PDA

View Full Version : New Cinema Displays? what happend!!!!




umbilical
Sep 29, 2008, 04:56 PM
hey why not new cinema displays!! I want a new one, a lot time without a new model!



shfreelance
Sep 29, 2008, 05:11 PM
I think there nice... But I guess they could use a panel upgrade, since all the competitors have for a monitor in this category. But I don't think you will see a design remodel, till the Mac Pro is redesigned.

UltraNEO*
Sep 29, 2008, 06:41 PM
hey why not new cinema displays!! I want a new one, a lot time without a new model!

Hmm... what's wrong with the current model? Beside it doesn't have HDCP compliance? Personally... I love my display, the Dells can't even get close when it comes to matching, co-ordinating the Apple's Professional line. Though I do wish Apple would produce a even larger display, my 30" already looks too small. LOL :D

inigel
Sep 29, 2008, 06:59 PM
Hmm... what's wrong with the current model? Though I do wish Apple would produce a even larger display, my 30" already looks too small. LOL :D

Don't say that! I want to upgrade from a 23" one when the next model come out!

I hope that Apple will release a 50" TV, to tie in with Apple TV. And put a HD tuner in Apple TV and I'll be satisfied.

Techguy172
Sep 29, 2008, 07:04 PM
While it could be updated Technology hasn't changed that much since they were last updated. The only thing I could really think of is HDCP Other than that there's not that much. Perhaps better panels.

grue
Sep 29, 2008, 07:05 PM
Hmm... what's wrong with the current model? Beside it doesn't have HDCP compliance? Personally... I love my display, the Dells can't even get close when it comes to matching, co-ordinating the Apple's Professional line. Though I do wish Apple would produce a even larger display, my 30" already looks too small. LOL :D

HDCP, better contrast, faster response rate, more inputs (component, HDMI), and maybe an iSight (I'd say make that optional though, since some workplaces cannot have cameras)

Umbongo
Sep 29, 2008, 07:37 PM
I would think they are waiting until they can make LED displays work in terms of the market and pricing. They haven't shown interest in being more than a quality display to complement the Mac Pro and Macbook Pro and I can't see that changing in the future.

I wouldn't get my hopes up beyond maybe seeing LED displays debut alongside new Mac Pros in Q1 2009 and costing more than the current ones at similar sizes.

Purple Pelican
Sep 29, 2008, 07:42 PM
I'd say price drops. Drop the 20 inch to about $450USD (about $599 currently), 23 to $700 (about $899 currently), etc. I'd like to buy an apple display...they're so pretty...but you can find good quality viewsonics for about half apple's price.

EDIT I like the idea of new led displays as well. I second that.

Techguy172
Sep 29, 2008, 07:48 PM
I'd say price drops. Drop the 20 inch to about $450USD (about $599 currently), 23 to $700 (about $899 currently), etc. I'd like to buy an apple display...they're so pretty...but you can find good quality viewsonics for about half apple's price.

EDIT I like the idea of new led displays as well. I second that.

I doubt the Viewsonics have the S-IPS panel that the apple and high end dells use. While they could make them a bit cheaper. I don't think it will happen. Maybe but traditionally apple has kept prices the same and just given more features however that might have to change now with the U.S. economy.

kabunaru
Sep 29, 2008, 08:18 PM
Hmm... what's wrong with the current model?

H-IPS, LED and 16:9 ratio Cinema Display would be nice.

shfreelance
Sep 29, 2008, 08:34 PM
...16:9 ratio...

No!!! If I loose any more screen real estate, I will start choking people.

grue
Sep 29, 2008, 08:37 PM
H-IPS, LED and 16:9 ratio Cinema Display would be nice.

16:9 wouldn't make a whole lot of sense. Nonstandard resolutions are the devil.

shfreelance
Sep 29, 2008, 08:46 PM
16:9 wouldn't make a whole lot of sense. Nonstandard resolutions are the devil.

