DO you actually know anyone that "works" as a G/A?
does anybody actually read?????
what is a G/A?
G/A as in graphic artist?
i know graphic artists. but that's something different.
i know at least 2 graphic designers who did buy 20"iMacs to work on.
and those 20"iMacs are one of the fastest or maybe the fastest machines at their studios.
best what money can buy isn't everything if you have a mortgage and employers to pay.
and maybe a 20" tft is crammed to todays standards but why need a 30" or 40"?
if a graphic designer really needs more real estate than that 20 (or 23"), i think most graphic designers are more served by a dual 20" screen than one 30" or 40". it's also about $1600 cheaper.
maybe he can buy an extra iMac to have 2 workstations to work on. that's not twice the productivity but it is more productive than one workstation with one 30" screen.
forget what i said. i forgot he also has to buy a extra copy of creative suit.
not every graphic designer is a package designer. i only know two firms in our region who do packaging design. i worked for both. the fastest computers one of those had when i worked for them in 2000 where powermacs 8500. i brought the fastet computer with me: a pismo. after that the bought 2 G4 450Mhz for a studio of 5 man and woman. The other firm still used G4 AGPs as main workstations when i was there in january 2004.
there is a difference between what should, what is smarter to do and what happens in practise. the only thing i can talk about is what is practised in this bussiness.
I can read, but I CANNOT comprehend how you could think that imacs are a good replacement/upgrades for graphic artists and graphic houses. And, I CANNOT comprehend how you would think 2 @ 20" flat screens could be better than 1 large 30" or 40" screen. I'd hate to go to a movie theater that you would own. There would be 60 @ 20" screens all over the walls.
If you're friends were smart they'd save money for a desktop work horse and re-use their monitors rather than getting a pretty all-in-one. A mac mini would even make even more sense if you're looking to contrast price vs. performance.
I do understand about the price differences... But, we're talking about "THE VERY BEST PRODUCTS" here. Not how survive on a shoe-string budget. I can still sew a mean pillow with my mother's footpedal machine. But, I can sew 10,000x faster, straighter, and even spaced with a new top of the line machine (or tomorrows).
Most graphic designers probably will not afford to purchase a 30" monitor or 40" if the price is in the $3k range. But there are many that will. print designers, web designers (the majority) don't make in comparison as much money as broadcast designers and video editors make. If you work on the big cities (NY,LA,SF,Miami,etc.) these same designers will have more money to spend on a large monitor. Many designers are using Imacs, but is their choice. Is true that they can accomplish amazing things with these machines. But the top level people will always be hungry for the best out there.
Some people in this forum think is crazy to even think about a huge monitor like the 40". Think about it, three years ago if I said Apple would deliver a 30" monitor people would say I was nuts. Today, is not the case. I know few people that purchase the 30" and they love it. couple of them have two 30" monitors. So there is a market for the 40" out there. If you can't afford it then go get a smaller one.
Like I said before in 2 to 3 years we'll see a lot of content in HD. Apple is talking about blueRay dvds, imovie HD, FCP HD, Sony HD cameras, etc. Apple definitely is aware that people will start moving in this direction soon. Having a big monitor that can act as big screen to watch movies and work on it is not a bad path for Apple to follow. It makes sense. LCD screens are getting cheaper and more advance every year, so why not?
displays are the oldest/lamest tech i can think of.
why cant we just beam info directly into my brain?
Ive got one, a beam of photons shoots out of the photon transmitter, to be received by the brain's ganglionic nerve extension, placed conveniently outside of the skull for improved reception.
most pro's who use mac in a creative field don't buy the computers that they work on themselves. as an art director and graphic designer, yes i know MANY people who make over $80k a year. personally, i would never buy an imac to do graphics work because i need more screen real estate than that. pallette-heavy apps either need that huge 30" or two separate screens. i can't stand using adobe apps or dreamweaver on one screen.
Hey c'mon guys, those 21" CRTs were $2500 when they first came out, and someone bought them.
But as for the original topic, phooey! Macosrumors is the site that has been predicting 4- and 8-processor Macs for years, and we hain't seen one yet.
If there were a 40-inch LCD, you'd have to sit so far away from it that it wouldn't need any more resolution than the 20" Cinema. Its main use would be in training and presentations.
In fact, my company, and my previous employer, both had 45" Mitsubishi CRT monitors used for exactly those purposes.
