The 22" displays are nice but a bit too pricey for me. Although I have noticed where Apple has extended their rebate on displays through the end of March. I wonder if they are trying to make room for new ones... <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
12" is 12", no matter how you look at it (or how it feels).
Who cares what comes out next month? Just buy what you need (or want) and enjoy it. It's not like a 22" LCD is going obsolete next month...or that my 12" is going to be any less impressive next month.
new displays will come with PowerMac G5. Whether they change the screen sizes is anyones guess, but the most logical would be to go bigger, and ditch the 15" (would differentiate between iMac and PowerMac display size)
[quote] LCD's are digital does that mean, theoretically at least, that a graphic card can output with firewire or the fabled gigawire? <hr></blockquote>
If so, I will for SURE buy an iMac and add 1 or 2 more 15" LCDs. Otherwise, I will go PC for my Desktop, <img src="graemlins/embarrassed.gif" border="0" alt="[Embarrassed]" /> and keep my iBook
It's interesting that in all this time nothing comparable to the cinema display has come out for the PC world. On the contrary, I have heard that there is now a video card for PCs that has an Apple connector on it for this display.
The Samsung display is really pricey. I have heard that it is over $4,000 and doesn't look as sharp as the cinema display.
I have an unconfirmed rumor that there is a display for PCs similar to the cinema display but that it costs over $3,000. (maybe a reference to the Samsung display.)
Last summer I bought the cinema display and an 867 G4. What a combination. It is really great to be able to work on an A3 size document at full size and still have room left for notes around the margins.
<strong>That Samsung has (if you believe the website)an amazing 170-degree viewing angle! Is that much different than you guys with Cinema Displays?
Samsung seems to be making this as much a TV as a computer monitor and so maybe viewing angle is more important that crisp resolution.
Its sure nice to see Macs have the ability to use all this new display technology and not get sucked into proprietariness.
I too would like to know how fast FW would have to be to support a decent signal to a 17" LCD.</strong><hr></blockquote>
170 degrees means that from either side you are just 5 degrees from parallel. At this point the screen image is barely visible (not because of the LCD). I tried this on my cinema display and I'd say it could have the same spec. The image is visible till you can no longer see the screen. Put it another way, from any angle you are likely to use the image is fine. Pretty much the same is true vertically. Far off-axis there is some loss of contrast which is image dependent. This is not to say the screen is perfect. There was a good review in MW a year or so ago which quantified the differences between a cinema display and a high end CRT.
I think FW is theoretically fast enough to handle a video stream for a cinema display if it were compressed. But it is unlikely to be practical for other reasons for a little while yet.
I think FW is theoretically fast enough to handle a video stream for a cinema display if it were compressed. But it is unlikely to be practical for other reasons for a little while yet.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's more than 5x the bandwidth FireWire has to offer.
Bye,
RazzFazz</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is actually an interesting question. LCD panels are not refreshed like CRTs are. There should be some memory associated with each pixel, particularly if you were to use something like FW for sending information.
Now, in the worst possible case you would imagine with every pixel on the whole screen changing in a unique manner we need:
30 frames per second x 1600 x 1200 x 3 bytes/pixel = 172.8MB/sec.
Obviously higher than FW's theoretical 50MB/s.
However, if we allow for a compression factor of about 3.5 then it would be possible.
I don't know about you but most of the time my screen is nearly static. When there are large numbers of pixels changing as when I drag a large window then some mild compression artifacts are not noticable.
On the other hand lets say you are doing a slide show where once in a while every pixel does change in one frame. We now have
1600 x 1200 x 3 bytes = 5.76MB which could be drawn in about one seventh of a second. Again, with a little compression you could drop that by a factor of two making seem nearly instantaneous.
I'm not advocating this usage. Just as a mental exercise it seems on the edge of the possible. With FW2 (up to 400MB/s) it would be well within the realm of possibility.
I am actually not that sure whether you can calculate the "bitrate" of a DVI interface like that. 300MB/sec still seems like a hell lot to push for a graphics card. Remember, there are also PCI versions of DVI boards that can push that resolution. I'm kinda skeptical on that.
This is actually an interesting question. LCD panels are not refreshed like CRTs are. There should be some memory associated with each pixel, particularly if you were to use something like FW for sending information.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, the refreshing thing pretty much works the same AFAIK, with the exception that LCDs keep each pixel's value between refreshes, wheres CRTs lose the values. Also, the actual light comes from the (constant, i.e. flickerless) backlight on LCDs, whereas on CRTs, the individual pixels generate the light.
[quote]<strong>
Now, in the worst possible case you would imagine with every pixel on the whole screen changing in a unique manner we need:
30 frames per second x 1600 x 1200 x 3 bytes/pixel = 172.8MB/sec.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why would that be?