Yes, let's leave that to Sony... Since they want to make a big ass Portable HD BluRay player.

kabunaru
Sep 29, 2008, 08:55 PM
Nonstandard resolutions are the devil.
No, they are not.

Techguy172
Sep 29, 2008, 09:06 PM
No, they are not.

What did I say? No one wants Cinema displays to have 16:9.

H-IPS would be nice but it is really expensive and apple needs to lower their prices no raise them.

kabunaru
Sep 29, 2008, 09:07 PM
No one wants Cinema displays to have 16:9.


Except me.
I still do not know why people are so afraid of it except for a couple lost pixels. So what, big deal.

Techguy172
Sep 29, 2008, 09:10 PM
Except me.
I still do not know why people are so afraid of it except for a couple lost pixels. So what, big deal.

I can only speak for my self but when i'm in photoshop I want all the realestate I can get. I love my pixels. But I could ask you the same question why 16:9 What are the advantages.

shfreelance
Sep 29, 2008, 09:12 PM
I can only speak for my self but when i'm in photoshop I want all the realestate I can get. I love my pixels. But I could ask you the same question why 16:9 What are the advantages.

Agrees, I am also more into photoshop. But I can see the advantage of 16:9, for film editing.

mathcolo
Sep 29, 2008, 10:09 PM
I think Apple's design team has hit the brick wall with displays.:rolleyes:

grue
Sep 29, 2008, 10:54 PM
No, they are not.

Except for the fact that a veritable buttload of applications, especially games, would have to be patched to support the new resolutions. Not to mention display drivers, and very possibly the OS itself.

TheStrudel
Sep 29, 2008, 11:51 PM
Except for the fact that a veritable buttload of applications, especially games, would have to be patched to support the new resolutions. Not to mention display drivers, and very possibly the OS itself.

What? OS X already supports nonstandard resolutions (Try using a VGA cable out to a projector. Your options there are far weirder than this). And it manages it just fine. In fact, I can run 1920x1080 out to my monitor just fine, 1:1 pixel mapping through a DVI cable. It's a 25.5" H-IPS and it works great.

Some games are flexible, and many could be made to support 16:9. After all, every console game does. Also, 16:9 nonstandard? HDTV, in all of its flavors and incarnations, is all 16:9, and it has been standardized for many, many years. Pixel loss, by the way, is minor. Also, the point of 16:9 monitors is to cram 1080p onto smaller panels, a measure I thoroughly approve of since right now 22" monitors suck - are merely a downgrade from 20" monitors in terms of pixel density and always use TN panels. Now, if 22" monitors adopted that aspect ratio in order to get 1080p, I'd call that a much better idea. I don't think anybody is seriously making 24" 16:9 panels, but if they are, it'll have an obvious use to video editors, as 16:10 is not used anywhere there.

So, to recap: 16:9 is a thoroughly standard resolution and OS X handles it just fine. So would just about every application that wasn't designed by a company that doesn't know how to write apps (like Microsoft). Games could handle it just fine. 22" monitors with that aspect ratio gives them an actual purpose for existing.

umbilical
Sep 30, 2008, 12:15 AM
I have no problem with the current models, but if I buy one today! and apple release the new one in one month by example... so I killing me!!! hahaha :eek:

nanofrog
Sep 30, 2008, 12:45 AM
I have no problem with the current models, but if I buy one today! and apple release the new one in one month by example... so I killing me!!! hahaha :eek:
Apple is waiting for OLED panels to become readily available and is cost effective IIRC. No way to really predict when it will happen though. :(

grue
Sep 30, 2008, 04:06 AM
What? OS X already supports nonstandard resolutions (Try using a VGA cable out to a projector. Your options there are far weirder than this). And it manages it just fine. In fact, I can run 1920x1080 out to my monitor just fine, 1:1 pixel mapping through a DVI cable. It's a 25.5" H-IPS and it works great.

