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
It's great you make an avarage $80,000 a year as a graphic designer and have two 30" displays to do your work on. Good for you.
Indiana is USA. I know that graphic design is not something the USA should be prout about. But hey, give this country some credit.
Quote:
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.
Craftsmanship, kid.
A blind person or an amateur can't match color on a 20"cinema display.
"Mike Madowitz writes: Any word on those rumors of an uber-big display from a month or two ago? Would This introduction occur along with the much anticipated G5 revision, or is the consensus that a display lineup change will focus on a lower-end display and possibly come independently?
Right now, we think there will be two major display changes this year; the first will be a new entry-level flat panel display -- almost certainly a widescreen 17-inch model. This will probably be released on its own in a few months' time.
Then, alongside the release of the Xstation (or new high-end variant under the PowerMac brand) we expect a 16:9 ultra-widescreen flat panel (not necessarily LCD) in the 40 to 45-inch range to take over as Apple's new flagship display. Resolution will be pushing the limits of Dual Link DVI. "
I would be amazed if that happens this year. It makes sense to back up the "Year of HD" but my feeling is that such big monitor might come at WWDC 2006. But, I hope I am wrong and MOSR right!
Anyone who thinks a 40" display is too big is obviously not an artist. They are also obviously young. Older eyes can not deal with a lot of tiny detail at close range. You have no idea what this is like until it happens to you. I would buy a 60" display if Apple made one, and love it.
There might be some money and profile to be had in anticipation of major studio needs for a 4K display and editing system.
A nice 4000x2000 2:1 display for proofing digital telecine work?
40" $25,000, but hey, Lucas, Spielberg, Jackson, and co can afford it.
I don't think such monitor will cost so much money. Probably under $4k. Apple would change prices across the line to accommodate such monitor. Believe me $4k is a lot of money. But, if you are a professional that could benefit of advantages that a 40"+ monitor can bring. Then is not so bad.
I think a lot of professionals would buy it. A lot of people have two 30" cinema displays now. So, 1 40" would be great or maybe 2!
I love the idea of using two smaller monitors, and many (including myself) use this on a daily basis, but in my book, there's no way around the distraction that the gap between the monitors makes compared to one big work area. I have adapted at my printshop to useing a 22" LaCie and an old 17" palette monitor, it's better than the 22" alone certainly. But I just did some testing at my local apple store, using a 30" cinima display and the adobe creative suite, and the diference is astonishing, having a huge work area and ALL your palettes open, all the time. I set up each app to save the workspace location and optimized everything to maximize use of all those pixels. I then installed LaunchBar, and started firing away at a typical large format print project as I would in my shop... my new 30" will be ordered when the rev3 PowerMacs ship (please God, let that be soon). In my business, this monitor will pay for itself in a year in workspace effeciency alone! If it were larger however, one might need to grease up the caster wheels on ones chair to roll back and forth from the file menu to the trash! It may go beyond what is practical sitting in front of a screen... IMHO.
In many cases even a 30" is a poor choice for people.
Me personally I'd grab a couple 18" LCDs and strap'em together using an Ergotron VESA mount. How are you going to beat 36" total for less than $1500?
Certainly there are a lot of choices out there. I think people who would like to buy such screens want to have the HD capability and the Apple brand. Plus the fact the resolution is so high in such monitors makes then more appealing to certain folks than couple 18" monitors.
I don't think such monitor will cost so much money. Probably under $4k. Apple would change prices across the line to accommodate such monitor. Believe me $4k is a lot of money. But, if you are a professional that could benefit of advantages that a 40"+ monitor can bring. Then is not so bad.
I think a lot of professionals would buy it. A lot of people have two 30" cinema displays now. So, 1 40" would be great or maybe 2!
I don't know, I think you might be surprised by how much it could cost. There are only 2-3 projectors available commercially that can display 4K resolutions, and they cost a lot.
While there are many large panels @ around $4000, few if any have 1080P levels of resolution -- most are 1366x768 or 1280x720 -- let alone 4K resolutions which are 4X as high as HDTV 1080P.
