I agree, making the cinema displays glossy is the worst thing you could possible do. In fact everything in the apple line-up should have a matte display, yes, that is including stuff like the iMac and Macbook. The glossy displays make me want to puke.
I don't see what's so wrong with the glossy displays. If you are actually forced into using one you'll realise how much sharper the detail is. I have a feeling you'll be doing a lot of puking in the future!
Hopefully they'll just give glossy/matt options on all the new displays.
I don't see what's so wrong with the glossy displays. If you are actually forced into using one you'll realise how much sharper the detail is.
Okay, firstly, the Cinema Display product family is aimed at professionals – people who are concerned about colour reproduction rather than image sharpness. After all, in professional apps like Photoshop CS3, you can zoom in to 3200%. Very few pro users would attempt to retouch an image at 100% anyway – so the fractionally increased sharpness of a glossy panel over a matte panel really isn't an issue.
Secondly, Apple hasn't produced a single glossy LCD display to date that is suitable for professional use – because all of Apple's glossy panels are 6-bit, and 6-bit equals proper-fucked straight out of the box.
Thirdly, glossy displays suffer from reflections SO badly, that they are unusable.
Fourthly, the glossy 6-bit displays that Apple have shipped so far seem to suffer from a minimum dot – which results in any colour value <5% being bumped back up to 5%. As a result you won't be to get an accurate on-screen representation of a 0-5% gradient in any colour channel. Instead you'll get a flexography-like minimum dot size halo.
This is why I know that anybody who tries to persuade me that glossy screens are suitable for professional use, simply doesn't know what they are talking about.
I've had the misfortune of using a number of glossy displays – from MacBooks to MacBook Pros and the new iMacs – and they've caused no end of problems. Even if you can stomach working on a display that suffers from reflections so badly, you'll only get so far before you realise that the inaccuracies are affecting your outputs...
...glossy displays look great on the shelves, and consumers love them, but when it comes to pro work it has to be matte.
...glossy displays look great on the shelves, and consumers love them, but when it comes to pro work it has to be matte.
Okay, fair enough - but let's keep to the glossy vs matte debate, and not bring in all the stuff about the current range of glossy screens Apple has produced. Of course I wouldn't be interested in a 6-bit screen, minimum dot etc. That would be totally unacceptable.
I'm just saying that each screen should be available (at the SAME spec) in either glossy or matte. I'd have to see them side by side, but when I've compared like for like before, the glossy screen has had a superior contrast. Which, incidentally, is good for video.
A lot of people prefer the glossy screens, some of which are consumers but I know of a great deal of graphic designer friends who plumped for the glossy screen. Are you saying that if you buy a MB Pro with a matte screen you get an 8-bit screen? I can't imagine that's true. Are you saying the latest iMac screens are 6-bit? I have not heard of such complaints but please correct me if I am wrong.
A lot of people prefer the glossy screens, some of which are consumers but I know of a great deal of graphic designer friends who plumped for the glossy screen.
Yeah I know a lot of graphic designers who have bought glossy screens as well (I'm a graphic designer and I bought two of the new iMacs). It's very tempting to purchase an iMac instead of a Mac Pro and Cinema Display combo, because iMacs appear to offer such great value for money.
Unfortunately it's a false economy ? I had to offload my iMacs at a hefty loss on Ebay, and without exception my friends are moaning about their screens. I had a real scare when a job I was passing on press looked nothing like we were expecting it to look like. Luckily we were able to pull the job there and then. If I had trusted the 6-bit screens I would have been up shit creek without a paddle (but I would have had several million rejected whisky labels to keep me company). If you're a pro, and if you're signing off on artwork, 8-bit Cinema Displays are undoubtedly the way to go.
Quote:
Are you saying that if you buy a MB Pro with a matte screen you get an 8-bit screen? I can't imagine that's true.
The only panels that Apple currently produces that use 8-bit screens are the Cinema Displays..