Some games are flexible, and many could be made to support 16:9. After all, every console game does. Also, 16:9 nonstandard? HDTV, in all of its flavors and incarnations, is all 16:9, and it has been standardized for many, many years. Pixel loss, by the way, is minor. Also, the point of 16:9 monitors is to cram 1080p onto smaller panels, a measure I thoroughly approve of since right now 22" monitors suck - are merely a downgrade from 20" monitors in terms of pixel density and always use TN panels. Now, if 22" monitors adopted that aspect ratio in order to get 1080p, I'd call that a much better idea. I don't think anybody is seriously making 24" 16:9 panels, but if they are, it'll have an obvious use to video editors, as 16:10 is not used anywhere there.

So, to recap: 16:9 is a thoroughly standard resolution and OS X handles it just fine. So would just about every application that wasn't designed by a company that doesn't know how to write apps (like Microsoft). Games could handle it just fine. 22" monitors with that aspect ratio gives them an actual purpose for existing.


1920x1080, yes, that is a standard. I'm speaking more for the 20" and 30" displays, which don't have anything similar in terms of pixel density in a standard resolution.

But frankly, I think it's the most minor possible issue with the ACD line. The crappy response times, mediocre contrast ratio, and third-rate input capabilities are what bug me.

devman
Sep 30, 2008, 04:20 AM
But frankly, I think it's the most minor possible issue with the ACD line. The crappy response times, mediocre contrast ratio, and third-rate input capabilities are what bug me.

and the abomination that is the brick and multi-ended cable they use (I'm on the road now or I'd attach a photo to show what I mean).

vendettabass
Sep 30, 2008, 04:33 AM
and the abomination that is the brick and multi-ended cable they use (I'm on the road now or I'd attach a photo to show what I mean).

+1, if the iMac can survive without a power brick, why can't the ACD's?

allmIne
Sep 30, 2008, 04:57 AM
I own a 20in cinema display, and I really don't think I could ever bring myself to buy a non Apple display. They just go too well with the computers (in my case, a MBP, but equally so the Mac Pro).


The alu keyboard just tops it all off.

UltraNEO*
Sep 30, 2008, 07:52 AM
HDCP, better contrast, faster response rate, more inputs (component, HDMI), and maybe an iSight (I'd say make that optional though, since some workplaces cannot have cameras)

Seriously...

How many creative pros you know, who actually have time for A/V messengering? Most of us wanna get out of the studio and into a bar where we can chill-out and forget work!!!

No!!! If I loose any more screen real estate, I will start choking people.

Just choking? I wanna kill the designer who put portrait option on f'in Apple Display control panel but didn't think to add the functions to the back stand. I'd love to have dual 30" portrait/landscape panels just so i can see some of what I'm doing. Without propping the panels against the wall!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I think Apple's design team has hit the brick wall with displays.:rolleyes:

Nah... I reckon the next would should stick with the same dimensions, at 16:10 so professional users can have more pixels, display our useful pallets (both Photoshop, Illustrator, Animators & Flash developers alike) but maybe upgrade the panel to ultra high resolution OLED's. This way, Apple can develop a display without back-lighting, emitting less heat and consuming less power. You might think this is insane but OLED panels don't need additional back-light, so our physical screen could be thinner! Yep, thinner!!

But since Apple doesn't make the actual panels that are in our ACD's, we'll all have to wait a while panel makers gear up it's development process... I think there's a long way to go before we actually see large format OLED versions with CRT like quality....

Before all this, Apple has has to make the leap from CCLF to LED back-light in it's ACD line - our beloved panels will still go dim in time :(

Oh.. and Wannabe 'home cinema enthusiasts' can buy third-party displays with faster response for games and High-def video. They can have cheaper 16:9 panels cause they don't need to comply with "SWOP", Pantone and various other colour standards. Hell.. You can even have a hook to hang your display mascots!!:D:D:D

CWallace
Sep 30, 2008, 12:57 PM
What did I say? No one wants Cinema displays to have 16:9.

Considering how many people carp about wanting Blu-ray on every Mac and such playback would benefit most from a 16:9 display, you would think that everyone wants the next ACDs to have 16:9 panels.