[quote]<strong>
Obviously higher than FW's theoretical 50MB/s.
However, if we allow for a compression factor of about 3.5 then it would be possible.
I don't know about you but most of the time my screen is nearly static. When there are large numbers of pixels changing as when I drag a large window then some mild compression artifacts are not noticable.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That would require much more brains inside the monitor itself for the necessary on-the-fly compression and decompression (and thus drive up monitor costs), and is not even guaranteed to work (because sometimes screens are just not as static as that - just think of games, videos and the like).
Also, I wonder what the advantage compared to just using DVI / ADC as it is now would be?
[quote]<strong>
On the other hand lets say you are doing a slide show where once in a while every pixel does change in one frame. We now have
1600 x 1200 x 3 bytes = 5.76MB which could be drawn in about one seventh of a second. Again, with a little compression you could drop that by a factor of two making seem nearly instantaneous.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, true, but don't you thik people actually like the fact that their screens are general-purpose? "Here's your new screen, sir, but keep in mind it only works for presentations. And don't move your mouse too much."
<strong>I am actually not that sure whether you can calculate the "bitrate" of a DVI interface like that. 300MB/sec still seems like a hell lot to push for a graphics card. Remember, there are also PCI versions of DVI boards that can push that resolution. I'm kinda skeptical on that.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, given the screen neither has integrated VRAM, nor much intelligence of its own, it sort of has to be that way - other solutions would basically require halt the graphics card to be inside the monitor.
And keep in mind that it's just pushing that data from onboard memory to the screen, thus PCI isn't an issue (i.e. not every pixel changes with every refresh). Thus, the data doesn't have to go through PCI at the same rate as it goes to the screen.
I don't know about you but I don't believe Apple would hold out the displays for the G5. Apple has not had a problem with tweaking the lcd shells to match color schemes and with two trade shows in the near future and the promise of no new CPU's I think that LCD's and digital device(s)would be very likely as well as some new (i)tech.
That's more than 5x the bandwidth FireWire has to offer.
Bye,
RazzFazz</strong><hr></blockquote>
It is not 60 but 30 frames per second that is required (and that is to allow full screen DVD playing). Each frame is made of two fields (odd and even lines) for a total of 60
fields per second. 1.6GBps firewire could actually do the job over a plastic fiber and carry it farther than DVI can.
As far as new and enhanced technology goes , I've read quite a few times that the next "NEW" thing will be Thin Screen CRT's . They are supposed to take up about the same amount of room that current LCD screens take up - but with all the added benefits of the CRT ! check out this link
It is not 60 but 30 frames per second that is required (and that is to allow full screen DVD playing). Each frame is made of two fields (odd and even lines) for a total of 60
fields per second. 1.6GBps firewire could actually do the job over a plastic fiber and carry it farther than DVI can.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is true for DVD playback (which would actually require much less bandwidth, since it's only a fraction of the resolution of a cinema display.
Yet, this doesn't really apply here - just because your DVD or game or whatever only delivers data at 30 frames per second, your monitor doesn't all of a sudden switch back to 30Hz refresh rate.
Most LCDs I have seen refresh at somewhere between 60 and 75 Hz. Since they don't have an internal buffer for all their pixels, they have to be transmitted with every screen.
DVI in its basic single-link form supports up to 165 Mpps, and the standard allows for a dual-link variant (using the same connector) that supports up to 330Mpps. To put that another way, the 165Mpps capacity of the single link DVI connection is a bandwidth of around 5 gigabits per second!
<strong>They are supposed to take up about the same amount of room that current LCD screens take up - but with all the added benefits of the CRT ! </strong><hr></blockquote>
You mean like radiation, flicker, and all?
Also, those flat CRT thingies have at least one big drawback: Since the distance between anode and cathode is so very small, and because you still need the same acceleration voltage if you want it to be as bright as current displays, you'll end up with very strong electrical field strength.
[quote]<strong>
This is gonna be kick ass - bye bye LCD <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not so sure - there's more to LCDs than just space consumption.
Comments
Who cares what comes out next month? Just buy what you need (or want) and enjoy it. It's not like a 22" LCD is going obsolete next month...or that my 12" is going to be any less impressive next month.
Because LCD's are digital does that mean, theoretically at least, that a graphic card can output with firewire or the fabled gigawire?
Any suggestions?
Ape Man
[quote] LCD's are digital does that mean, theoretically at least, that a graphic card can output with firewire or the fabled gigawire? <hr></blockquote>
If so, I will for SURE buy an iMac and add 1 or 2 more 15" LCDs.