When the screens get that big, the whole point is that they're farther away. Apple didn't go to the trouble of making the latest line of monitors VESA mountable so you could stick the 20" on the wall (although I'm sure that many people have, in fact, done that).
If this is "the year of HD" then—show of hands—who here would rather gather their friends around a monitor and make them watch HD content from three feet away? It's acceptable in dorm rooms, perhaps, but if you look at the sizes of HDTVs, it's not acceptable elsewhere.
Conveniently, the mini plugs into HDTVs. It used to be absurd to spend much more on your monitor than on your PC, but there's no intrinsic reason why that must be so. If you're as heavily invested in visuals as Apple is now, it's very much in your interest to break the old buyer's habit of splurging on the box and skimping on the display.
I'm not pretending to believe the MOSR rumor. They are occasionally right, or in the ballpark, but their scoops are buried so completely in fanboi fantasies and outright fabrication that they can only be recognized as scoops after the fact. What I'm addressing, in particular, is the ease with which the current paradigm of what a computer is can be broken, and why it might be interesting and worthwhile to break it. Having the experience center around the display, and having it take place five or six feet away, opens up a whole new round of uses and approaches, greatly enhances the ergonomics of using a computer, compliments Apple's commitment to visual media, and incidentally moves them into a field where there is no credible competition from PC makers. They're still hawking more or less the same thing they've been hawking for the last decade or two.
I think the thing that people are objecting to is the idea that a 40" display will be higher resolution than the 30" display. Certainly, if you were going to use it at the same distance it would need to be the same ppi.
But if you are going to put it up on the wall and use it to break the computer paradigm ( eg: a presentation device ) then why not just make it HD resolution. That would be fine.
The question then bears asking, what does Apple bring to the HD market? Perhaps just availability. Large LCDs arent very common these days. There just doesnt seem to be much room for them. People arent going to be buying these for their desks.
I think the thing that people are objecting to is the idea that a 40" display will be higher resolution than the 30" display. Certainly, if you were going to use it at the same distance it would need to be the same ppi.
Well, unless you were planning to do the resolution independence thing...
Also, you'd want better-than-1080p resolution for HD editing, which even iMovie is now capable of.
Quote:
The question then bears asking, what does Apple bring to the HD market? Perhaps just availability. Large LCDs arent very common these days. There just doesnt seem to be much room for them. People arent going to be buying these for their desks.
People at Pixar will be, I'm sure.
But people don't put HDTVs on their desks now. Part of breaking the paradigm involves getting the computer out of the "home office."
Some people complain that with such a big monitor you'll have to turn your head slightly to see the edges of the screen when working closely to it. Well I rather prefer to do that than cycling through windows, move palettes, use expose or hide applications to find what I want.
I do design work. Visualization of applications like storyboards in Photoshop and graphics in Illustrator will require such a large screen to see the "whole" picture. Plus, I would not mind to have my Ichat on the left corner of the screen and my Entourage on the right. After work is done, why not seat on the couch put a DVD and watch a movie in HD on such monitor? That sounds great to me!
So, if such monitor ever comes to life and price tag is around of the same 30". I'll be there ordering one for me.
I've no doubt there will be a 40' monitor from Apple. It's doable with dual DVI, its unique (nobody had caught up with the 30" yet), its cool natch, and as with most of their products Apple will sell as many as they can possible make.
I sincerely hope they do as it continues the move into what I would call the 'creative industrial' market that the VESA + DVI compatible displays and the McMini are facilitating (audio visual presentation, museums, digital signage, film/TV sets etc.)
what's with everyone's aversion to turning their head? i've used two monitors on my macs since, oh, '94 or so. so i've been turning my head for years using my computers. given the choice, i'd much rather be able to contain all that information on one screen rather than two. but up until this time, two monitors was the only way to do it. if they come out with one monitor that is equivalent to 2 19" monitors, then i think a lot of people would buy it. it's always more expensive than buying two cheaper lcd's, but it's also better because you don't have to deal with the screen bezels.
what's with everyone's aversion to turning their head? i've used two monitors on my macs since, oh, '94 or so. so i've been turning my head for years using my computers. given the choice, i'd much rather be able to contain all that information on one screen rather than two. but up until this time, two monitors was the only way to do it. if they come out with one monitor that is equivalent to 2 19" monitors, then i think a lot of people would buy it. it's always more expensive than buying two cheaper lcd's, but it's also better because you don't have to deal with the screen bezels.