Infrared
Sep 30, 2008, 01:15 PM
What? OS X already supports nonstandard resolutions (Try using a VGA cable out to a projector. Your options there are far weirder than this). And it manages it just fine. In fact, I can run 1920x1080 out to my monitor just fine, 1:1 pixel mapping through a DVI cable. It's a 25.5" H-IPS and it works great.

Some games are flexible, and many could be made to support 16:9. After all, every console game does. Also, 16:9 nonstandard? HDTV, in all of its flavors and incarnations, is all 16:9, and it has been standardized for many, many years. Pixel loss, by the way, is minor. Also, the point of 16:9 monitors is to cram 1080p onto smaller panels, a measure I thoroughly approve of since right now 22" monitors suck - are merely a downgrade from 20" monitors in terms of pixel density and always use TN panels. Now, if 22" monitors adopted that aspect ratio in order to get 1080p, I'd call that a much better idea. I don't think anybody is seriously making 24" 16:9 panels, but if they are, it'll have an obvious use to video editors, as 16:10 is not used anywhere there.

So, to recap: 16:9 is a thoroughly standard resolution and OS X handles it just fine. So would just about every application that wasn't designed by a company that doesn't know how to write apps (like Microsoft). Games could handle it just fine. 22" monitors with that aspect ratio gives them an actual purpose for existing.

Why not have a 16:10 monitor and simply not use
the extra pixels when you want 16:9 (letterboxing)?

Techguy172
Sep 30, 2008, 02:37 PM
Considering how many people carp about wanting Blu-ray on every Mac and such playback would benefit most from a 16:9 display, you would think that everyone wants the next ACDs to have 16:9 panels.

I am totally against blu-ray have been from the very beginning. Most designers and professionals want even more real-estate not less as 16:9 gives you.

shfreelance
Sep 30, 2008, 02:48 PM
I am totally against blu-ray have been from the very beginning. Most designers and professionals want even more real-estate not less as 16:9 gives you.

I am not against BluRay. All BluRay does is give use more storage on a disk, allowing 1080P (Full HD) and better sound. There for I support it on the entertainment side of things. But I have no question in my mind, that BluRay can't support 1920x1200. Since BluRay in it's own is just storage, so it could hold it. But I am with you as I prefer more real-estate, 16:10. Editing Photos it's great to have as much real-estate as possible. But keep in mind that motion entertainment, 16:9 has many benefits. I think the best thing Apple could do is offer 20" and 23" in 16:9. But still keep the 30" at 16:10 with options for the others. Whether Apple would do this, I think it's highly unlikely.

grue
Sep 30, 2008, 04:42 PM
and the abomination that is the brick and multi-ended cable they use (I'm on the road now or I'd attach a photo to show what I mean).

I'd like to say that doesn't bother me… but it does.

Techguy172
Sep 30, 2008, 04:53 PM
I am not against BluRay. All BluRay does is give use more storage on a disk, allowing 1080P (Full HD) and better sound. There for I support it on the entertainment side of things. But I have no question in my mind, that BluRay can't support 1920x1200. Since BluRay in it's own is just storage, so it could hold it. But I am with you as I prefer more real-estate, 16:10. Editing Photos it's great to have as much real-estate as possible. But keep in mind that motion entertainment, 16:9 has many benefits. I think the best thing Apple could do is offer 20" and 23" in 16:9. But still keep the 30" at 16:10 with options for the others. Whether Apple would do this, I think it's highly unlikely.

Ok But what would the resolution be if the Screen were 20" it is 1680 x 1050 now.

cherry su
Sep 30, 2008, 04:56 PM
Ok But what would the resolution be if the Screen were 20" it is 1680 x 1050 now.

1680*9/16 = 945.

So it would be 1680 x 945

Digital Skunk
Sep 30, 2008, 05:01 PM
and the abomination that is the brick and multi-ended cable they use (I'm on the road now or I'd attach a photo to show what I mean).

