Tell me about it. My eyes and head hurts just thinking about it.
Which indicates no capacity for objectivity.
Quote:
.......
Then the heat of the display will just cook the film, one has to buy another and another and another.
What heat? It is an LED backlight LCD, where is the heat?
Quote:
But LOOK MA IT'S SO SHINY!!! I know how women with high heel shoes feels now.
Apple will learn one day, that they are seriously jeopardizing their market and customer interest in computers by having these glossy/reflective displays.
I don't think you know what you are talking about here. Apples sales are up and they likely got all the consummer feedback they needed a couple of years ago when they offered both. I'm sure if there was a market for the displays Apple would be selling them, the reality is nobody with a grip on quality wants a matte display.
Quote:
Sure some people buy them on impulse, which 80% of luxury item sales are, but if the customer is constantly annoyed and can't see the screen, it lessons the interest in computers over time. This translates into loss future sales. Who want's to sit in front of a machine that bothers them so much physically?
No body! However that is why we see a move away from matte screens. The muddy washed out images cause fatique due to the stress of trying to focus on the image.
Quote:
Make a device that's more comforting to use and more people will use it longer. It just makes sense.
Exactly, that is why Apple is dropping matte displays.
Quote:
Right now we have a rather large portion of the population retiring/getting older due to the post baby boom generation (why the debate on health care) these people (myself included) have deteriorating eyesight. Glossy screens make a hell of a lot of problems for us, we know because we dealt with glossy CRT displays. And I had young eyes then and wondered wtf was bothering me when I used the CRTS for work.
You are wrong here again too. CRTs caused a lot of user stress due to the high speed flicker. This is well documented and had nothing to do with the glass surface.
Second as you get older your eyes have a harder time focusing on things up close, this is also well documented. It is a heck of a lot easier to focus on a crisp sharp image than it is a muddy washed out image.
Quote:
Apple would do good if they catered a bit more attention to the older market, after all we are the ones with cash. Credit is gone, the younger types have high unemployment for the next ten years because of the recession brought on by the failed government sponsored socialized sub-prime lending.
Well we can really agree on this one. I'm surprised how many people resist the facts with respect to this recession. The government was directly involved in this collapse. That is another thread though.
Quote:
Glossy LCD's are cheaper to make, it eliminates the step of the LCD maker of applying a matte film to the panel. This is why we are punished a extra $50 for wanting a matte display on those few Mac's that have it.
Nobody is stopping you from applying your own matte film.
Quote:
And the new iMac's don't have a matte LCD under the glass, it's a glossy LCD. So forget that angle.
Why? If you are worried about specular reflections then take care of the first surface.
Quote:
If you want to hear more rantings, and intelligent points on the matter, visit this guys site
I think you need to reconsider just how useful and nice these screens can be. View one in person before dismissing it.
Also don't take along old problems from the CRT world. I know how harmful these are when it comes to user stress, it is one of the reasons I was an early switcher to LCDs, LCDs don't cause this issue. At least not to the same extent.
When was I ever suggesting that people should do that???
I was stating that there exists a huge underground for this material, which means this material is available. Is this some sort of revelation? I didn't mention any sites, nor did I encourage anyone to do it. Someone questioned the availablity of HD material, and I replied that it's certainly available.
What sort of aspersions are you trying to cast on me?? You'll have to do better than "obliquely", I'm afraid . . .
'There is very little HD content available for downloading, even more so for streaming because most users do not have the bandwidth to stream HD content.
Yet again Apple created a device that can only be used in an all Apple world. You can not plug an PS3 or Xbox 360 in the system, which is foolish seeing your average Gateway monitor can perform this function. Blu Ray is not available from Apple while its available from HP, Dell and Sony.
This is typical Apple, build something that doesn't support what the rest fo the world uses. You can try to put any slant on this you want but there isn't anyone (except you) that doesnt think this entire display port issues is beyond stupid.
Even in the dark deep woods of Canada you may have heard of something called HDMI. You know the standard the rest of the world uses. You cant site quality or premium this time because there isnt any more premium then HDMI.'
It is quite obvious now that Apple wants to and is quite happy to play in it's own sand pit. Their products are annoyingly close to satisfying some peoples needs.
