Now that Apple have adopted 16:9 display on their iMacs, what is the likehood of them releasing 16:9 Cinema Displays and also making the 24 inch a 27 and the killing the 24 down to a 21 or 22 inch ?
Now that Apple have adopted 16:9 display on their iMacs, what is the likehood of them releasing 16:9 Cinema Displays and also making the 24 inch a 27 and the killing the 24 down to a 21 or 22 inch ?
Any views and ideas welcome
I don't think Apple would make anything less than their current 24" display. With the iMac at 21" and 27", the only other display Apple might come out with is a pro-level 16:9 display at 30++ inches for Pro use. Non glossy, LED-backlit. Which may or may not happen in 2010.
I don't think Apple would make anything less than their current 24" display. With the iMac at 21" and 27", the only other display Apple might come out with is a pro-level 16:9 display at 30++ inches for Pro use. Non glossy, LED-backlit. Which may or may not happen in 2010.
hmmmm i am not sure about that, i have been using the new imac with a 16:9 display and i now finding it super annoying when doing photo editing or video editing as the screen is now filled with the picture and the tool bars and edit bars have to float around on the picture which is very annoying. i could see maybe a 21 and 27 inch 16:9 and a revamped 30 inch led but not in 16:9.
Everybody knows the Cinema Displays are outdated. So Apple ought to be working on that. The problem is such displays serve the needs of the semi pro market and as such aren't really off the shelf panels. This means Apple has to work with somebody capable of building a custom LCD screen. So a new Cinema Display will be built to whatever dimensions Apple wants. I suspect Apple will continue to support 16:10.
2.
The problem with matte screens is that they muddy the redition and mess up the colors. I expect Apple to step away from matte on it's best screens. It makes far more sense to make use of such hardware in a room with controlled lighting.
3.
As to pixel density, the timing is right for a lot more pixels on screen. I could see Apple doubling to 2160P on the low end and maybe shoot for a 4K screen at the high end. That high end screen could easily be 42 inches in size
4.
Apple could surprise us with a smaller screen for field use. Something around 17-20" with 16:9 ratio. The device might be doable as a OLED screen. This would be a screen specifically designed to work in conjunction with a laptop and would be 1080P. The idea is a high quality screen for output with the editing tools on the laptop screen. That is a lot of pixels for a small screen so there would gave to be a focus on quality. Some will say just use a 17" MBP, but let's face it the screen is just to small. If Apple where real smart they would make sure the screen is the same ouside dimensions as the MBP.
5.
I'd actually would like to see Apple do a video projector. Maybe even one that supports Light Peak as an interconnect. Could Apple add the value required to sell the product? I don't know but a projector with full remote capabilities would be nice. By remote I mean a projector that can be adjusted for distortion over the net as well as normal video quality adjustments. By the way I want real shifting of the lens not some half baked electronic compensation.
6.
Oh all of the above need HDMI interfaces and scalling hardware where needed. As much as Apple would like us to believe one interface isn't the final word on pro usage. In fact a real pro monitor should be able to be retasked quickly as needed. So HDMI, DVI and whatever else is needed should be there. I'm thinking that Light Peak may have an important tole here too.
7.
How about an Apple display for a 19" rack?
8.
A pro monitor supporting multiple sources needs to be able to do pip of those sources. This would greatly expand the monitors usefulness.
9.
Aluminum is nice but a very dull and non reflective finish is needed. The only part of a video monitor you should notice is the front screen. The ideal finish would make the rest invisible, since that is not yet possible we have to settle for dull.
10.
To make it an even ten how about this. Apple offers up a large screen digital ink screen. Don't ask why it is number ten. On the other hand somebody out there wil claim a use for it.
When it comes to displays, apple can be a tad unpredictable. They come out with things you don't expect and you sometimes never see the products you do expect. 21.5" and 27" ACD do seem like a good idea, but like I said, do take anything for granted.
I don't see the 24" LED Cinema Display sticking around all that much longer given the recent switch in display ratios from 16:10 to 16:9 in the iMac, which is probably less expensive (or will become less expensive than 16:10 panels).
I prefer 16:10 to 16:9 but it is not important to me. 16:9 would not stop me from buying a monitor.
For me, pixel density and pixel count are the most important factors. I want 3840x2400 (or even 3840x2160) in a display of not more than 32 inches or 80 centimeters.
If Apple were offering 3840x2160 and other companies were offering 3840x2400 at the same pixel density, I would buy the non-Apple monitor.
27" Cinema Display should be announced soon. It would be insane for Apple not to take advantage of the volume pricing of the 2560x1440 IPS LED-backlit LG panel that is in the high end iMac.
Will we also see a 21.5" LCD display based on the panel in the low-end iMac? Such a display would be an excellent partner for the Mac Mini or the ever speculated but never introduced headless midrange Mac...