Yes, we know, or at least I do. Having two ACDs makes the bottom of your desk look like garbage. I love having the hubs in the back, and the ultra thin ACD on my desk, but that cord system has to GO!

+1, if the iMac can survive without a power brick, why can't the ACD's?

The ACDs are much thinner, and don't pack the power brick in the back like the iMacs do.

For me, I just want an up-to-date display on par with the NECs and LaCie's and Eizo models. I know the price would go up dramatically but I think I could stomach a 24" H-IPS (like the 24" iMac's) at around $1200 or so.

Also, the connectivity can really take a hike. Display port since it's smaller than DVI would be wonderful, but HDCP and so forth don't interest since TVs were made for that. Keep the current aspect ration please, I see a lot more and I have done the thin and long monitors and they SUCK.

wheezy
Sep 30, 2008, 05:11 PM
1680*9/16 = 945.

So it would be 1680 x 945

EWW, don't make my monitor not as tall...

grue
Sep 30, 2008, 05:13 PM
Also, the connectivity can really take a hike. Display port since it's smaller than DVI would be wonderful, but HDCP and so forth don't interest since TVs were made for that.

So because you personally don't use them, nobody should have them? I don't see the point in encouraging Apple to continue on their current path of absolutely sucking genitals when it comes to the usefulness of their displays. Right now, the only people who buy Apple displays are professional users, and idiots. They could easily sell more if the displays weren't so second (or even third) rate in terms of connectivity and overall specs.

cherry su
Sep 30, 2008, 05:18 PM
EWW, don't make my monitor not as tall...

Wanna go back to 4:3 world ;) ? There's 1600 x 1200

Digital Skunk
Sep 30, 2008, 05:28 PM
So because you personally don't use them, nobody should have them? I don't see the point in encouraging Apple to continue on their current path of absolutely sucking genitals when it comes to the usefulness of their displays. Right now, the only people who buy Apple displays are professional users, and idiots. They could easily sell more if the displays weren't so second (or even third) rate in terms of connectivity and overall specs.

No, I just don't think they should be used as TVs. Especially since you can get far better, bigger TVs for less money.

kabunaru
Sep 30, 2008, 06:02 PM
Also, does anybody want to see a Cinema Display with a black bezel and looks like an aluminium iMac (without a chin also)?

grue
Sep 30, 2008, 06:32 PM
Also, does anybody want to see a Cinema Display with a black bezel and looks like an aluminium iMac (without a chin also)?

As long as it doesn't have the super crappy glossy BS like the iMacs…

kabunaru
Sep 30, 2008, 06:33 PM
As long as it doesn't have the super crappy glossy BS like the iMacs…

Yes, as long as it matte still, it is fine.

dual64bit
Sep 30, 2008, 06:34 PM
The iMacs have glass in front of the display, that's what gives it the shine. It's glass.

grue
Sep 30, 2008, 06:34 PM
No, I just don't think they should be used as TVs. Especially since you can get far better, bigger TVs for less money.

Again, since you personally don't have use for it, you think nobody should be allowed to have it? This may come as a surprise, but there are plenty of people who would like their display to double as their television.

This is the same mindset that leads to all the stupid nanny state laws where people try and legislate their views onto other people. Just because you don't do it doesn't mean everyone else should be prevented from it.

grue
Sep 30, 2008, 06:35 PM
The iMacs have glass in front of the display, that's what gives it the shine. It's glass.

I'm cognizant of that, I've taken them apart many, many times. The glass isn't what gives them the crappy viewing angles, though.

kabunaru
Sep 30, 2008, 06:35 PM
The iMacs have glass in front of the display, that's what gives it the shine. It's glass.

The Cinema Display Can still have a black bezel with a matte screen without the glossy glass in front.

Fast Shadow
Sep 30, 2008, 07:42 PM
+1, if the iMac can survive without a power brick, why can't the ACD's?

My guess is that they wanted to keep all sources of interference as far away from the panels as possible. Personally I'd prefer the power supplies be kept separate.

