Apple's LED Cinema Display: the review

1235710

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 198
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sid-EOS View Post


    Seems like I must be the only guy that has no issue with the glossy MacBook Pro and the glossy 24" LED Cinema Display. To be honest, I did wonder if there would be a problem, but I now know that there are no reflection issues for me.



    Don't complain about something you haven't tried, but I guess that if you live on a sun deck then it may not work for you.



    Go into any store and compare your screen to a SONY Vaio screen and tell me there is no difference. You can't. The only screen that should be glossy is a PLASMA and that because of plasma technology itself.

    I have a plasma and love it but only because I have it positioned without any glare factor- between two windows. I pity the fool who spends hard earned money on a glossy laptop.
  • Reply 82 of 198
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    Lust is having two LED 24 Cinema Display on an articlulating arm.





    Make that TWO articulating arms.

  • Reply 83 of 198
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by robogobo View Post


    I did not know that.



    Hey, can I settle this Glossy/Matte issue once and for all? Some people like Glossy; some people like Matte. Offer an option and everybody wins. Now, was that so hard? Apple once saw things this way, and then they forgot. They should remember again. Options.



    Al Gore and the Green party threw Matte under the bus.
  • Reply 84 of 198
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by germ View Post


    Does this display suffer from the same problems of the 24" iMac monitor, namely uneven brightness level across the whole display area? This is very noticeable and very annoying on my iMac.



    Old 20" Cinema Display+Mac mini: Perfect display, no reflecions

    New 24" iMac: Very uneven display, lots of reflections. A definite step backwards.



    I have checked this a few times (since Saturday), it looks even across the full screen.

    Tested with techtool pro display test and all the solid colors in system prefs's desktop.
  • Reply 85 of 198
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mklos View Post


    Considering that Apple is selling more computers than it ever has in its history, and the fact that most of them are glossy displays, I doubt Apple really cares what you think. They're obviously making products people want or else they wouldn't be selling as many as they do.



    You don't think APple cafres about potential loss of sales and people defecting to other brands of hardware?

    If it wasn't for the OS a lot of us would probably buy something else. It's getting really tired.
  • Reply 86 of 198
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    steve jobs doesn"t care about matte people!









    hey solipsism - you are a true arse. When you go to an art gallery or museuM- would you prefer to see a painting (canvas) as is?

    0r under a shiny, glossy sheet of glass?
  • Reply 87 of 198
    asciiascii Posts: 5,936member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Woz2024 View Post


    And I can't see a reason why having the large plate of glass would prevent them from having matte - after all, matte screens are glass too!



    Good point. Also, to those who say matte is somehow less realistic or more distorted than glossy, get up from your computer and take a look around. Most real objects are not shiny and reflective.
  • Reply 88 of 198
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ascii View Post


    Good point. Also, to those who say matte is somehow less realistic or more distorted than glossy, get up from your computer and take a look around. Most real objects are not shiny and reflective.



    Thank goodness what lets you see with are clear, shiny and reflective, i.e., your eyes. Otherwise, everything would be less realistic or more distorted.
  • Reply 89 of 198
    i've been seriously bitten with my 20" adc apple display so i'm very weary bout any apple monitor. One of the internal components fused and died again a day after i replaced it. This apparently was subject to a class action suit for the 17" version... It's still ticking and usable. however i can't use it on a new mac pro without an expensive adaptor.



    making sweeping statements re matte is better for design etc is just as patronising and naiive as saying it doesn't matter. it's all about personal preference. I have 3 designers working in front of me all on imacs - 2 matte 1 gloss. Those using the smaller imacs prefer the matte the one working on gloss loves hers. My monitors are 2 cheapo matte thingies. Their colour accuracy is non existent but they help pick up differences in blacks for example more than any other display. Also, web professionals might prefer working on glossy screens as that's how most screens are being sold now. I also think that professional designers always learn how to compensate for colour inaccuracy and variance since even a matte screen can't give you excellent colour matching unless you spend time and money calibrating and if all your workflow is colour calibrated too.





    besides, with pro machines you are not forced to buy apple's offering and macbook owners will get adaptors soon enough so you can pick the screen you prefer. I won't be getting one not because the screen is gloss but because apple decided not to include more connectors. I currently have dvi equipped machines - i already bought 2 adaptors for my macbook... i'm not going to buy a 3rd. And it's a bit pricey as is this - http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showpr...odid=MO-024-DE but at least it has enough different ports... maybe no camera but i have a firewire isight...
  • Reply 90 of 198
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by waffle911 View Post