Apple had it right when they incorporated the computer guts into the display. Every other computer maker copies Apple on that.
The natural evolution is the marriage of a computer with a television. The computer manufacturers should realize that if they already haven't.
I don't think the iMac necessarily is any more a TV than the original Mac, which is the same concept, putting the computer in the same chassis. You can play videos on iMacs (I don't recall if the original Mac could play video files), but it's still a computer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
When was I ever suggesting that people should do that???
I was stating that there exists a huge underground for this material, which means this material is available. Is this some sort of revelation? I didn't mention any sites, nor did I encourage anyone to do it. Someone questioned the availablity of HD material, and I replied that it's certainly available.
What sort of aspersions are you trying to cast on me?? You'll have to do better than "obliquely", I'm afraid . . .
If you're saying that the only way to get 1080p media onto a Mac is to pirate it, it's true, but really, how is that a worthwhile response? It sure looked more likely that you were talking in code so as to not get called on it. If you talk in code, it's pretty easy to deny having said what you really meant.
If you're saying that the only way to get 1080p media onto a Mac is to pirate it, then how is that a worthwhile response? It looked more likely that you were talking in code so as to not get called on it. If you talk in code, it's pretty easy to deny having said what you really meant.
It's fact. Unless you have proof that i was actually sugesting people do it, then kindly refrain from accusing me of:
a) stealing
b) encouraging theft
The smart thing for YOU to do is to ask members to not discuss the issue, not go about accusing people of encouraging theft!
It's fact. Unless you have proof that i was actually sugesting people do it, then kindly refrain from accusing me of:
a) stealing
b) encouraging theft
The smart thing for YOU to do is to ask members to not discuss the issue, not go about accusing people of encouraging theft!
Sorry about that. I didn't suggest you were stealing. But it sure looked like you were talking the code words for suggesting it, and you don't seem to realize it.
It would seem that you would have known that while your answer is technically correct, it wasn't actually answering the question except in the way you chose to read it. You clearly knew that the other person was wanting to know where to get the legitimate 1080p media on a Mac, but you couldn't say that there wasn't much to be had. The legit stuff out there is generally trailers, podcasts and some random sample clips.
The 27" iMac seems to be the nicest consumer computer out there, and it's a shame that the media you can legitimately play on a Mac isn't the top quality that's out there. And that's the reality. I think the compromise would be if Apple would sell SD, 720 and 1080 at the same time and let the user decide which to get.
Glass is reflective material . And the glossy display is stunning.
The matte whiners need to switch to dell .
good post .
peace 9
Hmmm, I went last weekend to Apple store with $ 3.000 on credit card ready to buy one quad core and carry it home. But I left without it - the glossy screen looked so bad in the store full of light I really could not get any reason to spend all my money on it. Glossy screen in light environment sucks hard. Instead of seeing the desktop I saw myself, people behind my back, all equipment in the store and all lights from the floor reflected on the screen. I intended to use it in my living room as a TV replacement, but with 3 lights and 8 windows I have there it would be unusable. In the dark it might be a gorgeous screen, but as soon as there is more than 1 light source the whole magic is gone. I compared it with 30' HD screen and there was no problem with the same light environment. Too bad there is no anti-glare option. :-(
No worries. It was a misunderstanding. It's gratifying to see your intentions with respect to the discussion were in the right place! Better than a lot of mods on other sites, I can tell you that.
Agree with you completely about the iMac. And yes, i think we're aon the road to Apple elling 1080p, but bandwidth is still an issue. A 1080p movie runs between 20-40gb if I'm not mistaken. There are some very good compression techniques out there that as far as I know are near lossless (I assume that playing around with the audio can also lower file seizes), but I'm not sure how Apple can implement that, if that is even possible.
In a perfect world, I'd prefer that the new iMac had both Display Port and HDMI input/output. That would allow for the usage of the display input feature to have the greatest level of compatibility options for users - especially those who are living in small spaces (dorms, studio apartments, etc.)
All that said, what is kind of funny is that up until now there was no option at all to use the display for any purpose other than with the built-in processor and here we are being frustrated that apple didn't give us the option to have HDMI or DVI input. As an additional FYI, the mac actually can't be completely shut down when this is being utilized (I.E. the processor is still cycling).