Quote:
Are you saying the latest iMac screens are 6-bit? I have not heard of such complaints but please correct me if I am wrong.
Everything else, including the new iMacs, MacBooks and MacBooks Pros, use a 6-bit panel of some form or other ? regardless of whether it has a gloss or matte treatment. The 6-bit panels can theoretically achieve millions of colours, but only via dithering. And even with dithering, they can't achieve as many colours as a proper 8-bit screen. There has been a great deal of debate about this, and a few eyebrows raised over the fact that Apple shows Aperture running on MacBook Pro and iMac hardware when they are, strictly speaking, unsuitable. It's very simple - you can't edit an 8-bit image safely when all you can see are 6-bits.
That's why I'm saying that you can't currently purchase an Apple glossy screen that's suitable for colour reproduction work ? because they're all 6-bit. The images may look great on screen, but sooner or later it's going to come back and haunt you.
I suspect your question is whether or not a future 8-bit Apple Cinema Display with a glossy treatment would be suitable for Pro work. Based on my experience, the answer is categorically NO!
The only panels that Apple currently produces that use 8-bit screens are the Cinema Displays..
That's interesting to know. And a little disappointing!
Quote:
I suspect your question is whether or not a future 8-bit Apple Cinema Display with a glossy treatment would be suitable for Pro work. Based on my experience, the answer is categorically NO!
I still find that quite a hard argument to swallow. Practically all CRT monitors in the past, pro or consumer, had glossy screens. I used to own the AppleVision 1710 which was considered a high-end monitor. It had a glossy screen and was one of the best colour reproducing monitors on the market. I never had any problems with reflection then, and I still don't have any problems with reflection on glossy LCD screens now.
if you're regarding my post, I was saying that I want a line of consumer displays (glossy), and a line of pro displays (matte!).
Yes, but I want a consumer display that is not glossy. the glossy has such bad glare.... maybe they could have an option for glossy or matte on all of their displays.
That's interesting to know. And a little disappointing!
Yes.
Quote:
I still find that quite a hard argument to swallow. Practically all CRT monitors in the past, pro or consumer, had glossy screens. I used to own the AppleVision 1710 which was considered a high-end monitor. It had a glossy screen and was one of the best colour reproducing monitors on the market. I never had any problems with reflection then, and I still don't have any problems with reflection on glossy LCD screens now.
Hehehe, the AppleVision 1710, now that's going back a bit! They were beautiful monitors. I had a Apple Colour Display 20, and a ColorSync 20 display around the same time.
CRTs generally have some sort of anti-reflective coating on them. The majority have a matte etching either on the inside or outside face of the glass. You can sometimes see this etching if the monitor is switched off and an external light source is reflected on the screen.
Reflections were a problem at the time, but the main reason that people didn't consider it an issue was because we simply didn't know any better. Back in the day printers would often have a darkroom set up for colour accurate work, or you would get monitors (like Eizos and LaCies) that had hoods. I still remember one occasion where a designer left, and my fellow designers were arguing over who should get their desk because it offered minimal reflections.
Whilst CRT monitors were glossy by their very nature (even although the manufacturers tried everything to tone down the glossiness), Apple go out of their way to make the screens as glossy as possible.
Quote:
Why have so many designers become so anti-gloss?
Well like I say, a lot of it has to do with every gloss panel to date being 6-bit. Also, the gloss panels are configured to artificially accentuate the colours and contrast, so you're getting a false impression of what's there. You're then (in the case of the new iMac) viewing that image through a piece of highly polished, polarized glass. It's kind of like a professional sound engineer using Super Twin Turbo Bass Boosting headphones in a recording studio...
...like the speaker system in a recording studio, a professional computer monitor should produce as neutral an image as possible – you don't want to see colours that aren't actually there or likewise tone-down colours that are present. You need to know that what you are working with is as accurate a representation as possible.