As a personal preference, I have to second garyp's sentiment -- LARGER PIXELS can be nice too. I don't know that I'd buy a 40-60" display, but I think I'd buy a 30" with the display res of the 23", especially if it were cheaper...
Yeah, I know, all the measurbators with freakishly good 20/10 vision will snicker in derision, but it's very nice to be able to sit well back of your display.
I use a 5:4 19" LCD @ 1280x1024, flipped on it's side and doubled it would make a 2048x1280 16:10 of about 28" diagnally. That'd be a nice comfortable screen from which to sit well back and avoid any sort of eye strain.
Certainly there are a lot of choices out there. I think people who would like to buy such screens want to have the HD capability and the Apple brand. Plus the fact the resolution is so high in such monitors makes then more appealing to certain folks than couple 18" monitors.
HD is either 720P or 1080i/p
Most 18" monitors will do 720P just fine. I think Miknap has it. If you are bothered by the space between two monitors then a 30" is going to be for you. If you aren't bothered and just need the overall screen size then two 18" LCDs are far cheaper an option.
Or you could go asymmetrical and utilize a 23" and a 17" or so. Whatever you want really. I think the 30" is gorgeous but me personally I'd be happy with the 23" or better yet two
You know, I kinda see the possibility of a 40" panel, and maybe it will be a deal, relatively speaking. Apple has traditionally served up great large panel deals, only to be eclipsed by the competition when they inevitablt refuse to accept modern pricing.
The 22"
The 23" and 20" were all great buys early in their life, but the 23 and 20 have been eclipsed by a number of panels that offer the same or better performance for far less money.
The 30" stands alone, but for how much longer?
Apple has sooner retired smaller panels and gone one size up on the high end, than actually considered ever competing at reasonable market prices. They can't really go much further, however.
Will they soon retire the 20" and intro a 40" ?
What happens after that? Retire the 23" and intro a 56" ?
They're going have to get used to selling their panels for less, and just accepting the simple fact of life that displays are commodity items. You can improve them, expand them, etc etc... but at some point soon 99% of the people will have all the display they're ever going to want for less than 999, and the rest will be plugging-in to their 1080P sets... just a matter of time.
PS. Look for the iMac to either lose its head, or trade places with the mini when that time comes...
Most 18" monitors will do 720P just fine. I think Miknap has it. If you are bothered by the space between two monitors then a 30" is going to be for you. If you aren't bothered and just need the overall screen size then two 18" LCDs are far cheaper an option.
Or you could go asymmetrical and utilize a 23" and a 17" or so. Whatever you want really. I think the 30" is gorgeous but me personally I'd be happy with the 23" or better yet two
As far as I know HD resolution uncompressed is 1920x1080. If you mean compressed probably the 18" monitor might work for your needs. Broadcast, motion designers and video editors do most of their work on an uncompressed environment. That's why the 23' and 30" Apple monitors are called HD monitors as well, because they have higher resolutions than 1920x1080.
As far as I know HD resolution uncompressed is 1920x1080. If you mean compressed probably the 18" monitor might work for your needs. Broadcast, motion designers and video editors do most of their work on an uncompressed environment. That's why the 23' and 30" Apple monitors are called HD monitors as well, because they have higher resolutions than 1920x1080.
Er... compression has nothing to do frame size. The two frame sizes of HD in use are 1920 x 1080 and 1280 x 720. Motion picture film scans commonly come in 2048 and 4096 pixel widths though there no set standards for these.
Er... compression has nothing to do frame size. The two frame sizes of HD in use are 1920 x 1080 and 1280 x 720. Motion picture film scans commonly come in 2048 and 4096 pixel widths though there no set standards for these.
Thanks, You are right. My point is that most 18" monitors usually don't have the enough resolution and real screen state to display full "frame" size HD. So that's why professionals usually like to have bigger monitors to display full frame HD and have more room to work with applications like After Effects, FCP, Combustion, etc.
What graphic designers? Who can't come up with $3k for a display? Get a loan. I'm sorry but all the graphic designers I know who are worth a nickle can afford something like this. It's also a good investment for graphic design because of the color calibrated display. If your working on designs (other than web designs) you cannot use some imac. The display is a HACK compared next to any other apple display.