For me, while I wish that they also had HDMI or DVI input, I can understand why this is the way it is. DIsplay port had this capability and apple simply chose to enable it with an existing port in the design. They could have chosen to leave the input feature out all-together. True, and I agree that Apple is missing a potential market of these machines being a true full "media hub", but they also do this in other areas. Witness the mac mini. If there isn't ever a machine that should have HDMI on it (aka use as a media center machine) this is one. True it has DVI, but you still have use additional connection options for audio. Is Apple missing a potential market for the mini that has possible broader adoption than the Apple TV? Sure.
I expect that there will be a number of media houses that will use these machines for rendering along with their macpros. Even just that limited use will be of value and Apple will sell them. True - much smaller than the potential market that is out there with a simple HDMI connector.
Hmmm, I went last weekend to Apple store with $ 3.000 on credit card ready to buy one quad core and carry it home. But I left without it - the glossy screen looked so bad in the store full of light I really could not get any reason to spend all my money on it. Glossy screen in light environment sucks hard. Instead of seeing the desktop I saw myself, people behind my back, all equipment in the store and all lights from the floor reflected on the screen. I intended to use it in my living room as a TV replacement, but with 3 lights and 8 windows I have there it would be unusable. In the dark it might be a gorgeous screen, but as soon as there is more than 1 light source the whole magic is gone. I compared it with 30' HD screen and there was no problem with the same light environment. Too bad there is no anti-glare option. :-(
I'm not going to render a judgment on glossy vs matte, but I'm going to assume that the lighting environment in an Apple Store would not necessarily reflect (excuse the pun) the lighting environment in a home or even in most offices. Is that a fair assumption.
If you're saying that the only way to get 1080p media onto a Mac is to pirate it, it's true, but really, how is that a worthwhile response? It sure looked more likely that you were talking in code so as to not get called on it. If you talk in code, it's pretty easy to deny having said what you really meant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
It's fact. Unless you have proof that i was actually sugesting people do it, then kindly refrain from accusing me of:
a) stealing
b) encouraging theft
The smart thing for YOU to do is to ask members to not discuss the issue, not go about accusing people of encouraging theft!
I have to agree with Quadra 610 on this point. I think, JeffDM, you are being a little too quick to judge. Also, I really don't think it a moderator's role to be judging the 'worthwhileness' of responses. If that were the criterion, one could easily make the case for shutting down half of this thread (including a couple of my own posts).
Except for the first picture, I don't see anything in the pictures that would tell me that the camera is bad. In fact, it looks like the others are taken using different cameras, even in different surroundings. The others look pretty nice. I doubt you can get that kind of shallow depth of field with a cell phone camera.
If the lighting is bad, what you do to fix that is buy a light kit, not a camera kit.
man, don't be ridiculous, there's no white balance (if you do auto level, contrast or even auto color with any in PS, will see the difference), especially look at the pict with the keyboards. And the straight lines are curved in almost all of the picts, and there's hardly any sharpness. This is exactly what a cellphone camera does. (I don't wanna' ask if it's been taken with an iPhone3GS.)
But I know it's not so important when others just repeatedly argue about displayport and blueray I'm sorry about my post.
I have to agree with Quadra 610 on this point. I think, JeffDM, you are being a little too quick to judge. Also, I really don't think it a moderator's role to be judging the 'worthwhileness' of responses. If that were the criterion, one could easily make the case for shutting down half of this thread (including a couple of my own posts).
In Jeff's defense, he was correct in spirit. The subject in question was a touchy one, anyway. Not always easy to deal with, and it's difficult to craft guidelines about it. I mean, AI's are pretty good in this particular area, but not exhaustive, because they really can't be. If there was an attempt to make them exhaustive, we run the risk of eliminating subjects like Psystar's Rebel EFI hack, hackintosh discussions, etc. I might be stretching it here, but it could go in that direction.
But thanks for noticing the resolution. It doesn't always happen that way around here.
Comments
Tell me about it. My eyes and head hurts just thinking about it.
Which indicates no capacity for objectivity.
.......
Then the heat of the display will just cook the film, one has to buy another and another and another.