This presents a problem for Apple, because the majority of the panel manufacturers are now catering for the PC gaming market and that means a shift away from accurate panels to panels that offer faster refresh rates (6-bit) and accentuated colours and contrast. This may go some way to explaining the relatively high price of the current Cinema Displays and the delays in bringing an updated Cinema Display family to market – Apple will have their work cut out sourcing suitable panels when the whole of the industry is forging full steam ahead in the opposite direction.
A lot of it has to do with ergonomics and usability as well – a glossy display on a laptop isn't just as bad because the laptop tends to be quite low in comparison to your head, and as a result you mostly tend to see the uppermost part of the wall behind you or the ceiling. With an iMac, and with the 24" in particular, it's bang right in front of you at eye level, so you see yourself and everything that's behind you - usually a window.
Reflections have a massive impact on eye-strain, and if you're like me you probably regularly pull 12 hour + days. The most common solution to reflections is to turn the brightness of the display right up, but then you only compound matters because now you're squinting into a very bright object for long periods of time. The current glass iMac will give me a migraine aura within a couple of hours – since switching back to a proper Cinema Display I haven't had a single migraine.
Take it from me, the new MacBooks and iMacs are great if you're playing around with iPhoto or surfing the net in your spare time, but if you're parked in front of one at your work for hours on end (and you're stressed up to your tits as it is), it's a horrible, horrible, place to be.
Hehehe, the AppleVision 1710, now that's going back a bit! They were beautiful monitors. I had a Apple Colour Display 20, and a ColorSync 20 display around the same time.
I was very unlucky with my AppleVision. The colour was great while it lasted, but then I started to get problems with the magnets and about 14 months after buying it, the thing went *foom*. Most expensive cost-to-lifetime ratio I've ever had!
Quote:
This presents a problem for Apple, because the majority of the panel manufacturers are now catering for the PC gaming market and that means a shift away from accurate panels to panels that offer faster refresh rates (6-bit) and accentuated colours and contrast.
Really - now it all begins to make sense... These 6-bit screens are good for refresh rate then? Do all PC monitors out there suffer the same? I find it very difficult to get the bit channel information on monitors. Apple are just as bad. It really should be well advertised in the specs, don't you think?
So are Apple having problems sourcing manufacturers of LCD screens which provide 8-bit channel colour and have a decent refresh rate? Do the current models then suffer from poor refresh rate?
Quote:
Take it from me, the new MacBooks and iMacs are great if you're playing around with iPhoto or surfing the net in your spare time, but if you're parked in front of one at your work for hours on end (and you're stressed up to your tits as it is), it's a horrible, horrible, place to be.
A lot of good points there, well made. I understand where you are coming from now! I would say therefore the best path for Apple would be to have two ranges of monitors - Apple Cinema Display and Apple Cinema Pro Display (?) - with perhaps gloss 6-bit for the general consumer and matte 8-bit for the pro customer (or at least a choice)... Surely that would be the best way to break into the cheaper monitor market for them? There must be a market for people who buy Mac Minis, after all...?
I've just been a little concerned of late that Apple have been guilty of putting form before function. There have been two or three instances of this in their consumer products, and one in their pro line-up. The new iMac was bad enough, but the MacBook Air was just an absolute disaster.
It's safe to say that I'm now totally paranoid about this philosophy pervading in to their pro hardware. I hope Apple realise that pros are looking for no nonsense hardware that simply does it's job. In my experience, a glossy Cinema Display is a complete non-starter.
I am pleased to say that am I absolutely delighted with my new Mac Pro and Cinema Display combo - and I hope that Apple will continue to develop fantastic pro hardware for years to come.
Really - now it all begins to make sense... These 6-bit screens are good for refresh rate then? Do all PC monitors out there suffer the same? I find it very difficult to get the bit channel information on monitors. Apple are just as bad. It really should be well advertised in the specs, don't you think?