I can read, but I CANNOT comprehend how you could think that imacs are a good replacement/upgrades for graphic artists and graphic houses. And, I CANNOT comprehend how you would think 2 @ 20" flat screens could be better than 1 large 30" or 40" screen. I'd hate to go to a movie theater that you would own. There would be 60 @ 20" screens all over the walls.
uh................
I have 3 monitors (plus 1 TV) and I'm MUCH happier with them than I would be with a single 30", even if I'd have more room.
Why? You know what I'm doing while I'm writing this? I'm watching a DVD I've authored full screen one monitor and keeping an eye on my e-mail with another.
I have a KVM, so I can keep watching that movie and my mail while working on my *sigh* PC.
What's that? you want to watch a movie on a larger area? well I have a $200 27" GE TV sitting right over here I can put the video on.. and keep using my computer at the same time!
All this real estate for under $1000. It doesn't look as pretty as one big 30", but I assure you that it's more effective in many ways.
Here is a picture I took earlier today for homeowner's insurance purposes... sorry about the mess.
A 40"+ monitor at "surprisingly low price"? It would not be for graphic artists. It would be a 40"+ HDTV. Remember the rumors of an Apple projector and then Steve's comment "and you can wonder why" when he talked about the HD projection system at the beginning of the Macworld keynote? Steve said that he did not see TVs and computers converging but he never said that there isn't a huge chunk of digital media business that he was after.
Apple is building the foundation with Quicktime 7 with H.264 and I believe this is why it has taken so long for the appearance of iTunes 5. Further, I will not be surprised to see upcoming cell processors having a major role in related hardware, including future video pods (2006 at the earliest).
What business is this? People who freelance from their apartment? Or people without jobs?
Average Pay for a graphic designer is $80,000. I'm sorry but the 3k I paid for a 30 inch display was nothing. I bought 2 of them. 3k was the amount most of us made on the last 3 day project. 20 iMac? Where are they designing from? Indiana? ;-) Lol
The iMac screen is garabage for colors. In case you weren't aware designers use "colors" especially ones for "printing" You couldn't match colors on that.
Quote:
Originally posted by gar
i know a lot of graphic designers who will laugh their ass of by the idea of a $3k screen to do their bussiness on.
in their bussiness, they have to make money by saving money.
they'll buy an 20"iMacG5 or a powermac G5 1.8SP and keep their old bulky crt screen.
why not an powermac G5 1.8DP or 2.0DP?
because a premium of $500-$1000 more not.
better yet: they look at their ageing G4 867DP and their 22"laCie crt, shrug and go on with their work.
at most bigger design studio's it's even worse. still using os 9.1 and quark Xpress 4.1 on old G4 400Mhzes.
those studio bosses are as happy as hell with this new shinny Mac mini: a workstation for $500, yeah!!
btw: video editing etc. is something different. in that branche they used to spend $50k or more for a workplace a couple of years ago.
btw2: content viewing on a mac and paying $4k for a screen? it's a niche in a niche in a niche. i think your wife would kill you, if she knew, you spend $4k on a screen to use for iDVD and iMovie. (she was angry already about that $2500 for that powermac.)
Comments
Originally posted by __MaGnUsSoN__
DO you actually know anyone that "works" as a G/A?
does anybody actually read?????
what is a G/A?
G/A as in graphic artist?
i know graphic artists. but that's something different.
i know at least 2 graphic designers who did buy 20"iMacs to work on.
and those 20"iMacs are one of the fastest or maybe the fastest machines at their studios.
best what money can buy isn't everything if you have a mortgage and employers to pay.
and maybe a 20" tft is crammed to todays standards but why need a 30" or 40"?
if a graphic designer really needs more real estate than that 20 (or 23"), i think most graphic designers are more served by a dual 20" screen than one 30" or 40". it's also about $1600 cheaper.
maybe he can buy an extra iMac to have 2 workstations to work on. that's not twice the productivity but it is more productive than one workstation with one 30" screen.
forget what i said. i forgot he also has to buy a extra copy of creative suit.
not every graphic designer is a package designer. i only know two firms in our region who do packaging design. i worked for both. the fastest computers one of those had when i worked for them in 2000 where powermacs 8500. i brought the fastet computer with me: a pismo. after that the bought 2 G4 450Mhz for a studio of 5 man and woman. The other firm still used G4 AGPs as main workstations when i was there in january 2004.
there is a difference between what should, what is smarter to do and what happens in practise. the only thing i can talk about is what is practised in this bussiness.