Prices:
- $1,199 for the 27" Cinema Display
- $499 for the 21.5" LCD Display
A 32" LCD with 3840x2160 resolution would be an icing on the cake, though it would probably cost in the $2999 range and require a graphics card with upgraded Display Port support (or two dual-DVI ports)
I think Apple themselves are undecided as to what to do with the next generation displays.
Since the introduction of glassy displays, and the backlash that has ensued, I guess the penny has dropped that no matter what they release, it's going to alienate half of their target market.
It's clear to see that glassy doesn't work on the 27" iMac, nevermind a 30"+ display. But Apple has harped on about the 'benefits' of glossy to a point where it's difficult for them to do a U-turn now...
what dave said about lightpeak cabling, that would be an amazing upgrade,
i hope apple come out with three monitors a 20 inch, 27 and a 32 inch and have the 32 inch in matte or glossy. but most off all i miss the firewire port on the back of the old cinema displays, if there were only two cables coming from the display, a video cable (which handled sound, usb, video and firewire) and magsafe cable i would be set to buy one of these
but i think no one can tell what apple is going to do, so i guess it is just wait till next year and hope steve reads this :P
A 32" LCD with 3840x2160 resolution would be an icing on the cake, though it would probably cost in the $2999 range and require a graphics card with upgraded Display Port support (or two dual-DVI ports)
3840x2160 would require DisplayPort version 1.2 which was due for adoption last month. I'm not sure whether the standard has been adopted yet or not, but DisplayPort 1.2 is definitely coming. I would be delighted to pay $2999 for a 3840x2160 or 3840x2400 monitor in the 30 to 32 inch (75 to 80 cm) size range.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natecoe
What I don't understand is why Apple won't start implementing OLED technology in their products. I mean, come on, at least the cinema displays.
Yields are low and therefore prices are high for large OLED devices. Most current OLED applications are smart phones and other products requiring similarly small displays.
I think Apple themselves are undecided as to what to do with the next generation displays.
Since the introduction of glassy displays, and the backlash that has ensued, I guess the penny has dropped that no matter what they release, it's going to alienate half of their target market.
My guess is a glass default with a matte option. My other guess is that the glass display far outsells the matte one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Messiah
Apple has harped on about the 'benefits' of glossy to a point where it's difficult for them to do a U-turn now...
I've never seen Apple talk itself into any corner that it couldn't talk its way out of with a whiplash-inducing 180. "Meet the New Shiny" is practically a way of life there.
As to pixel density, the timing is right for a lot more pixels on screen. I could see Apple doubling to 2160P on the low end and maybe shoot for a 4K screen at the high end. That high end screen could easily be 42 inches in size
Dave
That would make my day as a designer. But I am not holding my breath. I am waiting for so many years to get another 30"+ to go alongside my 30" ACD and I keep getting disappointed every year.
Comments
Now that Apple have adopted 16:9 display on their iMacs, what is the likehood of them releasing 16:9 Cinema Displays and also making the 24 inch a 27 and the killing the 24 down to a 21 or 22 inch ?
Any views and ideas welcome
I don't think Apple would make anything less than their current 24" display. With the iMac at 21" and 27", the only other display Apple might come out with is a pro-level 16:9 display at 30++ inches for Pro use. Non glossy, LED-backlit. Which may or may not happen in 2010.
I don't think Apple would make anything less than their current 24" display. With the iMac at 21" and 27", the only other display Apple might come out with is a pro-level 16:9 display at 30++ inches for Pro use. Non glossy, LED-backlit. Which may or may not happen in 2010.
hmmmm i am not sure about that, i have been using the new imac with a 16:9 display and i now finding it super annoying when doing photo editing or video editing as the screen is now filled with the picture and the tool bars and edit bars have to float around on the picture which is very annoying. i could see maybe a 21 and 27 inch 16:9 and a revamped 30 inch led but not in 16:9.
anyone have any thoughts on this?
Everybody knows the Cinema Displays are outdated. So Apple ought to be working on that. The problem is such displays serve the needs of the semi pro market and as such aren't really off the shelf panels. This means Apple has to work with somebody capable of building a custom LCD screen. So a new Cinema Display will be built to whatever dimensions Apple wants. I suspect Apple will continue to support 16:10.
2.
The problem with matte screens is that they muddy the redition and mess up the colors. I expect Apple to step away from matte on it's best screens. It makes far more sense to make use of such hardware in a room with controlled lighting.
3.
As to pixel density, the timing is right for a lot more pixels on screen. I could see Apple doubling to 2160P on the low end and maybe shoot for a 4K screen at the high end. That high end screen could easily be 42 inches in size
4.
