Do the ones that have HDMI inputs also have digital audio out passthrough from the HDMI?
My LG monitor, with an HDMI port, has an audio-out but no-audio in (except the HDMI). It's not digital, though, but I don't see why a company could not make that.
Of the 5 LCD monitors I own (one is for the wife's computers), all but my Apple Al 23" have multiple inputs. This includes an aging 17" NEC (2x VGA), a 20" LG (1x DVI, 1x VGA), a 20" WS Dell (1 xDVI, 1x VGA, 1x RCA, 1x SVHS) and an 24" WS EIZO (2x DVI). Even my 3 smaller HDTV LCDs have multiple PC inputs (VGA and DVI), as well as the big Sony LCD TV.
WISH LIST:
For new Cinema Displays, I'd like to see multiple inputs, built-in camera, and 12- or 14-bit factory tested and calibrated color on larger Pro models like my EIZO has.
Can't believe no one asked for swivel support, although I never use it personally, some folks might appreciate it.
Thinner bezels are always welcome (I work with three side-by-side screens connected to my Mac Pro. And front mounted controls instead of one the side. (Ever try to get to the Power button an an ACD when you have two of them side-by-side? Design over function...)
AND... real height adjustment instead of just tilting.
That's what your third party vesa mounting bracket and swing arm--third parties need love too.
There are two possible responses I can think of, one, it requires an adapter that's not included with the ACD, adding to an already fairly high cost of an ACD + a third party arm, the other, I don't remember seeing one that looks like it belongs with an ACD.
For new Cinema Displays, I'd like to see multiple inputs, built-in camera, and 12- or 14-bit factory tested and calibrated color on larger Pro models like my EIZO has.
There are no monitors with 12 or 14 bit color. There is a difference between the software calibration in 12 or even 14 bit for internal accuracy, and the actual monitor, which at present, can have no more than a 10 bit screen.
Quote:
Can't believe no one asked for swivel support, although I never use it personally, some folks might appreciate it.
On smooth surfaces, the monitor foot moves easily enough so that a swivel isn't required. But, you're right as well. On a surface where the foot can't move easily, a swivel would be nice.
Quote:
AND... real height adjustment instead of just tilting.
That's something I've always wondered about.
The top of the screen is supposed to be at about eye height. You are supposed to look down a bit to the rest of the display. That's the correct ergonomic presentation. In Europe, at least in offices, it's the law.
The only reason why monitors are set higher is tradition. When desktop computers were first with us, they were horizontal, on the desk, and the monitor was put on top. This was just the only way it could be done. No one thought about the ergonomics back then.
When towers came out, and were put on the floor, monitor stands came out, which let you put things into them, under the monitor, to save space on the rest of the desk. Why? Because people were used to having monitors higher up anyway, so the space was used for this.
But there's no good reason to have a monitor with adjustable height.
The larger monitors are already at the maximum height at the lowest setting. The 30's are too high at the top to begin with.
The top of the screen is supposed to be at about eye height. You are supposed to look down a bit to the rest of the display. That's the correct ergonomic presentation. In Europe, at least in offices, it's the law.
The only reason why monitors are set higher is tradition. When desktop computers were first with us, they were horizontal, on the desk, and the monitor was put on top. This was just the only way it could be done. No one thought about the ergonomics back then.
When towers came out, and were put on the floor, monitor stands came out, which let you put things into them, under the monitor, to save space on the rest of the desk. Why? Because people were used to having monitors higher up anyway, so the space was used for this.
But there's no good reason to have a monitor with adjustable height.
The larger monitors are already at the maximum height at the lowest setting. The 30's are too high at the top to begin with.
You've addressed the high position, how about the low? And how about variations between individuals? There's only so much a seat can be adjusted to make up for a fixed height monitor to set the user eye level to the top of the screen. On those old systems you mention, the height wasn't so much of a problem then because most of the screens were pretty small anyway.
You've addressed the high position, how about the low? And how about variations between individuals? There's only so much a seat can be adjusted to make up for a fixed height monitor to set the user eye level to the top of the screen. On those old systems you mention, the height wasn't so much of a problem then because most of the screens were pretty small anyway.