A lot of measurebators hate on the ACDs because of this stat or that stat, but honestly there are very few displays that can compete. There are comparably priced displays with better stats, but many of those displays happen to also be wide gamut and have all of the baggage that comes along with that (Dell 2408WFP). The only displays I've looked at that's been more impressive than the ACD are the NEC 2490 and some of the heavy hitting Eizos. The NEC 24 costs a couple of hundred bucks more than the ACD and the Eizos are substantially more expensive than the ACD.

Digital Skunk
Sep 30, 2008, 07:54 PM
.....

You seem like one of those posters that is going to start getting emotional for NO reason.... I will watch what I say then.


The H-IPS panel is WAY over-priced for simple TV viewing. You will pay thousands of dollars for even a 30" monitor just to watch TV. Most people are better off getting less color specific high end monitors.

Either-way, I don't really care, so SURE... you are right and I was SO trying to legislate my view onto other people. :rolleyes:

grue
Sep 30, 2008, 08:06 PM
My guess is that they wanted to keep all sources of interference as far away from the panels as possible. Personally I'd prefer the power supplies be kept separate.

A lot of measurebators hate on the ACDs because of this stat or that stat, but honestly there are very few displays that can compete. There are comparably priced displays with better stats, but many of those displays happen to also be wide gamut and have all of the baggage that comes along with that (Dell 2408WFP). The only displays I've looked at that's been more impressive than the ACD are the NEC 2490 and some of the heavy hitting Eizos. The NEC 24 costs a couple of hundred bucks more than the ACD and the Eizos are substantially more expensive than the ACD.


Measurebation (what a great term, thank you for that) aside, one thing that I think is universally true is that the contrast ratio on the displays is really quite bad. If you ever watch a film on it (be it for pleasure or work) in a darkened room, they don't get anywhere near a true black. :(

grue
Sep 30, 2008, 08:09 PM
You seem like one of those posters that is going to start getting emotional for NO reason.... I will watch what I say then.


The H-IPS panel is WAY over-priced for simple TV viewing. You will pay thousands of dollars for even a 30" monitor just to watch TV. Most people are better off getting less color specific high end monitors.

Either-way, I don't really care, so SURE... you are right and I was SO trying to legislate my view onto other people. :rolleyes:

Emotional? Hardly.

Yes, it's overpriced for simple TV viewing, and anyone who buys it for that specific purpose is an idiot, plain and simple. But the fact of the matter is that for many users, it's far more convenient to buy a display that does both sides of what they want to do than to buy a good display AND a good TV.

It's not going to make people go "Oh, I should get a high end Apple display instead of a budget Dell display I was planning on that has the same features", but it might go "Oh, I guess I don't have to compromise and buy a crappy Dell display just to get the features that I need"

Make sense?

Techguy172
Sep 30, 2008, 08:37 PM
You seem like one of those posters that is going to start getting emotional for NO reason.... I will watch what I say then.


The H-IPS panel is WAY over-priced for simple TV viewing. You will pay thousands of dollars for even a 30" monitor just to watch TV. Most people are better off getting less color specific high end monitors.

Either-way, I don't really care, so SURE... you are right and I was SO trying to legislate my view onto other people. :rolleyes:

I agree with you on the H-ips panel but what i think your missing is people buy it for a monitor but then the extra functionality comes in handy. I use my dell with an S-IPS panel as Tv sometimes.

There's no reason why apple can't do it and frankly if they want to compete with dell they are going to have to do something about the current state of inputs and outputs.

Digital Skunk
Sep 30, 2008, 08:42 PM
Make sense?

Yeah it does. It always has. I guess my understanding lies in the use of the display.

I honestly don't care whether they put more connection options on the thing, I just want what the NECs and LaCies have now.

Competing with Dell and HP would only come from making cheaper panels, which would be nice for those that want TN/PVA models, but anything with an H-IPS is going to cost. Even Dells 30" H-IPS is $2000, I am sure Apple will charge more.