The primary benefit of 6-bit over 8-bit is the faster refresh rate. A fast refresh rate is ideal if you're playing games ? but it doesn't affect colour accurate pro applications. Indeed, many pros will tell you that a slower refresh is preferable (within reason).
Panel manufacturers are EXTREMELY slippery when it comes to describing their panels. The refresh rates are a give away, but also if a manufacturer list as panel as support 16 million colours, it's a 6-bit, because 6-bit panels can only reproduce 16 million colours via dithering. Only true 8-bit panels can reproduce the full 16.7 million colours (and without any need for dithering). 6-bit panels are sometimes referred to as 18-bit (6-bits times three channels), and likewise 8-bit are sometimes referred to as 24-bit.
You'll also sometimes see a panel referred to as 8-bit FRC - this is actually a 6-bit panel as well. The FRC means Frame Rate Control and it's simply just another way of getting a 6-bit panel to simulate the colour gamut of an 8-bit display. It's a real minefield.
If you look at the tech specs for the iMac, MacBook, MacBook Air and MacBook Pro you'll see that they are listed as supporting either 'million of colours' or '16 million colours'. This is a very sneaky way of trying to pass of a 6-bit panel as having a similar colour gamut to a true 8-bit panel. Only the Cinema Displays are listing as offering '16.7 million colours' and that extra .7 million makes all the difference because it means that it's an 8-bit panel and that it'll reporduce the entire gamut without having to resort to dithering.
Quote:
So are Apple having problems sourcing manufacturers of LCD screens which provide 8-bit channel colour and have a decent refresh rate?
I would imagine that they are. There are probably manufacturers that are happy to continue developing the panels for Apple, but there will be a premium involved as the sort of panels that Apple requires are no longer in such high demand.
Quote:
Do the current models then suffer from poor refresh rate?
In the current Cinema Display family the 'poor' refresh rate could be considered a bonus for the pro user.
Quote:
A lot of good points there, well made. I understand where you are coming from now! I would say therefore the best path for Apple would be to have two ranges of monitors - Apple Cinema Display and Apple Cinema Pro Display (?) - with perhaps gloss 6-bit for the general consumer and matte 8-bit for the pro customer (or at least a choice)... Surely that would be the best way to break into the cheaper monitor market for them? There must be a market for people who buy Mac Minis, after all...?
Yes, that's something I've been saying for a while now. As it stands, Apple simply can't compete in the consumer market because they're effectively trying to sell-in an expensive pro product that's completely unsuitable for the consumer.
A Mac Display family & a Mac Pro Display family would appear to make sense...
The primary benefit of 6-bit over 8-bit is the faster refresh rate... Indeed, many pros will tell you that a slower refresh is preferable (within reason).
Forgive my definite ignorance here, but why is a slower refresh rate preferable for pro work? I've been studying LCDs for about a month now, trying to get a handle on which features are good for (which) population... why is a slower refresh rate preferable?
I too believe Apple should eliminate all glossy displays. I know they look cool in the store, but they are just wrong. And the cinema displays MUST stay matte.
The iMac glossy is plain ugly.
Does any one know the stats on the MacBook Pro for glossy vs. matte?
That's a good question ? I've no idea. Certainly you'd expect the refresh rate to be pretty important?
I've been doing a bit of net research and it seems as though the 6-bit screens are known as TN (Twisted Nematic) LCDs and the ones TVs usually use are MVA/PVA (multi-domain or patterned vertical alignment) screens. These are 8-bit colour and have better viewing angles.
Considering most LCD TVs require a fast response time too, why do TN LCDs get used instead of MVA/PVA?
You also get 6-bit TN screens that are described as 8-bit FCR, and you also get 6-bit MVA/PVA panels (MVA/PVA doesn't guarantee a panel is 8-bit) - so it can be tricky to generalise?
With regards to LCD TVs ? I'm probably not the best person to ask about that. My knowledge doesn't really extend beyond pro computer panels! But I do know that the pixel count on LCD TVs is far lower than that of computer panels...