What heat? It is an LED backlight LCD, where is the heat?
But LOOK MA IT'S SO SHINY!!! I know how women with high heel shoes feels now.
Apple will learn one day, that they are seriously jeopardizing their market and customer interest in computers by having these glossy/reflective displays.
I don't think you know what you are talking about here. Apples sales are up and they likely got all the consummer feedback they needed a couple of years ago when they offered both. I'm sure if there was a market for the displays Apple would be selling them, the reality is nobody with a grip on quality wants a matte display.
Sure some people buy them on impulse, which 80% of luxury item sales are, but if the customer is constantly annoyed and can't see the screen, it lessons the interest in computers over time. This translates into loss future sales. Who want's to sit in front of a machine that bothers them so much physically?
No body! However that is why we see a move away from matte screens. The muddy washed out images cause fatique due to the stress of trying to focus on the image.
Make a device that's more comforting to use and more people will use it longer. It just makes sense.
Exactly, that is why Apple is dropping matte displays.
Right now we have a rather large portion of the population retiring/getting older due to the post baby boom generation (why the debate on health care) these people (myself included) have deteriorating eyesight. Glossy screens make a hell of a lot of problems for us, we know because we dealt with glossy CRT displays. And I had young eyes then and wondered wtf was bothering me when I used the CRTS for work.
You are wrong here again too. CRTs caused a lot of user stress due to the high speed flicker. This is well documented and had nothing to do with the glass surface.
Second as you get older your eyes have a harder time focusing on things up close, this is also well documented. It is a heck of a lot easier to focus on a crisp sharp image than it is a muddy washed out image.
Apple would do good if they catered a bit more attention to the older market, after all we are the ones with cash. Credit is gone, the younger types have high unemployment for the next ten years because of the recession brought on by the failed government sponsored socialized sub-prime lending.
Well we can really agree on this one. I'm surprised how many people resist the facts with respect to this recession. The government was directly involved in this collapse. That is another thread though.
Glossy LCD's are cheaper to make, it eliminates the step of the LCD maker of applying a matte film to the panel. This is why we are punished a extra $50 for wanting a matte display on those few Mac's that have it.
Nobody is stopping you from applying your own matte film.
And the new iMac's don't have a matte LCD under the glass, it's a glossy LCD. So forget that angle.
Why? If you are worried about specular reflections then take care of the first surface.
If you want to hear more rantings, and intelligent points on the matter, visit this guys site
http://macmatte.wordpress.com/
No thank you with that visit.
I think you need to reconsider just how useful and nice these screens can be. View one in person before dismissing it.
Also don't take along old problems from the CRT world. I know how harmful these are when it comes to user stress, it is one of the reasons I was an early switcher to LCDs, LCDs don't cause this issue. At least not to the same extent.
Dave
This is true.
Then why are you suggesting it, even obliquely?
Then why are you suggesting it, even obliquely?
Suggesting what?
Suggesting what?
Suggesting that people download pirated media.
Suggesting that people download pirated media.
When was I ever suggesting that people should do that???
I was stating that there exists a huge underground for this material, which means this material is available. Is this some sort of revelation? I didn't mention any sites, nor did I encourage anyone to do it. Someone questioned the availablity of HD material, and I replied that it's certainly available.
What sort of aspersions are you trying to cast on me?? You'll have to do better than "obliquely", I'm afraid . . .
'There is very little HD content available for downloading, even more so for streaming because most users do not have the bandwidth to stream HD content.
Yet again Apple created a device that can only be used in an all Apple world. You can not plug an PS3 or Xbox 360 in the system, which is foolish seeing your average Gateway monitor can perform this function. Blu Ray is not available from Apple while its available from HP, Dell and Sony.
This is typical Apple, build something that doesn't support what the rest fo the world uses. You can try to put any slant on this you want but there isn't anyone (except you) that doesnt think this entire display port issues is beyond stupid.
Even in the dark deep woods of Canada you may have heard of something called HDMI. You know the standard the rest of the world uses. You cant site quality or premium this time because there isnt any more premium then HDMI.'
It is quite obvious now that Apple wants to and is quite happy to play in it's own sand pit. Their products are annoyingly close to satisfying some peoples needs.
