping.asp
If you know something about LEDs, how is the LED screen used for notebooks so cool? (I realize there is a difference in brightness) My MBA's screen never gets warm; the power supply area does over the left side of the keyboard, but not the screen. Is it the thickness (rather, thinness) that helps dissipate the heat easier? I'd love for a 23" display to only be about 1cm thick; would also make it lighter, maybe...
Or is it the power converter (I assume it's inside the display) that is making them hot?
There may be more than one kind of white LED. I've heard that the kind used in display backlights were UV LEDs that emitted light onto phosphors. I have absolutely nothing to back that up. Another way to make white light is to mix light from different LEDs in each of the three primary colors, I haven't heard of that being used in display backlights. I've only heard about that technique being used in video lighting so you can quickly and efficiently make lights of any color, even different color temperatures of white, without gels.
Another thing to consider is that LEDs aren't necessarily a lot more efficient in making light than fluorescent bulbs. Other considerations are at play as well. Eliminating mercury use is one, I think the size of LEDs allow them to be placed in ways to make them spread light better. It may be easier to power manage, fluorescent bulbs require special high voltage circuits to operate.
The colors on glossy screens are not necessarily artificially boosted. On top of that you are supposed set up the monitors using color profiles.
We weren't able to calibrate the iMac displays to our satisfaction.
Like all iMac screens that I've worked with (including the white iMacs), the glossy iMac screens boost subtle tints. Our failure to eliminate this characteristic through calibration, would suggest that this is a characteristic of the hardware panel employed rather than the software setup.
There may be more than one kind of white LED. I've heard that the kind used in display backlights were UV LEDs that emitted light onto phosphors. I have absolutely nothing to back that up. Another way to make white light is to mix light from different LEDs in each of the three primary colors, I haven't heard of that being used in display backlights.
The current MacBooks and LED ACD are using blue LED's with a yellow filter to make white light.
The other type are RGB LED panels that do use Red, Green, and Blue LED's to make different colors. Those are the real advancement in LED backlighting and at this point are very expensive.
I would expect to see RGB LED panels in the desktop ACD. With the delay in the 17" MBP we may see an RGB LED display in that also.
The current MacBooks and LED ACD are using blue LED's with a yellow filter to make white light.
A yellow filter doesn't really make sense, LEDs emit a very narrow spike and there's not much light outside that spike. I don't know how you can get enough red with a yellow filter in front of blue.
A yellow filter doesn't really make sense, LEDs emit a very narrow spike and there's not much light outside that spike. I don't know how you can get enough red with a yellow filter in front of blue.
I cannot find the explanation for how it works now. But their are no LED's that emit pure white light.
That's true, there is no pure white LED, though pretty much nothing emits pure white light. So far, I've only found two methods for making white using LED: mixing three colors of LEDs and coating the LED with phosphors.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HT...question/1135/
White light is of course a mixture of colours and if you were to use LEDs on their own you would need 3 LEDs to make white light. Manufacturers have a cunning way around this problem, they use phosphors, these convert high energy blue light into lower energy colours such as red, yellow and green. So by covering your LED with phosphors a blue LED can appear white.
What you said did have a fair amount of truth in it:
http://www.electronicsweekly.com/Art...white-leds.htm
The 'white' of white LEDs comes from the narrow-band blue naturally emitted by GaN LEDs, plus a broad spectrum yellow generated by a phosphor coating on the die which absorbs a proportion of the blue and converts it to yellow.
'GaN' die are actually InGaN heterostructures, which can produce operational wavelengths from green to ultra-violet by varying the relative amounts of indium and gallium during production.
Although this blue die + yellow phosphor approach yields light which appears white, it has little green and almost no red content leading to inferior colour rendering compared with incandescent bulbs and even 'tri-phosphor' florescent tubes. 'Warm white' LEDs, which include a red-producing phosphor, are an attempt to improve this situation as well as make LEDs illumination more acceptable in living spaces.
Just a guess, I think it may be this last kind that is used for most LED-based display backlights. It sounds like a lot of the pocket flashlights are using yellow phosphors to fudge white, at least it explains why their light looks a little odd to me.