    That's just plain false. There have been opposing LED-backlit displays for at least several weeks, if not a few months. \



    And as for glare and reflections, what ever did we do before matte flat panel displays? We had glossy CRT's, if I'm not mistaken. I had an old TV that was completely unviewable without shutting the curtains and thus dictated the layout of the room. As far as I'm concerned, it's only two steps forward, one step back. No biggie. So what did we do? We had anti-glare filters that we clipped onto the monitor. Why not do it again? Apple could even approach this idea with an over-priced, aesthetically-complimentary screen filter for both the ACD and the iMac.



    I also recall the old CRT's had a anti-reflective coating, bit like my current plastic specs. If it was done for CRT's then it couldn't have been so costly, so why not do it for these new screens??
  • Reply 91 of 198
    asciiascii Posts: 5,936member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post


    Thank goodness what lets you see with are clear, shiny and reflective, i.e., your eyes. Otherwise, everything would be less realistic or more distorted.



    Thats not possible! Yours eyes are what defines reality for you and then "distortion" means any departure from that. I was merely pointing out that a lot of computer graphics can look too shiny to be realistic and maybe a little bit of filtering isn't such a bad thing, to make it closer to physical objects.



    Often the way you can recognize CGI in movies is that it's too shiny, and sometimes computer games use "trilinear filtering" and such to try and improve the realism.
  • Reply 92 of 198
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,323moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post


    Thank goodness what lets you see with are clear, shiny and reflective, i.e., your eyes. Otherwise, everything would be less realistic or more distorted.



    The assertions that matte somehow blurs/distorts the outgoing images are way over-exaggerated and obviously being made to counter the slightly over-exaggerated glossy claims. It partly depends on your resolution and screen-size. A 1680 x 1050 20" screen is going to look sharper than a 1440 x 900 19" screen. A high enough resolution matte screen that is properly setup with your display signal (usually just pressing an auto-setup button) is very sharp.



    The issue is with the glass plate. It needs a coating to absorb light rather than reflect it:



    http://devicedaily.com/misc/new-anti...ll-angles.html



    It needs to be able to transmit outgoing light very well so the solar panel tech might not be useful. If it could be used, it could charge the machine too and that improves the green status further.
  • Reply 93 of 198
    My money's ready for a 30' LED Cinema Display I can connect to my 2008 MacPro - I hope I won't have to wait too long.
  • Reply 94 of 198
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


    I was just reminiscing the other day about how the traditionalists argued that film could never be replaced by digital imaging .... oh the debates were fun back then. I also remember type setters screaming Mac's keyboards were far too small for them. Pre press folks love to fight progress at times.



    But the debate over digital vs. film was back when digital wasn't producing the same quality as film so it's not really a parallel situation. Digital eventually improved and got better than film.



    In this case, matte screens replaced the old CRT displays and alleviated the glare and reflection problems. The current trend toward glossy screens is a step backward in that regard.



    A more similar situation would be if the makers of digital imaging equipment suddenly decided to push a system by which users would have to have their images "developed" on a physical media before you could view it, just like in the old days. That's more akin to what's happening with displays. It's an intentional step backward.
  • Reply 95 of 198
    Part of my work is in graphic design: my final products are either in print or on DVD. I like working on glossy and matte screens; sometimes I have a choice (at the office), sometimes I don't (when I'm out with a single notebook). Both have their good and bad points and work better or worse in various situations. It can also depend on my mood on the day. For any project, I always review it on a variety of screens including my plasma TV at home, which is again very different. All in all, I think it is a very personal decision as to which is better and sweeping statements for or against either are just not easy to make and stand by.
  • Reply 96 of 198
    kodakoda Posts: 4member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jaw3000 View Post


    Does anyone know where one can download the grass with dewdrop wallpaper image used in the review? Thanks!



    Update: Found it! http://www.shareapic.net/content.php...owner=Turnbull



    yay finally!

    thanks
  • Reply 97 of 198
    messiahmessiah Posts: 1,689member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


    Isn't this screen fort the MacBook? Don't professionals have a pair of 30" ACDs on a Mac Pro?



    Absolutely.