Now that Sony Bravias are around $1500 for 42" owning one is actually in my reach.

Techguy172
Sep 30, 2008, 08:47 PM
Yeah it does. It always has. I guess my understanding lies in the use of the display.

I honestly don't care whether they put more connection options on the thing, I just want what the NECs and LaCies have now.

Competing with Dell and HP would only come from making cheaper panels, which would be nice for those that want TN/PVA models, but anything with an H-IPS is going to cost. Even Dells 30" H-IPS is $2000, I am sure Apple will charge more.

Now that Sony Bravias are around $1500 for 42" owning one is actually in my reach.

Dell's 30" model has many connections though it makes up for the price. Apple needs to add more. The panels are good now. Less provide more connections and make it adjustable. I hate the stand it has now. It's flimsy and non-adjustable.

Digital Skunk
Sep 30, 2008, 08:49 PM
Dell's 30" model has many connections though it makes up for the price. Apple needs to add more. The panels are good now. Less provide more connections and make it adjustable. I hate the stand it has now. It's flimsy and non-adjustable.

The price comes from the H-IPS it has, not the connections. The 30" isn't as good due to the S-IPS panel. The stand is meh to me. I just want the brighter, higher contrast, more NTSC gamut H-IPS panel. The only reason I would still grab the ACD is because of the FW400.

nanofrog
Sep 30, 2008, 09:15 PM
The price comes from the H-IPS it has, not the connections. The 30" isn't as good due to the S-IPS panel. The stand is meh to me. I just want the brighter, higher contrast, more NTSC gamut H-IPS panel. The only reason I would still grab the ACD is because of the FW400.
You do graphics work don't you?
Such requirements are needed for professional uses. I've used NEC's and Eizo Nanao's for CAM/CAE. Staring a a monitor for that long, I definitely appreciate such specs. ;)
I already have to wear glasses as a result. :eek:

But they do tend to neglect the addition of features for more home/personal uses. No card reader, likely other things like HDMI, USB, and FW ports were never included either. (Depending on specific monitor). :(

It seems the Dell 2408WFP is aimed at more of a home/personal use market.

Apple may be waiting on a redesign, as they don't want to introduce one too soon, then have competitors beat them to the market with say, OLED based stuff. Just a guess though.

Fast Shadow
Oct 1, 2008, 02:46 AM
Measurebation (what a great term, thank you for that) aside, one thing that I think is universally true is that the contrast ratio on the displays is really quite bad. If you ever watch a film on it (be it for pleasure or work) in a darkened room, they don't get anywhere near a true black. :(

Blacks on an LCD are never that great to my eyes, it takes a CRT or plasma for them to look good to me. The Eizos are pretty good with blacks but they come with a significant price tag.

Umbongo
Oct 1, 2008, 05:15 AM
Blacks on an LCD are never that great to my eyes, it takes a CRT or plasma for them to look good to me. The Eizos are pretty good with blacks but they come with a significant price tag.

The move to LED displays should solve this, providing much better blacks. The real issue of course is the price tag.

Digital Skunk
Oct 1, 2008, 05:34 AM
Blacks on an LCD are never that great to my eyes, it takes a CRT or plasma for them to look good to me. The Eizos are pretty good with blacks but they come with a significant price tag.

The move to LED displays should solve this, providing much better blacks. The real issue of course is the price tag.

Which is why I do understand the need for more connection options, but fail miserably at understanding why someone, anyone would want one as a TV.

Umbongo
Oct 1, 2008, 07:04 AM
Which is why I do understand the need for more connection options, but fail miserably at understanding why someone, anyone would want one as a TV.

Some people can't afford to spend money on getting both, or their workspace won't really allow it. Why sacrifice getting a decent monitor when it can be used fine as a TV with the right inputs?

Personally I think we will only see DVI and DisplayPort on any new Apple displays as I think Apple really only offer them to provide the full solution to Mac Pro and Macbook Pro owners.