If you've been doing design for 10 years and have an aging 867mhz DP it's time to find another job. If your entire work is computer based but you can't afford a faster computer and better display nor feel the need to buy one then plan on always being broke.
The equipment you work on does make a huge difference.
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.)
Thanks, You are right. My point is that most 18" monitors usually don't have the enough resolution and real screen state to display full "frame" size HD. So that's why professionals usually like to have bigger monitors to display full frame HD and have more room to work with applications like After Effects, FCP, Combustion, etc.
That's true for 1920x1080 in most cases. I think if Widescreen LCDs took off then it would be easier for screens to handle the 1080.
I just got back from the Apple store in University Village here in Seattle. Man that 30" just takes your breath away when you see it. I have a hard time believing that Apple will go to 40+ inches. That's just a little too big for sitting at a desk.
That's true for 1920x1080 in most cases. I think if Widescreen LCDs took off then it would be easier for screens to handle the 1080.
I just got back from the Apple store in University Village here in Seattle. Man that 30" just takes your breath away when you see it. I have a hard time believing that Apple will go to 40+ inches. That's just a little too big for sitting at a desk.
Yeah, that 30" monitor is amazing. I can't wait to get one.
The 40"+ monitor I think will appeal to people who do not want to have dual monitors. Example: 2 23" or 2 30". People who rather have a single screen.
My wild guess is that a 40" monitor besides being aimed to the high end crowd will be market as well as possible entertainment room appliance.
With all the talk about year of HD, I would not be surprise if Apple goes on this direction. Then the possible price tag of around $4k will not be so far away from the current plasma displays out there.
Who knows what Apple will do regarding "Year of the HD". We have now the software from Apple plus 23" and 30" displays. My guess is that a HD display might come to the PowerBook 17" and a big Computer/tv screen on the 40"+ size. What about the Apple HD DVR? Who knows, maybe I am just a wishful thinker!
Reader Mail Weekend Mega-Update, Part Two (Cont'd)
Jeremy Elkin writes: Do you think that its safe to purchase a 20" cinema display? or will there be new models @ the wwdc?
To the best of our knowledge and that of our sources, the 20-inch Cinema will remain as-is for 2005. The only changes on the docket for Apple's display lineup this year are a new entry-level model and an ultra-high-end addition to top the 30-incher near year's end....
Comments
Originally posted by webmail
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
It's great you make an avarage $80,000 a year as a graphic designer and have two 30" displays to do your work on. Good for you.
Indiana is USA. I know that graphic design is not something the USA should be prout about. But hey, give this country some credit.
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.
Craftsmanship, kid.
A blind person or an amateur can't match color on a 20"cinema display.
Would it be a 16x9 44" display?
http://www.macosrumors.com/20050305B.php
"Mike Madowitz writes: Any word on those rumors of an uber-big display from a month or two ago? Would This introduction occur along with the much anticipated G5 revision, or is the consensus that a display lineup change will focus on a lower-end display and possibly come independently?
Right now, we think there will be two major display changes this year; the first will be a new entry-level flat panel display -- almost certainly a widescreen 17-inch model. This will probably be released on its own in a few months' time.
Then, alongside the release of the Xstation (or new high-end variant under the PowerMac brand) we expect a 16:9 ultra-widescreen flat panel (not necessarily LCD) in the 40 to 45-inch range to take over as Apple's new flagship display. Resolution will be pushing the limits of Dual Link DVI. "
I would be amazed if that happens this year. It makes sense to back up the "Year of HD" but my feeling is that such big monitor might come at WWDC 2006. But, I hope I am wrong and MOSR right!
A nice 4000x2000 2:1 display for proofing digital telecine work?
40" $25,000, but hey, Lucas, Spielberg, Jackson, and co can afford it.
Originally posted by Matsu
There might be some money and profile to be had in anticipation of major studio needs for a 4K display and editing system.
A nice 4000x2000 2:1 display for proofing digital telecine work?
40" $25,000, but hey, Lucas, Spielberg, Jackson, and co can afford it.