    But I think the professionals are starting to worry that their screens will soon have glass panels as well. After all, the MacBook Pro is meant to be a professional notebook computer, and it has a glass panel.
  • Reply 98 of 198
    messiahmessiah Posts: 1,689member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by inkswamp View Post


    But the debate over digital vs. film was back when digital wasn't producing the same quality as film so it's not really a parallel situation. Digital eventually improved and got better than film.



    In this case, matte screens replaced the old CRT displays and alleviated the glare and reflection problems. The current trend toward glossy screens is a step backward in that regard.



    A more similar situation would be if the makers of digital imaging equipment suddenly decided to push a system by which users would have to have their images "developed" on a physical media before you could view it, just like in the old days. That's more akin to what's happening with displays. It's an intentional step backward.



    I couldn't agree more.
  • Reply 99 of 198
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ascii View Post


    Thats not possible! Yours eyes are what defines reality for you and then "distortion" means any departure from that. I was merely pointing out that a lot of computer graphics can look too shiny to be realistic and maybe a little bit of filtering isn't such a bad thing, to make it closer to physical objects.



    Often the way you can recognize CGI in movies is that it's too shiny, and sometimes computer games use "trilinear filtering" and such to try and improve the realism.



    There is an adage that states, "The more choices one has, the longer it takes to make a decision." In business, the more choices I give you, the more it costs to make, inventory or distribute.



    And another equally important adage is, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." In business, "ugly doesn't sell."



    So in light of what you said above, Apple has a choice to place a sheet of clear glass, a non-reflective glass or both on its new LED backlit LCDs to protect the screens, which is the primary purpose of the glass panel in the first place.



    Now as we have witnessed in these forums, there will never be one perfectly acceptable format for everybody.



    However, there is only one iteration that could work for or could satisfy everybody. The decision can be as fast as you can get out your credit card, and it will be the least expensive from both the manufacturer's and consumer's perspective once you have decided that a new LED Cinema Display would be perfect for you.



    That is the one that Apple is currently selling. Clear, glossy glass and all. Its big, bright, green, and placed in the right light, glare free. And if you can't adjust it's position, turn down the overhead reflecting lights or find it too realistic and shiny, just buy a suitable matte film overlay. It is not permanent. As such, you can have a second choice at any time you want. However, I would suggest that the choosing which matte film will best suit your needs, will equally drive you mad.



    Remember, if Apple did give you a 'matte' choice, you couldn't make it 'clear'.



    By then however, you may come to the same conclusion as was reported by James' in his article, "LED-backlit display: Is it better for digital photography?" on O'Reilly's Digital Media site. http://blogs.oreilly.com/aperture/20...s-it-bett.html



    As I said before, the iPhone or iPod Touch is one of the best examples what 'clear glossy' screens will affect. Off, it is a mirror. On, clear, brilliant images with no glare. Same for Jobo's Mirror L. http://www.jobo.com/web/Mirage-L-PDJ155.435.0.html
  • Reply 100 of 198
    messiahmessiah Posts: 1,689member
    As a freelance graphic designer, I've already worked in more studios than most people will see in their entire career.



    In the last year or so, a lot of the studios have been replacing their aging Power Mac G5s with aluminium iMacs, rather than Mac Pros. You can argue the benefits of the Mac Pros until you are blue in the face, but every single studio I've worked with can't see past the price tag, and hence they go for the iMac every single time.



    So I've been asking around to see what end-users make of the new iMacs. Without exception, and I'm talking about 30+ seats here, including designers and artworkers, the end users loved the look of the new iMacs, but having used them for any longer than one day, they now HATE the iMacs glassy screen with a passion. The word 'torture' was actually used.



    There are studios who replaced a few machines, realised their mistake, and are now scratching their heads about what to buy now, because unless they pony up for Mac Pros, their choices are limited.



    This is where the market share and financial results don't tell the truth ? these studios have bought the kit, and the money is in Apple's coffers, but they don't actually like what they've bought, and they are unlikely to buy glassy Apple products again. In three years time, when they come to replace their fleet of aluminium iMacs, they aren't going to buy glassy again. And if all that Apple offers them is glassy, they simply won't be buying Apple.



    I wonder how many aluminium iMac users, the power of denial aside, actually have buyers remorse? I'm guessing there are a lot of people out there who thought that the iMac looked great on the shopfloor are now regretting the glassy screen. I personally owned two, and I offloaded them on Ebay at a massive loss shortly after buying them.
Sign In or Register to comment.