It seems that the way most monitors are built, the connectors are facing down. If the monitor were to be moved lower, the cables would be bent too much. Bad design? Probably.
I'm not so sure that moving the monitor down another couple of inches would make much difference. The height adjustments I see usually allow the monitor to be lifted a good five or more inches above their lowest position.
Many people also seem to keep things under the monitor bezel.
Yes, the old 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16" monitors were pretty small by todays standards. On the other hand, they were crts. The monitors were bulkier all the way round. They tended to stand higher to begin with. None had height adjustment.
But, as I said, no one really gave a thought to ergonomics back then. It was just a matter of finding room on the desk for these newfangled things.
It seems that the way most monitors are built, the connectors are facing down. If the monitor were to be moved lower, the cables would be bent too much. Bad design? Probably.
The connectors do face down, but they usually aren't too close to the bottom edge to be able to slide it down a bit. My Samsung has the connectors about a third of the way up.
Not if they want to actually sell any of them to professionals.
There have been many discussions on this already.
The glossy MacBook Pros do have a smooth surface treatment that reduces reflection without applying a texture. I wish the treatment was stronger, but it is there, and it's not too bad.
Here's a clue for you, Apple is not everyone else. The sooner you understand that the sooner you might begin to understand things. Apple is very successful doing things their way. They've said awhile back that all displays would be LED backlit by the end of 2009, so relax. If they're too expensive for you, then stay with your cheapies.
Why, in God's name would they want to sell the 30" display for $1000 less? Do you understand how companies make money and their responsibility to their shareholders? It doesn't sound like it. You're joking, right?
Comments
Apple is a member of a competing organization which some might remember. That is UDI.
UDI is dead. It has ceased to be. Apple is also a member of VESA, which created DisplayPort.
Do the ones that have HDMI inputs also have digital audio out passthrough from the HDMI?
My LG monitor, with an HDMI port, has an audio-out but no-audio in (except the HDMI). It's not digital, though, but I don't see why a company could not make that.
Do the ones that have HDMI inputs also have digital audio out passthrough from the HDMI?
For my devices, it doesn't matter. They have separate digital outputs for audio.
Of the 5 LCD monitors I own (one is for the wife's computers), all but my Apple Al 23" have multiple inputs. This includes an aging 17" NEC (2x VGA), a 20" LG (1x DVI, 1x VGA), a 20" WS Dell (1 xDVI, 1x VGA, 1x RCA, 1x SVHS) and an 24" WS EIZO (2x DVI). Even my 3 smaller HDTV LCDs have multiple PC inputs (VGA and DVI), as well as the big Sony LCD TV.
WISH LIST:
For new Cinema Displays, I'd like to see multiple inputs, built-in camera, and 12- or 14-bit factory tested and calibrated color on larger Pro models like my EIZO has.
Can't believe no one asked for swivel support, although I never use it personally, some folks might appreciate it.
Thinner bezels are always welcome (I work with three side-by-side screens connected to my Mac Pro. And front mounted controls instead of one the side. (Ever try to get to the Power button an an ACD when you have two of them side-by-side? Design over function...)
AND... real height adjustment instead of just tilting.
That's what your third party vesa mounting bracket and swing arm--third parties need love too.
http://www.sanus.com/us/en/products/...at/deskMounts/
That's what your third party vesa mounting bracket and swing arm--third parties need love too.
http://www.sanus.com/us/en/products/...at/deskMounts/
There are two possible responses I can think of, one, it requires an adapter that's not included with the ACD, adding to an already fairly high cost of an ACD + a third party arm, the other, I don't remember seeing one that looks like it belongs with an ACD.
WISH LIST:
For new Cinema Displays, I'd like to see multiple inputs, built-in camera, and 12- or 14-bit factory tested and calibrated color on larger Pro models like my EIZO has.
There are no monitors with 12 or 14 bit color. There is a difference between the software calibration in 12 or even 14 bit for internal accuracy, and the actual monitor, which at present, can have no more than a 10 bit screen.
Can't believe no one asked for swivel support, although I never use it personally, some folks might appreciate it.
On smooth surfaces, the monitor foot moves easily enough so that a swivel isn't required. But, you're right as well. On a surface where the foot can't move easily, a swivel would be nice.