I don't think such monitor will cost so much money. Probably under $4k. Apple would change prices across the line to accommodate such monitor. Believe me $4k is a lot of money. But, if you are a professional that could benefit of advantages that a 40"+ monitor can bring. Then is not so bad.
I think a lot of professionals would buy it. A lot of people have two 30" cinema displays now. So, 1 40" would be great or maybe 2!
Originally posted by garyp
Anyone who thinks a 40" display is too big is obviously not an artist.
i always run back and forth through my studio to have some d i s t a n c e to my work, just what i need a BIGGER screen.
Me personally I'd grab a couple 18" LCDs and strap'em together using an Ergotron VESA mount. How are you going to beat 36" total for less than $1500?
Originally posted by hmurchison
In many cases even a 30" is a poor choice for people.
Me personally I'd grab a couple 18" LCDs and strap'em together using an Ergotron VESA mount. How are you going to beat 36" total for less than $1500?
Certainly there are a lot of choices out there. I think people who would like to buy such screens want to have the HD capability and the Apple brand. Plus the fact the resolution is so high in such monitors makes then more appealing to certain folks than couple 18" monitors.
Originally posted by gugy
I don't think such monitor will cost so much money. Probably under $4k. Apple would change prices across the line to accommodate such monitor. Believe me $4k is a lot of money. But, if you are a professional that could benefit of advantages that a 40"+ monitor can bring. Then is not so bad.
I think a lot of professionals would buy it. A lot of people have two 30" cinema displays now. So, 1 40" would be great or maybe 2!
I don't know, I think you might be surprised by how much it could cost. There are only 2-3 projectors available commercially that can display 4K resolutions, and they cost a lot.
While there are many large panels @ around $4000, few if any have 1080P levels of resolution -- most are 1366x768 or 1280x720 -- let alone 4K resolutions which are 4X as high as HDTV 1080P.
As a personal preference, I have to second garyp's sentiment -- LARGER PIXELS can be nice too. I don't know that I'd buy a 40-60" display, but I think I'd buy a 30" with the display res of the 23", especially if it were cheaper...
Yeah, I know, all the measurbators with freakishly good 20/10 vision will snicker in derision, but it's very nice to be able to sit well back of your display.
I use a 5:4 19" LCD @ 1280x1024, flipped on it's side and doubled it would make a 2048x1280 16:10 of about 28" diagnally. That'd be a nice comfortable screen from which to sit well back and avoid any sort of eye strain.
Originally posted by gugy
Certainly there are a lot of choices out there. I think people who would like to buy such screens want to have the HD capability and the Apple brand. Plus the fact the resolution is so high in such monitors makes then more appealing to certain folks than couple 18" monitors.
HD is either 720P or 1080i/p
Most 18" monitors will do 720P just fine. I think Miknap has it. If you are bothered by the space between two monitors then a 30" is going to be for you. If you aren't bothered and just need the overall screen size then two 18" LCDs are far cheaper an option.
Or you could go asymmetrical and utilize a 23" and a 17" or so. Whatever you want really. I think the 30" is gorgeous but me personally I'd be happy with the 23" or better yet two
The 22"
The 23" and 20" were all great buys early in their life, but the 23 and 20 have been eclipsed by a number of panels that offer the same or better performance for far less money.
The 30" stands alone, but for how much longer?
Apple has sooner retired smaller panels and gone one size up on the high end, than actually considered ever competing at reasonable market prices. They can't really go much further, however.
Will they soon retire the 20" and intro a 40" ?
What happens after that? Retire the 23" and intro a 56" ?
They're going have to get used to selling their panels for less, and just accepting the simple fact of life that displays are commodity items. You can improve them, expand them, etc etc... but at some point soon 99% of the people will have all the display they're ever going to want for less than 999, and the rest will be plugging-in to their 1080P sets... just a matter of time.
PS. Look for the iMac to either lose its head, or trade places with the mini when that time comes...
Unless Apple starts selling 30" iMacs too ?