Comments
20" Apple Home Display
- Glossy 1680x1050,
- 3x USB, IR Receiver, iSight Webcam
24" Apple Home Display- Glossy 1920x1200,
- 3x USB, IR Receiver, iSight Webcam
24" Apple Studio Display- Matte 1920x1200 LED,
- 2x USB, 1x FW400, 1x FW800, DisplayPort, IR Receiver
30" Apple Studio DisplayHopefully they'll just give glossy/matt options on all the new displays.
I don't see what's so wrong with the glossy displays. If you are actually forced into using one you'll realise how much sharper the detail is.
Okay, firstly, the Cinema Display product family is aimed at professionals – people who are concerned about colour reproduction rather than image sharpness. After all, in professional apps like Photoshop CS3, you can zoom in to 3200%. Very few pro users would attempt to retouch an image at 100% anyway – so the fractionally increased sharpness of a glossy panel over a matte panel really isn't an issue.
Secondly, Apple hasn't produced a single glossy LCD display to date that is suitable for professional use – because all of Apple's glossy panels are 6-bit, and 6-bit equals proper-fucked straight out of the box.
Thirdly, glossy displays suffer from reflections SO badly, that they are unusable.
Fourthly, the glossy 6-bit displays that Apple have shipped so far seem to suffer from a minimum dot – which results in any colour value <5% being bumped back up to 5%. As a result you won't be to get an accurate on-screen representation of a 0-5% gradient in any colour channel. Instead you'll get a flexography-like minimum dot size halo.
This is why I know that anybody who tries to persuade me that glossy screens are suitable for professional use, simply doesn't know what they are talking about.
I've had the misfortune of using a number of glossy displays – from MacBooks to MacBook Pros and the new iMacs – and they've caused no end of problems. Even if you can stomach working on a display that suffers from reflections so badly, you'll only get so far before you realise that the inaccuracies are affecting your outputs...
...glossy displays look great on the shelves, and consumers love them, but when it comes to pro work it has to be matte.
I will vomit if they make the Cinema Displays glossy.
if you're regarding my post, I was saying that I want a line of consumer displays (glossy), and a line of pro displays (matte!).
...glossy displays look great on the shelves, and consumers love them, but when it comes to pro work it has to be matte.
Okay, fair enough - but let's keep to the glossy vs matte debate, and not bring in all the stuff about the current range of glossy screens Apple has produced. Of course I wouldn't be interested in a 6-bit screen, minimum dot etc. That would be totally unacceptable.
I'm just saying that each screen should be available (at the SAME spec) in either glossy or matte. I'd have to see them side by side, but when I've compared like for like before, the glossy screen has had a superior contrast. Which, incidentally, is good for video.
A lot of people prefer the glossy screens, some of which are consumers but I know of a great deal of graphic designer friends who plumped for the glossy screen. Are you saying that if you buy a MB Pro with a matte screen you get an 8-bit screen? I can't imagine that's true. Are you saying the latest iMac screens are 6-bit? I have not heard of such complaints but please correct me if I am wrong.
A lot of people prefer the glossy screens, some of which are consumers but I know of a great deal of graphic designer friends who plumped for the glossy screen.
Yeah I know a lot of graphic designers who have bought glossy screens as well (I'm a graphic designer and I bought two of the new iMacs). It's very tempting to purchase an iMac instead of a Mac Pro and Cinema Display combo, because iMacs appear to offer such great value for money.
Unfortunately it's a false economy ? I had to offload my iMacs at a hefty loss on Ebay, and without exception my friends are moaning about their screens. I had a real scare when a job I was passing on press looked nothing like we were expecting it to look like. Luckily we were able to pull the job there and then. If I had trusted the 6-bit screens I would have been up shit creek without a paddle (but I would have had several million rejected whisky labels to keep me company). If you're a pro, and if you're signing off on artwork, 8-bit Cinema Displays are undoubtedly the way to go.