The Samsung display is really pricey. I have heard that it is over $4,000 and doesn't look as sharp as the cinema display.
I have an unconfirmed rumor that there is a display for PCs similar to the cinema display but that it costs over $3,000. (maybe a reference to the Samsung display.)
Last summer I bought the cinema display and an 867 G4. What a combination. It is really great to be able to work on an A3 size document at full size and still have room left for notes around the margins.
Samsung seems to be making this as much a TV as a computer monitor and so maybe viewing angle is more important that crisp resolution.
Its sure nice to see Macs have the ability to use all this new display technology and not get sucked into proprietariness.
I too would like to know how fast FW would have to be to support a decent signal to a 17" LCD.
<strong>That Samsung has (if you believe the website)an amazing 170-degree viewing angle! Is that much different than you guys with Cinema Displays?
Samsung seems to be making this as much a TV as a computer monitor and so maybe viewing angle is more important that crisp resolution.
Its sure nice to see Macs have the ability to use all this new display technology and not get sucked into proprietariness.
I too would like to know how fast FW would have to be to support a decent signal to a 17" LCD.</strong><hr></blockquote>
170 degrees means that from either side you are just 5 degrees from parallel. At this point the screen image is barely visible (not because of the LCD). I tried this on my cinema display and I'd say it could have the same spec. The image is visible till you can no longer see the screen. Put it another way, from any angle you are likely to use the image is fine. Pretty much the same is true vertically. Far off-axis there is some loss of contrast which is image dependent. This is not to say the screen is perfect. There was a good review in MW a year or so ago which quantified the differences between a cinema display and a high end CRT.
I think FW is theoretically fast enough to handle a video stream for a cinema display if it were compressed. But it is unlikely to be practical for other reasons for a little while yet.
<strong>
I think FW is theoretically fast enough to handle a video stream for a cinema display if it were compressed. But it is unlikely to be practical for other reasons for a little while yet.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It isn't, by far.
Do the maths:
1600 (H) * 1024 (V) * 24 (bits/pixel) * 60 (screens per second) = 2359296000 bits/s.
That's more than 5x the bandwidth FireWire has to offer.
Bye,
RazzFazz
<strong>
It isn't, by far.
Do the maths:
1600 (H) * 1024 (V) * 24 (bits/pixel) * 60 (screens per second) = 2359296000 bits/s.
That's more than 5x the bandwidth FireWire has to offer.
Bye,
RazzFazz</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is actually an interesting question. LCD panels are not refreshed like CRTs are. There should be some memory associated with each pixel, particularly if you were to use something like FW for sending information.
Now, in the worst possible case you would imagine with every pixel on the whole screen changing in a unique manner we need:
30 frames per second x 1600 x 1200 x 3 bytes/pixel = 172.8MB/sec.
Obviously higher than FW's theoretical 50MB/s.
However, if we allow for a compression factor of about 3.5 then it would be possible.
I don't know about you but most of the time my screen is nearly static. When there are large numbers of pixels changing as when I drag a large window then some mild compression artifacts are not noticable.
On the other hand lets say you are doing a slide show where once in a while every pixel does change in one frame. We now have
1600 x 1200 x 3 bytes = 5.76MB which could be drawn in about one seventh of a second. Again, with a little compression you could drop that by a factor of two making seem nearly instantaneous.
I'm not advocating this usage. Just as a mental exercise it seems on the edge of the possible. With FW2 (up to 400MB/s) it would be well within the realm of possibility.
G-News
<strong>
This is actually an interesting question. LCD panels are not refreshed like CRTs are. There should be some memory associated with each pixel, particularly if you were to use something like FW for sending information.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, the refreshing thing pretty much works the same AFAIK, with the exception that LCDs keep each pixel's value between refreshes, wheres CRTs lose the values. Also, the actual light comes from the (constant, i.e. flickerless) backlight on LCDs, whereas on CRTs, the individual pixels generate the light.
[quote]<strong>
Now, in the worst possible case you would imagine with every pixel on the whole screen changing in a unique manner we need:
30 frames per second x 1600 x 1200 x 3 bytes/pixel = 172.8MB/sec.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why would that be?
[quote]<strong>
Obviously higher than FW's theoretical 50MB/s.
However, if we allow for a compression factor of about 3.5 then it would be possible.
I don't know about you but most of the time my screen is nearly static. When there are large numbers of pixels changing as when I drag a large window then some mild compression artifacts are not noticable.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That would require much more brains inside the monitor itself for the necessary on-the-fly compression and decompression (and thus drive up monitor costs), and is not even guaranteed to work (because sometimes screens are just not as static as that - just think of games, videos and the like).
Also, I wonder what the advantage compared to just using DVI / ADC as it is now would be?