This still doesn't address the heat question. I think some of it is that the screen is a lot larger surface area than a flashlight. From what I've found, it looks like LED lighting isn't as efficient as proponents have been trying to say, which is disappointing.
As they have increased in brightness, the heat they produce has increased as well. The latest flashlight I bought had a warning not to use it on high power for too long as it will get very hot; after just five minutes, it is pretty hot, but I have never pushed it beyond that because I didn't need to. Can only imagine using it for an hour or so, but this is the trade off for a flashlight: lighting performance over heat performance, perhaps.
On high power, though, the thing is pretty amazingly bright, much more so (I believe) than the Cinema Display on my desk. I say "believe" because the flashlight is direct light and the display has the colorized blocks that the light must pass through, dulling the actual brightness.
A display would incorporate several LEDs (or an entire strip) to evenly distribute the lighting and would thus be able to produce less heat, I would assume. From looking at Apple's LED display, I think that much of the heat is fro the AC/DC converter which is internal, and, if the power bricks for the MacBook series are any indication, of the less expensive standard "linear" type, which is both heavy and hot. There is a more expensive type of converter called a switching-mode converter that weighs far less and produces less heat. I would gladly pay a little extra for one of these for my MacBook Air, or for my display.
About the light for LED flashlight: yes, it is an oddly pale white, but recently at least one maker, Gentos, has started producing a "warm white" which actually uses frosting in the lens to create a softer, fuller spectrum. Right now, these are found in lanterns, not flashlights.
Why does Apple need a digital card reader when you can plug the camera into the back of the display, or on the Mac itself and let either iPhoto, Image Capture, or Aperture do the rest? This is PC thinking IMO. There's nothing like the ease of using of just getting photos off your camera on the Windows side, until recently. So instead, you had to take the card out of the camera, stick it into a card reader and then do whatever it is you wanted to do with the photos you took. Doing this on a Mac is 5 steps backwards IMO.
Did you really just say that? No offense, but your logic leaves a lot to be desired. By your rational, why have a built in CD/DVD drive when you could simply hook up an external via USB? If you have multiple cameras, as most professionals and many amateurs do, you don't want to have to get the camera, find the cords for it and hook it up every time you want to view files you have on your memory card. I wouldn't say this is something that MUST be added to the ACD had Apple done the common sense thing and put them on the MacBooks - but since they didn't, it would be another selling point. You may also find if you had that little slot in side the USB vs. Firewire arguments would go way, way down.
From what I see most people do just hook the camera into their computer to download pictures. My friends who do professional photography are the only people really concerned with card readers.
Mark my words, in the next few years Apple will be doing away with internal optical drives also.
Did you really just say that? No offense, but your logic leaves a lot to be desired. By your rational, why have a built in CD/DVD drive when you could simply hook up an external via USB? If you have multiple cameras, as most professionals and many amateurs do, you don't want to have to get the camera, find the cords for it and hook it up every time you want to view files you have on your memory card. I wouldn't say this is something that MUST be added to the ACD had Apple done the common sense thing and put them on the MacBooks - but since they didn't, it would be another selling point. You may also find if you had that little slot in side the USB vs. Firewire arguments would go way, way down.
This still doesn't address the heat question. I think some of it is that the screen is a lot larger surface area than a flashlight. From what I've found, it looks like LED lighting isn't as efficient as proponents have been trying to say, which is disappointing.
Optical disc are used far more than media cards. You cannot really compare the two in that way.
From what I see most people do just hook the camera into their computer to download pictures. My friends who do professional photography are the only people really concerned with card readers.
The people I know do exactly the opposite. Its far more convenient for them to pop the little card out of the camera and into the media card reader than to find the cable that came with the camera. The import process is the same.
Mark my words, in the next few years Apple will be doing away with internal optical drives also.
I don't they pull the trigger on that too fast or Apple could put itself in a very precarious situation. It isn't like floppies where they were effectively already replaced, optical drives are still widely used. If you can't install software or burn a CD for the car (an iPod jack or aux input is not even standard on most new cars), they will not be buying a Mac.