Originally posted by ThinkingDifferent
OMG, 40 inches, stop the madness!
That's what she said.
Originally posted by gar
does anybody actually read?????
I can read, but I CANNOT comprehend how you could think that imacs are a good replacement/upgrades for graphic artists and graphic houses. And, I CANNOT comprehend how you would think 2 @ 20" flat screens could be better than 1 large 30" or 40" screen. I'd hate to go to a movie theater that you would own. There would be 60 @ 20" screens all over the walls.
If you're friends were smart they'd save money for a desktop work horse and re-use their monitors rather than getting a pretty all-in-one. A mac mini would even make even more sense if you're looking to contrast price vs. performance.
I do understand about the price differences... But, we're talking about "THE VERY BEST PRODUCTS" here. Not how survive on a shoe-string budget. I can still sew a mean pillow with my mother's footpedal machine. But, I can sew 10,000x faster, straighter, and even spaced with a new top of the line machine (or tomorrows).
Some people in this forum think is crazy to even think about a huge monitor like the 40". Think about it, three years ago if I said Apple would deliver a 30" monitor people would say I was nuts. Today, is not the case. I know few people that purchase the 30" and they love it. couple of them have two 30" monitors. So there is a market for the 40" out there. If you can't afford it then go get a smaller one.
Like I said before in 2 to 3 years we'll see a lot of content in HD. Apple is talking about blueRay dvds, imovie HD, FCP HD, Sony HD cameras, etc. Apple definitely is aware that people will start moving in this direction soon. Having a big monitor that can act as big screen to watch movies and work on it is not a bad path for Apple to follow. It makes sense. LCD screens are getting cheaper and more advance every year, so why not?
IMHO, WWDC 2006 we might see this 40" baby out.
why cant we just beam info directly into my brain?
Originally posted by nathan22t
displays are the oldest/lamest tech i can think of.
why cant we just beam info directly into my brain?
Ive got one, a beam of photons shoots out of the photon transmitter, to be received by the brain's ganglionic nerve extension, placed conveniently outside of the skull for improved reception.
But as for the original topic, phooey! Macosrumors is the site that has been predicting 4- and 8-processor Macs for years, and we hain't seen one yet.
If there were a 40-inch LCD, you'd have to sit so far away from it that it wouldn't need any more resolution than the 20" Cinema. Its main use would be in training and presentations.
In fact, my company, and my previous employer, both had 45" Mitsubishi CRT monitors used for exactly those purposes.
When the screens get that big, the whole point is that they're farther away. Apple didn't go to the trouble of making the latest line of monitors VESA mountable so you could stick the 20" on the wall (although I'm sure that many people have, in fact, done that).
If this is "the year of HD" then—show of hands—who here would rather gather their friends around a monitor and make them watch HD content from three feet away? It's acceptable in dorm rooms, perhaps, but if you look at the sizes of HDTVs, it's not acceptable elsewhere.
Conveniently, the mini plugs into HDTVs. It used to be absurd to spend much more on your monitor than on your PC, but there's no intrinsic reason why that must be so. If you're as heavily invested in visuals as Apple is now, it's very much in your interest to break the old buyer's habit of splurging on the box and skimping on the display.
I'm not pretending to believe the MOSR rumor. They are occasionally right, or in the ballpark, but their scoops are buried so completely in fanboi fantasies and outright fabrication that they can only be recognized as scoops after the fact. What I'm addressing, in particular, is the ease with which the current paradigm of what a computer is can be broken, and why it might be interesting and worthwhile to break it. Having the experience center around the display, and having it take place five or six feet away, opens up a whole new round of uses and approaches, greatly enhances the ergonomics of using a computer, compliments Apple's commitment to visual media, and incidentally moves them into a field where there is no credible competition from PC makers. They're still hawking more or less the same thing they've been hawking for the last decade or two.
But if you are going to put it up on the wall and use it to break the computer paradigm ( eg: a presentation device ) then why not just make it HD resolution. That would be fine.
The question then bears asking, what does Apple bring to the HD market? Perhaps just availability. Large LCDs arent very common these days. There just doesnt seem to be much room for them. People arent going to be buying these for their desks.
Originally posted by mmmpie
I think the thing that people are objecting to is the idea that a 40" display will be higher resolution than the 30" display. Certainly, if you were going to use it at the same distance it would need to be the same ppi.