Originally posted by hmurchison
HD is either 720P or 1080i/p
Most 18" monitors will do 720P just fine. I think Miknap has it. If you are bothered by the space between two monitors then a 30" is going to be for you. If you aren't bothered and just need the overall screen size then two 18" LCDs are far cheaper an option.
Or you could go asymmetrical and utilize a 23" and a 17" or so. Whatever you want really. I think the 30" is gorgeous but me personally I'd be happy with the 23" or better yet two
As far as I know HD resolution uncompressed is 1920x1080. If you mean compressed probably the 18" monitor might work for your needs. Broadcast, motion designers and video editors do most of their work on an uncompressed environment. That's why the 23' and 30" Apple monitors are called HD monitors as well, because they have higher resolutions than 1920x1080.
Originally posted by gugy
As far as I know HD resolution uncompressed is 1920x1080. If you mean compressed probably the 18" monitor might work for your needs. Broadcast, motion designers and video editors do most of their work on an uncompressed environment. That's why the 23' and 30" Apple monitors are called HD monitors as well, because they have higher resolutions than 1920x1080.
Er... compression has nothing to do frame size. The two frame sizes of HD in use are 1920 x 1080 and 1280 x 720. Motion picture film scans commonly come in 2048 and 4096 pixel widths though there no set standards for these.
Originally posted by vinney57
Er... compression has nothing to do frame size. The two frame sizes of HD in use are 1920 x 1080 and 1280 x 720. Motion picture film scans commonly come in 2048 and 4096 pixel widths though there no set standards for these.
Thanks, You are right. My point is that most 18" monitors usually don't have the enough resolution and real screen state to display full "frame" size HD. So that's why professionals usually like to have bigger monitors to display full frame HD and have more room to work with applications like After Effects, FCP, Combustion, etc.
If you've been doing design for 10 years and have an aging 867mhz DP it's time to find another job. If your entire work is computer based but you can't afford a faster computer and better display nor feel the need to buy one then plan on always being broke.
The equipment you work on does make a huge difference.
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.)
Originally posted by gugy
Thanks, You are right. My point is that most 18" monitors usually don't have the enough resolution and real screen state to display full "frame" size HD. So that's why professionals usually like to have bigger monitors to display full frame HD and have more room to work with applications like After Effects, FCP, Combustion, etc.
That's true for 1920x1080 in most cases. I think if Widescreen LCDs took off then it would be easier for screens to handle the 1080.
I just got back from the Apple store in University Village here in Seattle. Man that 30" just takes your breath away when you see it. I have a hard time believing that Apple will go to 40+ inches. That's just a little too big for sitting at a desk.
Originally posted by hmurchison
That's true for 1920x1080 in most cases. I think if Widescreen LCDs took off then it would be easier for screens to handle the 1080.
I just got back from the Apple store in University Village here in Seattle. Man that 30" just takes your breath away when you see it. I have a hard time believing that Apple will go to 40+ inches. That's just a little too big for sitting at a desk.
Yeah, that 30" monitor is amazing. I can't wait to get one.
The 40"+ monitor I think will appeal to people who do not want to have dual monitors. Example: 2 23" or 2 30". People who rather have a single screen.
My wild guess is that a 40" monitor besides being aimed to the high end crowd will be market as well as possible entertainment room appliance.
With all the talk about year of HD, I would not be surprise if Apple goes on this direction. Then the possible price tag of around $4k will not be so far away from the current plasma displays out there.
Who knows what Apple will do regarding "Year of the HD". We have now the software from Apple plus 23" and 30" displays. My guess is that a HD display might come to the PowerBook 17" and a big Computer/tv screen on the 40"+ size. What about the Apple HD DVR? Who knows, maybe I am just a wishful thinker!
http://www.macosrumors.com/20050306C.php
Reader Mail Weekend Mega-Update, Part Two (Cont'd)
Jeremy Elkin writes: Do you think that its safe to purchase a 20" cinema display? or will there be new models @ the wwdc?
To the best of our knowledge and that of our sources, the 20-inch Cinema will remain as-is for 2005. The only changes on the docket for Apple's display lineup this year are a new entry-level model and an ultra-high-end addition to top the 30-incher near year's end....