AND... real height adjustment instead of just tilting.
That's something I've always wondered about.
The top of the screen is supposed to be at about eye height. You are supposed to look down a bit to the rest of the display. That's the correct ergonomic presentation. In Europe, at least in offices, it's the law.
The only reason why monitors are set higher is tradition. When desktop computers were first with us, they were horizontal, on the desk, and the monitor was put on top. This was just the only way it could be done. No one thought about the ergonomics back then.
When towers came out, and were put on the floor, monitor stands came out, which let you put things into them, under the monitor, to save space on the rest of the desk. Why? Because people were used to having monitors higher up anyway, so the space was used for this.
But there's no good reason to have a monitor with adjustable height.
The larger monitors are already at the maximum height at the lowest setting. The 30's are too high at the top to begin with.
The top of the screen is supposed to be at about eye height. You are supposed to look down a bit to the rest of the display. That's the correct ergonomic presentation. In Europe, at least in offices, it's the law.
The only reason why monitors are set higher is tradition. When desktop computers were first with us, they were horizontal, on the desk, and the monitor was put on top. This was just the only way it could be done. No one thought about the ergonomics back then.
When towers came out, and were put on the floor, monitor stands came out, which let you put things into them, under the monitor, to save space on the rest of the desk. Why? Because people were used to having monitors higher up anyway, so the space was used for this.
But there's no good reason to have a monitor with adjustable height.
The larger monitors are already at the maximum height at the lowest setting. The 30's are too high at the top to begin with.
You've addressed the high position, how about the low? And how about variations between individuals? There's only so much a seat can be adjusted to make up for a fixed height monitor to set the user eye level to the top of the screen. On those old systems you mention, the height wasn't so much of a problem then because most of the screens were pretty small anyway.
UDI is dead. It has ceased to be. Apple is also a member of VESA, which created DisplayPort.
It's not actually dead yet, but it's not looking good I admit.
You've addressed the high position, how about the low? And how about variations between individuals? There's only so much a seat can be adjusted to make up for a fixed height monitor to set the user eye level to the top of the screen. On those old systems you mention, the height wasn't so much of a problem then because most of the screens were pretty small anyway.
It seems that the way most monitors are built, the connectors are facing down. If the monitor were to be moved lower, the cables would be bent too much. Bad design? Probably.
I'm not so sure that moving the monitor down another couple of inches would make much difference. The height adjustments I see usually allow the monitor to be lifted a good five or more inches above their lowest position.
Many people also seem to keep things under the monitor bezel.
Yes, the old 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16" monitors were pretty small by todays standards. On the other hand, they were crts. The monitors were bulkier all the way round. They tended to stand higher to begin with. None had height adjustment.
But, as I said, no one really gave a thought to ergonomics back then. It was just a matter of finding room on the desk for these newfangled things.
It seems that the way most monitors are built, the connectors are facing down. If the monitor were to be moved lower, the cables would be bent too much. Bad design? Probably.
The connectors do face down, but they usually aren't too close to the bottom edge to be able to slide it down a bit. My Samsung has the connectors about a third of the way up.
All Cinema Displays will go glossy!
Not if they want to actually sell any of them to professionals.
There have been many discussions on this already.
The glossy MacBook Pros do have a smooth surface treatment that reduces reflection without applying a texture. I wish the treatment was stronger, but it is there, and it's not too bad.
All Cinema Displays will go glossy!
I do hope so, there are still some graphic designers out there trying to get work done on their Macs and this would stop them right in their tracks!
Here's a clue for you, Apple is not everyone else. The sooner you understand that the sooner you might begin to understand things. Apple is very successful doing things their way. They've said awhile back that all displays would be LED backlit by the end of 2009, so relax. If they're too expensive for you, then stay with your cheapies.
Why, in God's name would they want to sell the 30" display for $1000 less? Do you understand how companies make money and their responsibility to their shareholders? It doesn't sound like it. You're joking, right?
Personally I'm hoping they put the prices up.
All Cinema Displays will go glossy!
Maybe they should go pebble-grained, or "textured". Mine gets that way in a few months anyway!