Well, unless you were planning to do the resolution independence thing...
Also, you'd want better-than-1080p resolution for HD editing, which even iMovie is now capable of.
The question then bears asking, what does Apple bring to the HD market? Perhaps just availability. Large LCDs arent very common these days. There just doesnt seem to be much room for them. People arent going to be buying these for their desks.
People at Pixar will be, I'm sure.
But people don't put HDTVs on their desks now. Part of breaking the paradigm involves getting the computer out of the "home office."
I do design work. Visualization of applications like storyboards in Photoshop and graphics in Illustrator will require such a large screen to see the "whole" picture. Plus, I would not mind to have my Ichat on the left corner of the screen and my Entourage on the right. After work is done, why not seat on the couch put a DVD and watch a movie in HD on such monitor? That sounds great to me!
So, if such monitor ever comes to life and price tag is around of the same 30". I'll be there ordering one for me.
I sincerely hope they do as it continues the move into what I would call the 'creative industrial' market that the VESA + DVI compatible displays and the McMini are facilitating (audio visual presentation, museums, digital signage, film/TV sets etc.)
Originally posted by admactanium
what's with everyone's aversion to turning their head? i've used two monitors on my macs since, oh, '94 or so. so i've been turning my head for years using my computers. given the choice, i'd much rather be able to contain all that information on one screen rather than two. but up until this time, two monitors was the only way to do it. if they come out with one monitor that is equivalent to 2 19" monitors, then i think a lot of people would buy it. it's always more expensive than buying two cheaper lcd's, but it's also better because you don't have to deal with the screen bezels.
Thanks admactanium!
Originally posted by __MaGnUsSoN__
I can read, but I CANNOT comprehend how you could think that imacs are a good replacement/upgrades for graphic artists and graphic houses. And, I CANNOT comprehend how you would think 2 @ 20" flat screens could be better than 1 large 30" or 40" screen. I'd hate to go to a movie theater that you would own. There would be 60 @ 20" screens all over the walls.
uh................
I have 3 monitors (plus 1 TV) and I'm MUCH happier with them than I would be with a single 30", even if I'd have more room.
Why? You know what I'm doing while I'm writing this? I'm watching a DVD I've authored full screen one monitor and keeping an eye on my e-mail with another.
I have a KVM, so I can keep watching that movie and my mail while working on my *sigh* PC.
What's that? you want to watch a movie on a larger area? well I have a $200 27" GE TV sitting right over here I can put the video on.. and keep using my computer at the same time!
All this real estate for under $1000. It doesn't look as pretty as one big 30", but I assure you that it's more effective in many ways.
Here is a picture I took earlier today for homeowner's insurance purposes... sorry about the mess.
Apple is building the foundation with Quicktime 7 with H.264 and I believe this is why it has taken so long for the appearance of iTunes 5. Further, I will not be surprised to see upcoming cell processors having a major role in related hardware, including future video pods (2006 at the earliest).
Average Pay for a graphic designer is $80,000. I'm sorry but the 3k I paid for a 30 inch display was nothing. I bought 2 of them. 3k was the amount most of us made on the last 3 day project. 20 iMac? Where are they designing from? Indiana? ;-) Lol
The iMac screen is garabage for colors. In case you weren't aware designers use "colors" especially ones for "printing" You couldn't match colors on that.
Originally posted by gar
i know a lot of graphic designers who will laugh their ass of by the idea of a $3k screen to do their bussiness on.
in their bussiness, they have to make money by saving money.
they'll buy an 20"iMacG5 or a powermac G5 1.8SP and keep their old bulky crt screen.
why not an powermac G5 1.8DP or 2.0DP?
because a premium of $500-$1000 more not.
better yet: they look at their ageing G4 867DP and their 22"laCie crt, shrug and go on with their work.
at most bigger design studio's it's even worse. still using os 9.1 and quark Xpress 4.1 on old G4 400Mhzes.
those studio bosses are as happy as hell with this new shinny Mac mini: a workstation for $500, yeah!!
btw: video editing etc. is something different. in that branche they used to spend $50k or more for a workplace a couple of years ago.
btw2: content viewing on a mac and paying $4k for a screen? it's a niche in a niche in a niche. i think your wife would kill you, if she knew, you spend $4k on a screen to use for iDVD and iMovie. (she was angry already about that $2500 for that powermac.)