Are you saying that if you buy a MB Pro with a matte screen you get an 8-bit screen? I can't imagine that's true.
The only panels that Apple currently produces that use 8-bit screens are the Cinema Displays..
Are you saying the latest iMac screens are 6-bit? I have not heard of such complaints but please correct me if I am wrong.
Everything else, including the new iMacs, MacBooks and MacBooks Pros, use a 6-bit panel of some form or other ? regardless of whether it has a gloss or matte treatment. The 6-bit panels can theoretically achieve millions of colours, but only via dithering. And even with dithering, they can't achieve as many colours as a proper 8-bit screen. There has been a great deal of debate about this, and a few eyebrows raised over the fact that Apple shows Aperture running on MacBook Pro and iMac hardware when they are, strictly speaking, unsuitable. It's very simple - you can't edit an 8-bit image safely when all you can see are 6-bits.
That's why I'm saying that you can't currently purchase an Apple glossy screen that's suitable for colour reproduction work ? because they're all 6-bit. The images may look great on screen, but sooner or later it's going to come back and haunt you.
I suspect your question is whether or not a future 8-bit Apple Cinema Display with a glossy treatment would be suitable for Pro work. Based on my experience, the answer is categorically NO!
The only panels that Apple currently produces that use 8-bit screens are the Cinema Displays..
That's interesting to know. And a little disappointing!
I suspect your question is whether or not a future 8-bit Apple Cinema Display with a glossy treatment would be suitable for Pro work. Based on my experience, the answer is categorically NO!
I still find that quite a hard argument to swallow. Practically all CRT monitors in the past, pro or consumer, had glossy screens. I used to own the AppleVision 1710 which was considered a high-end monitor. It had a glossy screen and was one of the best colour reproducing monitors on the market. I never had any problems with reflection then, and I still don't have any problems with reflection on glossy LCD screens now.
Why have so many designers become so anti-gloss?
if you're regarding my post, I was saying that I want a line of consumer displays (glossy), and a line of pro displays (matte!).
Yes, but I want a consumer display that is not glossy. the glossy has such bad glare.... maybe they could have an option for glossy or matte on all of their displays.
That's interesting to know. And a little disappointing!
Yes.
I still find that quite a hard argument to swallow. Practically all CRT monitors in the past, pro or consumer, had glossy screens. I used to own the AppleVision 1710 which was considered a high-end monitor. It had a glossy screen and was one of the best colour reproducing monitors on the market. I never had any problems with reflection then, and I still don't have any problems with reflection on glossy LCD screens now.
Hehehe, the AppleVision 1710, now that's going back a bit! They were beautiful monitors. I had a Apple Colour Display 20, and a ColorSync 20 display around the same time.
CRTs generally have some sort of anti-reflective coating on them. The majority have a matte etching either on the inside or outside face of the glass. You can sometimes see this etching if the monitor is switched off and an external light source is reflected on the screen.
Reflections were a problem at the time, but the main reason that people didn't consider it an issue was because we simply didn't know any better. Back in the day printers would often have a darkroom set up for colour accurate work, or you would get monitors (like Eizos and LaCies) that had hoods. I still remember one occasion where a designer left, and my fellow designers were arguing over who should get their desk because it offered minimal reflections.
Whilst CRT monitors were glossy by their very nature (even although the manufacturers tried everything to tone down the glossiness), Apple go out of their way to make the screens as glossy as possible.
Why have so many designers become so anti-gloss?
Well like I say, a lot of it has to do with every gloss panel to date being 6-bit. Also, the gloss panels are configured to artificially accentuate the colours and contrast, so you're getting a false impression of what's there. You're then (in the case of the new iMac) viewing that image through a piece of highly polished, polarized glass. It's kind of like a professional sound engineer using Super Twin Turbo Bass Boosting headphones in a recording studio...