[quote]<strong>
On the other hand lets say you are doing a slide show where once in a while every pixel does change in one frame. We now have
1600 x 1200 x 3 bytes = 5.76MB which could be drawn in about one seventh of a second. Again, with a little compression you could drop that by a factor of two making seem nearly instantaneous.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, true, but don't you thik people actually like the fact that their screens are general-purpose? "Here's your new screen, sir, but keep in mind it only works for presentations. And don't move your mouse too much."
Bye,
RazzFazz
<strong>I am actually not that sure whether you can calculate the "bitrate" of a DVI interface like that. 300MB/sec still seems like a hell lot to push for a graphics card. Remember, there are also PCI versions of DVI boards that can push that resolution. I'm kinda skeptical on that.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, given the screen neither has integrated VRAM, nor much intelligence of its own, it sort of has to be that way - other solutions would basically require halt the graphics card to be inside the monitor.
And keep in mind that it's just pushing that data from onboard memory to the screen, thus PCI isn't an issue (i.e. not every pixel changes with every refresh). Thus, the data doesn't have to go through PCI at the same rate as it goes to the screen.
Bye,
RazzFazz
[ 02-13-2002: Message edited by: RazzFazz ]</p>
betting on 19 and possibly 23, both widescreen.
<strong>
It isn't, by far.
Do the maths:
1600 (H) * 1024 (V) * 24 (bits/pixel) * 60 (screens per second) = 2359296000 bits/s.
That's more than 5x the bandwidth FireWire has to offer.
Bye,
RazzFazz</strong><hr></blockquote>
It is not 60 but 30 frames per second that is required (and that is to allow full screen DVD playing). Each frame is made of two fields (odd and even lines) for a total of 60
fields per second. 1.6GBps firewire could actually do the job over a plastic fiber and carry it farther than DVI can.
<a href="http://www.cjmag.co.jp/magazine/issues/1997/oct97/1097indeye.html"; target="_blank">http://www.cjmag.co.jp/magazine/issues/1997/oct97/1097indeye.html</a>;
This is gonna be kick ass - bye bye LCD <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
this link too this is a lil diff tech
<a href="http://www.carbontech.net/htmldocs/hyfed.html"; target="_blank">http://www.carbontech.net/htmldocs/hyfed.html</a>;
[ 02-13-2002: Message edited by: budz420 ]
[ 02-13-2002: Message edited by: budz420 ]</p>
<strong>
It is not 60 but 30 frames per second that is required (and that is to allow full screen DVD playing). Each frame is made of two fields (odd and even lines) for a total of 60
fields per second. 1.6GBps firewire could actually do the job over a plastic fiber and carry it farther than DVI can.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is true for DVD playback (which would actually require much less bandwidth, since it's only a fraction of the resolution of a cinema display.
Yet, this doesn't really apply here - just because your DVD or game or whatever only delivers data at 30 frames per second, your monitor doesn't all of a sudden switch back to 30Hz refresh rate.
Most LCDs I have seen refresh at somewhere between 60 and 75 Hz. Since they don't have an internal buffer for all their pixels, they have to be transmitted with every screen.
Bye,
RazzFazz
<strong>I am actually not that sure whether you can calculate the "bitrate" of a DVI interface like that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Look <a href="http://www.tagmclarenaudio.com/members/news/news48.asp"; target="_blank">here</a>, for example (Mpps means million pixels per second):
[quote]<strong>
DVI in its basic single-link form supports up to 165 Mpps, and the standard allows for a dual-link variant (using the same connector) that supports up to 330Mpps. To put that another way, the 165Mpps capacity of the single link DVI connection is a bandwidth of around 5 gigabits per second!
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bye,
RazzFazz
<strong>They are supposed to take up about the same amount of room that current LCD screens take up - but with all the added benefits of the CRT ! </strong><hr></blockquote>
You mean like radiation, flicker, and all?
Also, those flat CRT thingies have at least one big drawback: Since the distance between anode and cathode is so very small, and because you still need the same acceleration voltage if you want it to be as bright as current displays, you'll end up with very strong electrical field strength.
[quote]<strong>
This is gonna be kick ass - bye bye LCD <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not so sure - there's more to LCDs than just space consumption.
Bye,
RazzFazz
[ 02-13-2002: Message edited by: RazzFazz ]</p>
[quote] Apple just quietly updated the cinema when they did the new G4's. The new Cinema has a silver apple in front not graphite <hr></blockquote>
That may kick the "updating cinema styling soon" theory. I kind of wish the on switch was like that on the 15" and 17" and not the push-up type.
The new Titanium boards would make it rich to have a PowerMac G4, especially hooked to a 15" and a "Cinema".