Apple could surprise us with a smaller screen for field use. Something around 17-20" with 16:9 ratio. The device might be doable as a OLED screen. This would be a screen specifically designed to work in conjunction with a laptop and would be 1080P. The idea is a high quality screen for output with the editing tools on the laptop screen. That is a lot of pixels for a small screen so there would gave to be a focus on quality. Some will say just use a 17" MBP, but let's face it the screen is just to small. If Apple where real smart they would make sure the screen is the same ouside dimensions as the MBP.
5.
I'd actually would like to see Apple do a video projector. Maybe even one that supports Light Peak as an interconnect. Could Apple add the value required to sell the product? I don't know but a projector with full remote capabilities would be nice. By remote I mean a projector that can be adjusted for distortion over the net as well as normal video quality adjustments. By the way I want real shifting of the lens not some half baked electronic compensation.
6.
Oh all of the above need HDMI interfaces and scalling hardware where needed. As much as Apple would like us to believe one interface isn't the final word on pro usage. In fact a real pro monitor should be able to be retasked quickly as needed. So HDMI, DVI and whatever else is needed should be there. I'm thinking that Light Peak may have an important tole here too.
7.
How about an Apple display for a 19" rack?
8.
A pro monitor supporting multiple sources needs to be able to do pip of those sources. This would greatly expand the monitors usefulness.
9.
Aluminum is nice but a very dull and non reflective finish is needed. The only part of a video monitor you should notice is the front screen. The ideal finish would make the rest invisible, since that is not yet possible we have to settle for dull.
10.
To make it an even ten how about this. Apple offers up a large screen digital ink screen. Don't ask why it is number ten. On the other hand somebody out there wil claim a use for it.
Dave
For me, pixel density and pixel count are the most important factors. I want 3840x2400 (or even 3840x2160) in a display of not more than 32 inches or 80 centimeters.
If Apple were offering 3840x2160 and other companies were offering 3840x2400 at the same pixel density, I would buy the non-Apple monitor.
Will we also see a 21.5" LCD display based on the panel in the low-end iMac? Such a display would be an excellent partner for the Mac Mini or the ever speculated but never introduced headless midrange Mac...
Prices:
- $1,199 for the 27" Cinema Display
- $499 for the 21.5" LCD Display
A 32" LCD with 3840x2160 resolution would be an icing on the cake, though it would probably cost in the $2999 range and require a graphics card with upgraded Display Port support (or two dual-DVI ports)
Prices:
- $1,199 for the 27" Cinema Display
- $499 for the 21.5" LCD Display
Hard to justify $1200 for a 27" monitor when the whole iMac computer is just $500 more, and 27" HD TV's are half the price.
Since the introduction of glassy displays, and the backlash that has ensued, I guess the penny has dropped that no matter what they release, it's going to alienate half of their target market.
It's clear to see that glassy doesn't work on the 27" iMac, nevermind a 30"+ display. But Apple has harped on about the 'benefits' of glossy to a point where it's difficult for them to do a U-turn now...
i hope apple come out with three monitors a 20 inch, 27 and a 32 inch and have the 32 inch in matte or glossy. but most off all i miss the firewire port on the back of the old cinema displays, if there were only two cables coming from the display, a video cable (which handled sound, usb, video and firewire) and magsafe cable i would be set to buy one of these
but i think no one can tell what apple is going to do, so i guess it is just wait till next year and hope steve reads this :P
A 32" LCD with 3840x2160 resolution would be an icing on the cake, though it would probably cost in the $2999 range and require a graphics card with upgraded Display Port support (or two dual-DVI ports)
3840x2160 would require DisplayPort version 1.2 which was due for adoption last month. I'm not sure whether the standard has been adopted yet or not, but DisplayPort 1.2 is definitely coming. I would be delighted to pay $2999 for a 3840x2160 or 3840x2400 monitor in the 30 to 32 inch (75 to 80 cm) size range.
What I don't understand is why Apple won't start implementing OLED technology in their products. I mean, come on, at least the cinema displays.
Yields are low and therefore prices are high for large OLED devices. Most current OLED applications are smart phones and other products requiring similarly small displays.
I think Apple themselves are undecided as to what to do with the next generation displays.
Since the introduction of glassy displays, and the backlash that has ensued, I guess the penny has dropped that no matter what they release, it's going to alienate half of their target market.
My guess is a glass default with a matte option. My other guess is that the glass display far outsells the matte one.
Apple has harped on about the 'benefits' of glossy to a point where it's difficult for them to do a U-turn now...
I've never seen Apple talk itself into any corner that it couldn't talk its way out of with a whiplash-inducing 180. "Meet the New Shiny" is practically a way of life there.
1.
3.
As to pixel density, the timing is right for a lot more pixels on screen. I could see Apple doubling to 2160P on the low end and maybe shoot for a 4K screen at the high end. That high end screen could easily be 42 inches in size
Dave
That would make my day as a designer.