Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Acrylic 20" or 23" Cinema? Which one to buy

macaddict23

macaddict23

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Hi all. I'm looking at buying either one of these older Cinema displays to hook up to my 27" iMac. I already have the MiniDisplay Port-to-DVI cable along with the ADC-to-DVI cable. I've always preferred the design of these monitors over the current ones.

Have you had any experience with either model? Which of the two has better image quality?
 
The extra three inches is nice, but I'm more interested in image quality than screen size. Despite the lower resolution, I'm guessing the 20" has a better image because the pixels are more condensed.
 
macaddict23 said:
The extra three inches is nice, but I'm more interested in image quality than screen size. Despite the lower resolution, I'm guessing the 20" has a better image because the pixels are more condensed.
Click to expand...

Honestly I would go with 23" it is very nice! But if you go 20" alum or to the older clear ones you can save a lot of $$$
 
wow, a 5 year old + monitor?

if you are interested in image quality, not sure how any 5 year old monitor -- Apple or Eizo or NEC -- could get thrown into that mix...

20" and 23" and 30" all came out in June of 2004.

all three of the Al Cinema displays use S-IPS panels

Apple M9177 (Widescreen) has a 20 inch 16 ms S-IPS (LG.Philips LM201W01) panel.

Apple M9178 (Widescreen) has a 23 inch 16 ms S-IPS (LG.Philips LM230W02) panel.

Apple M9179 (Widescreen) has a 30 inch 16 ms S-IPS (LG.Philips LM300W01) panel.
 
I have the 23" model at work, connected to a G5. I don't do anything like photo or video editing on it, so I can't comment on that element, but it still looks great. One other guy has a 20" model, and I can't tell much difference. Then again, I don't really have a trained eye. Neither look as good as the new 24" model my boss has, though. 🙂
 
Relative to any modern display, the ADC monitors are going to suck.

For under $200 at best buy you can get a 23" monitor with far better backlighting, contrast ratio, response time, etc.

That being said, if for some reason you insist on using a monitor from 2003, I guess I'd tell you to get the 20" since it is likely a generation newer than the 23". But spending ANY money on a monitor introduced in 2001 is a waste of money.
 
I can definitely vouch for the alu 23" acd: its image quality is phenomenal.

Remember that although the cinema display's came out in 2004, their specs were updated numerous times before they were discontinued. Although I can't speak for any other 23" acd, my one has perfect colour for printing (everything I print comes out as expected), it is very sharp and very bright, and has no dead pixels or backlight bleed.

i would thoroughly recommend them🙂

I know that this doesn't directly address your question, but thought it best to give an opinion on the newer ones anyway!
 
student_trap said:
I can definitely vouch for the alu 23" acd: its image quality is phenomenal.

Remember that although the cinema display's came out in 2004, their specs were updated numerous times before they were discontinued. Although I can't speak for any other 23" acd, my one has perfect colour for printing (everything I print comes out as expected), it is very sharp and very bright, and has no dead pixels or backlight bleed.

i would thoroughly recommend them🙂

I know that this doesn't directly address your question, but thought it best to give an opinion on the newer ones anyway!
Click to expand...

Let's review. He specifically asked about the ACRYLIC cinema displays, not the aluminum ones...thus he is asking about the pre-2004 displays.

I know it's impossible to imagine, but product names DO go back further than the current lineup. And the aluminum cinema displays were worlds better than their acrylic brethren.
 
just bought a used alu 20" of newer date, but thought long of buying the acrylic ones, so I researched it a bit. The 22" are worst, with lower PPI than today's Apple standard, though could be good if you have problems with eyesight. The 23" has "normal" PPI, but apparently could have problems with "leaking" light in the frame, and dark large spots on the screen when aging. Last came the 20" and which is what I would have bought, read a story about :apple: sales persons claiming it to be "so much nicer than the 23". It was only available a year before they changed all cinemas to aluminum, and if you look at the specs it's also almost identical to the aluminum 20-incher. The acrylic models are sometimes criticised for the need of a large ADC-DVI adapter, but one forgets that it's also a power adapter just like the alu cinemas have.
 
A cheaper replacement for the acrylic 20" would be to buy a $99 Acer 20 inch monitor, paint it white and then stab yourself in the eyes.
 
Consultant said:
ADC-to-DVI is different than
DVI to ADC adapter
Click to expand...

I know that there is a difference here - does it make a functional difference? Does Macbook Pro to Mini Display to DVI to DVI to ADC to Monitor work at all? Could one expect some sort of degradation? 😕
 
feelthefire said:
student_trap said:
I can definitely vouch for the alu 23" acd: its image quality is phenomenal.

Remember that although the cinema display's came out in 2004, their specs were updated numerous times before they were discontinued. Although I can't speak for any other 23" acd, my one has perfect colour for printing (everything I print comes out as expected), it is very sharp and very bright, and has no dead pixels or backlight bleed.

i would thoroughly recommend them

I know that this doesn't directly address your question, but thought it best to give an opinion on the newer ones anyway!
Click to expand...

Let's review. He specifically asked about the ACRYLIC cinema displays, not the aluminum ones...thus he is asking about the pre-2004 displays.

I know it's impossible to imagine, but product names DO go back further than the current lineup. And the aluminum cinema displays were worlds better than their acrylic brethren.
Click to expand...

i realise this, hence my use of the text highlighted in bold above. Choice is a good thing, the OP will not be the only person for which their thread is useful, and furthermore, the non-LED alu models are themselves subject to comparison with newer screens from time to time here.

Read the post
 
maelstromr said:
I know that there is a difference here - does it make a functional difference? Does Macbook Pro to Mini Display to DVI to DVI to ADC to Monitor work at all? Could one expect some sort of degradation? 😕
Click to expand...

I will have to check on this when I get to the store but, for example, mini displayport to DVI does not connect to dvi to vga...one is DVI-I and one is DVI-D. I forget which one the ADC adapter is. There is some degradation when you do this much but it's not really that noticeable, especially on such an old display.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back