Apple had it right when they incorporated the computer guts into the display. Every other computer maker copies Apple on that.
The natural evolution is the marriage of a computer with a television. The computer manufacturers should realize that if they already haven't.
I don't think the iMac necessarily is any more a TV than the original Mac, which is the same concept, putting the computer in the same chassis. You can play videos on iMacs (I don't recall if the original Mac could play video files), but it's still a computer.
When was I ever suggesting that people should do that???
I was stating that there exists a huge underground for this material, which means this material is available. Is this some sort of revelation? I didn't mention any sites, nor did I encourage anyone to do it. Someone questioned the availablity of HD material, and I replied that it's certainly available.
What sort of aspersions are you trying to cast on me?? You'll have to do better than "obliquely", I'm afraid . . .
If you're saying that the only way to get 1080p media onto a Mac is to pirate it, it's true, but really, how is that a worthwhile response? It sure looked more likely that you were talking in code so as to not get called on it. If you talk in code, it's pretty easy to deny having said what you really meant.
If you're saying that the only way to get 1080p media onto a Mac is to pirate it, then how is that a worthwhile response? It looked more likely that you were talking in code so as to not get called on it. If you talk in code, it's pretty easy to deny having said what you really meant.
It's fact. Unless you have proof that i was actually sugesting people do it, then kindly refrain from accusing me of:
a) stealing
b) encouraging theft
The smart thing for YOU to do is to ask members to not discuss the issue, not go about accusing people of encouraging theft!
Their products are annoyingly close to satisfying some peoples needs.
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
It's fact. Unless you have proof that i was actually sugesting people do it, then kindly refrain from accusing me of:
a) stealing
b) encouraging theft
The smart thing for YOU to do is to ask members to not discuss the issue, not go about accusing people of encouraging theft!
Sorry about that. I didn't suggest you were stealing. But it sure looked like you were talking the code words for suggesting it, and you don't seem to realize it.
It would seem that you would have known that while your answer is technically correct, it wasn't actually answering the question except in the way you chose to read it. You clearly knew that the other person was wanting to know where to get the legitimate 1080p media on a Mac, but you couldn't say that there wasn't much to be had. The legit stuff out there is generally trailers, podcasts and some random sample clips.
The 27" iMac seems to be the nicest consumer computer out there, and it's a shame that the media you can legitimately play on a Mac isn't the top quality that's out there. And that's the reality. I think the compromise would be if Apple would sell SD, 720 and 1080 at the same time and let the user decide which to get.
If the glass isn't sealed onto the frame (it appears it isn't) then fan placement is basically the only way to handle the issue.
Glass is reflective material . And the glossy display is stunning.
The matte whiners need to switch to dell .
good post .
peace 9
Hmmm, I went last weekend to Apple store with $ 3.000 on credit card ready to buy one quad core and carry it home. But I left without it - the glossy screen looked so bad in the store full of light I really could not get any reason to spend all my money on it. Glossy screen in light environment sucks hard. Instead of seeing the desktop I saw myself, people behind my back, all equipment in the store and all lights from the floor reflected on the screen. I intended to use it in my living room as a TV replacement, but with 3 lights and 8 windows I have there it would be unusable. In the dark it might be a gorgeous screen, but as soon as there is more than 1 light source the whole magic is gone. I compared it with 30' HD screen and there was no problem with the same light environment. Too bad there is no anti-glare option. :-(
No worries. It was a misunderstanding. It's gratifying to see your intentions with respect to the discussion were in the right place! Better than a lot of mods on other sites, I can tell you that.
Agree with you completely about the iMac. And yes, i think we're aon the road to Apple elling 1080p, but bandwidth is still an issue. A 1080p movie runs between 20-40gb if I'm not mistaken. There are some very good compression techniques out there that as far as I know are near lossless (I assume that playing around with the audio can also lower file seizes), but I'm not sure how Apple can implement that, if that is even possible.
All that said, what is kind of funny is that up until now there was no option at all to use the display for any purpose other than with the built-in processor and here we are being frustrated that apple didn't give us the option to have HDMI or DVI input. As an additional FYI, the mac actually can't be completely shut down when this is being utilized (I.E. the processor is still cycling).