...like the speaker system in a recording studio, a professional computer monitor should produce as neutral an image as possible – you don't want to see colours that aren't actually there or likewise tone-down colours that are present. You need to know that what you are working with is as accurate a representation as possible.
This presents a problem for Apple, because the majority of the panel manufacturers are now catering for the PC gaming market and that means a shift away from accurate panels to panels that offer faster refresh rates (6-bit) and accentuated colours and contrast. This may go some way to explaining the relatively high price of the current Cinema Displays and the delays in bringing an updated Cinema Display family to market – Apple will have their work cut out sourcing suitable panels when the whole of the industry is forging full steam ahead in the opposite direction.
A lot of it has to do with ergonomics and usability as well – a glossy display on a laptop isn't just as bad because the laptop tends to be quite low in comparison to your head, and as a result you mostly tend to see the uppermost part of the wall behind you or the ceiling. With an iMac, and with the 24" in particular, it's bang right in front of you at eye level, so you see yourself and everything that's behind you - usually a window.
Reflections have a massive impact on eye-strain, and if you're like me you probably regularly pull 12 hour + days. The most common solution to reflections is to turn the brightness of the display right up, but then you only compound matters because now you're squinting into a very bright object for long periods of time. The current glass iMac will give me a migraine aura within a couple of hours – since switching back to a proper Cinema Display I haven't had a single migraine.
Take it from me, the new MacBooks and iMacs are great if you're playing around with iPhoto or surfing the net in your spare time, but if you're parked in front of one at your work for hours on end (and you're stressed up to your tits as it is), it's a horrible, horrible, place to be.
Hehehe, the AppleVision 1710, now that's going back a bit! They were beautiful monitors. I had a Apple Colour Display 20, and a ColorSync 20 display around the same time.
I was very unlucky with my AppleVision. The colour was great while it lasted, but then I started to get problems with the magnets and about 14 months after buying it, the thing went *foom*.
This presents a problem for Apple, because the majority of the panel manufacturers are now catering for the PC gaming market and that means a shift away from accurate panels to panels that offer faster refresh rates (6-bit) and accentuated colours and contrast.
Really - now it all begins to make sense... These 6-bit screens are good for refresh rate then? Do all PC monitors out there suffer the same? I find it very difficult to get the bit channel information on monitors. Apple are just as bad. It really should be well advertised in the specs, don't you think?
So are Apple having problems sourcing manufacturers of LCD screens which provide 8-bit channel colour and have a decent refresh rate? Do the current models then suffer from poor refresh rate?
Take it from me, the new MacBooks and iMacs are great if you're playing around with iPhoto or surfing the net in your spare time, but if you're parked in front of one at your work for hours on end (and you're stressed up to your tits as it is), it's a horrible, horrible, place to be.
A lot of good points there, well made. I understand where you are coming from now! I would say therefore the best path for Apple would be to have two ranges of monitors - Apple Cinema Display and Apple Cinema Pro Display (?) - with perhaps gloss 6-bit for the general consumer and matte 8-bit for the pro customer (or at least a choice)... Surely that would be the best way to break into the cheaper monitor market for them? There must be a market for people who buy Mac Minis, after all...?
It's safe to say that I'm now totally paranoid about this philosophy pervading in to their pro hardware. I hope Apple realise that pros are looking for no nonsense hardware that simply does it's job. In my experience, a glossy Cinema Display is a complete non-starter.
I am pleased to say that am I absolutely delighted with my new Mac Pro and Cinema Display combo - and I hope that Apple will continue to develop fantastic pro hardware for years to come.
Really - now it all begins to make sense... These 6-bit screens are good for refresh rate then? Do all PC monitors out there suffer the same? I find it very difficult to get the bit channel information on monitors. Apple are just as bad. It really should be well advertised in the specs, don't you think?
The primary benefit of 6-bit over 8-bit is the faster refresh rate. A fast refresh rate is ideal if you're playing games ? but it doesn't affect colour accurate pro applications. Indeed, many pros will tell you that a slower refresh is preferable (within reason).
Panel manufacturers are EXTREMELY slippery when it comes to describing their panels. The refresh rates are a give away, but also if a manufacturer list as panel as support 16 million colours, it's a 6-bit, because 6-bit panels can only reproduce 16 million colours via dithering. Only true 8-bit panels can reproduce the full 16.7 million colours (and without any need for dithering). 6-bit panels are sometimes referred to as 18-bit (6-bits times three channels), and likewise 8-bit are sometimes referred to as 24-bit.
You'll also sometimes see a panel referred to as 8-bit FRC - this is actually a 6-bit panel as well. The FRC means Frame Rate Control and it's simply just another way of getting a 6-bit panel to simulate the colour gamut of an 8-bit display. It's a real minefield.
If you look at the tech specs for the iMac, MacBook, MacBook Air and MacBook Pro you'll see that they are listed as supporting either 'million of colours' or '16 million colours'. This is a very sneaky way of trying to pass of a 6-bit panel as having a similar colour gamut to a true 8-bit panel. Only the Cinema Displays are listing as offering '16.7 million colours' and that extra .7 million makes all the difference because it means that it's an 8-bit panel and that it'll reporduce the entire gamut without having to resort to dithering.
So are Apple having problems sourcing manufacturers of LCD screens which provide 8-bit channel colour and have a decent refresh rate?
I would imagine that they are. There are probably manufacturers that are happy to continue developing the panels for Apple, but there will be a premium involved as the sort of panels that Apple requires are no longer in such high demand.
Do the current models then suffer from poor refresh rate?
In the current Cinema Display family the 'poor' refresh rate could be considered a bonus for the pro user.
A lot of good points there, well made. I understand where you are coming from now! I would say therefore the best path for Apple would be to have two ranges of monitors - Apple Cinema Display and Apple Cinema Pro Display (?) - with perhaps gloss 6-bit for the general consumer and matte 8-bit for the pro customer (or at least a choice)... Surely that would be the best way to break into the cheaper monitor market for them? There must be a market for people who buy Mac Minis, after all...?
Yes, that's something I've been saying for a while now. As it stands, Apple simply can't compete in the consumer market because they're effectively trying to sell-in an expensive pro product that's completely unsuitable for the consumer.
A Mac Display family & a Mac Pro Display family would appear to make sense...
Apologies for going slightly off-topic here, but am I correct in thinking therefore that most LCD TVs, even the expensive Sony ones, are only 6-bit?
That's a good question ? I've no idea. Certainly you'd expect the refresh rate to be pretty important?
The primary benefit of 6-bit over 8-bit is the faster refresh rate... Indeed, many pros will tell you that a slower refresh is preferable (within reason).
Forgive my definite ignorance here, but why is a slower refresh rate preferable for pro work? I've been studying LCDs for about a month now, trying to get a handle on which features are good for (which) population... why is a slower refresh rate preferable?
The iMac glossy is plain ugly.
Does any one know the stats on the MacBook Pro for glossy vs. matte?
That's a good question ? I've no idea. Certainly you'd expect the refresh rate to be pretty important?
I've been doing a bit of net research and it seems as though the 6-bit screens are known as TN (Twisted Nematic) LCDs and the ones TVs usually use are MVA/PVA (multi-domain or patterned vertical alignment) screens. These are 8-bit colour and have better viewing angles.
Considering most LCD TVs require a fast response time too, why do TN LCDs get used instead of MVA/PVA?
You also get 6-bit TN screens that are described as 8-bit FCR, and you also get 6-bit MVA/PVA panels (MVA/PVA doesn't guarantee a panel is 8-bit) - so it can be tricky to generalise?
With regards to LCD TVs ? I'm probably not the best person to ask about that. My knowledge doesn't really extend beyond pro computer panels! But I do know that the pixel count on LCD TVs is far lower than that of computer panels...