For me, while I wish that they also had HDMI or DVI input, I can understand why this is the way it is. DIsplay port had this capability and apple simply chose to enable it with an existing port in the design. They could have chosen to leave the input feature out all-together. True, and I agree that Apple is missing a potential market of these machines being a true full "media hub", but they also do this in other areas. Witness the mac mini. If there isn't ever a machine that should have HDMI on it (aka use as a media center machine) this is one. True it has DVI, but you still have use additional connection options for audio. Is Apple missing a potential market for the mini that has possible broader adoption than the Apple TV? Sure.
I expect that there will be a number of media houses that will use these machines for rendering along with their macpros. Even just that limited use will be of value and Apple will sell them. True - much smaller than the potential market that is out there with a simple HDMI connector.
Hmmm, I went last weekend to Apple store with $ 3.000 on credit card ready to buy one quad core and carry it home. But I left without it - the glossy screen looked so bad in the store full of light I really could not get any reason to spend all my money on it. Glossy screen in light environment sucks hard. Instead of seeing the desktop I saw myself, people behind my back, all equipment in the store and all lights from the floor reflected on the screen. I intended to use it in my living room as a TV replacement, but with 3 lights and 8 windows I have there it would be unusable. In the dark it might be a gorgeous screen, but as soon as there is more than 1 light source the whole magic is gone. I compared it with 30' HD screen and there was no problem with the same light environment. Too bad there is no anti-glare option. :-(
I'm not going to render a judgment on glossy vs matte, but I'm going to assume that the lighting environment in an Apple Store would not necessarily reflect (excuse the pun) the lighting environment in a home or even in most offices. Is that a fair assumption.
If you're saying that the only way to get 1080p media onto a Mac is to pirate it, it's true, but really, how is that a worthwhile response? It sure looked more likely that you were talking in code so as to not get called on it. If you talk in code, it's pretty easy to deny having said what you really meant.
It's fact. Unless you have proof that i was actually sugesting people do it, then kindly refrain from accusing me of:
a) stealing
b) encouraging theft
The smart thing for YOU to do is to ask members to not discuss the issue, not go about accusing people of encouraging theft!
I have to agree with Quadra 610 on this point. I think, JeffDM, you are being a little too quick to judge. Also, I really don't think it a moderator's role to be judging the 'worthwhileness' of responses. If that were the criterion, one could easily make the case for shutting down half of this thread (including a couple of my own posts).
Sorry about that. I didn't suggest you were stealing.
JeffDM,
No worries. It was a misunderstanding. It's gratifying to see your intention....
Nice to see that gentleman-liness prevails yet again on AI!
Except for the first picture, I don't see anything in the pictures that would tell me that the camera is bad. In fact, it looks like the others are taken using different cameras, even in different surroundings. The others look pretty nice. I doubt you can get that kind of shallow depth of field with a cell phone camera.
If the lighting is bad, what you do to fix that is buy a light kit, not a camera kit.
man, don't be ridiculous, there's no white balance (if you do auto level, contrast or even auto color with any in PS, will see the difference), especially look at the pict with the keyboards. And the straight lines are curved in almost all of the picts, and there's hardly any sharpness. This is exactly what a cellphone camera does. (I don't wanna' ask if it's been taken with an iPhone3GS.)
But I know it's not so important when others just repeatedly argue about displayport and blueray
your worst nightmare is BACK!
I have to agree with Quadra 610 on this point. I think, JeffDM, you are being a little too quick to judge. Also, I really don't think it a moderator's role to be judging the 'worthwhileness' of responses. If that were the criterion, one could easily make the case for shutting down half of this thread (including a couple of my own posts).
In Jeff's defense, he was correct in spirit. The subject in question was a touchy one, anyway. Not always easy to deal with, and it's difficult to craft guidelines about it. I mean, AI's are pretty good in this particular area, but not exhaustive, because they really can't be. If there was an attempt to make them exhaustive, we run the risk of eliminating subjects like Psystar's Rebel EFI hack, hackintosh discussions, etc. I might be stretching it here, but it could go in that direction.
But thanks for noticing the resolution. It doesn't always happen that way around here.