Apple Cinema Updates Delayed?

[Rower_CPU]

What brand/models are you using? That way I know what to avoid. It also might be a bad video card, AD converter, etc.

I've got a lab full of Dell 15"s and several Apple 17"s and none of them do anything like what you describe.

 

[army_guy]

The samsung was bad. the 17" are fine but iam talking about the larger panels 19"+ including the Apple 20", the 23" and the sony 23" which is the worst. All have rediculous response times. Even my dads 17" powerbook cannot display good enough colour or contrast compared to my 21 DELL FD (4 year old!!!).

The problems for LCD manufacturers to address for LARGE displays 19",20",23" etc.... not small displays as they are fine.

1) Response Time. (<10ms)
2) Contrast.
3) Dead pixels. (though I can live with 1 or 2 if there not obstructive).
4) Brightness.
5) Colour.

I swear by CRT's and will do until large LCD's can pack a punch in ALL of the above.

 

[Rower_CPU]

Odd, because I've never seen any of that on the demo models in stores. Different strokes for different folks, my man.

My issues are:
- no screen refresh bombarding my eyes
- heat
- energy consumption
- weight
- footprint

LCDs are still fairly young, but at the current rate they are progressing, I don't think it will be long for them to have sufficient response time, contrast, brightness, color etc to surpass those old dinosaur CRTs.

 

[army_guy]

When the issues have gone then an LCD it will be, but until then Ill stick with CRT's.

Footprint I dont really care, the refresh is at 85Hz so very comfortable, energy i dont care, weight I dont care as I dont move it. The heat is there but then the larger LCD panels generate alot of heat anyway so that desnt count.

 

[Rower_CPU]

Exactly, it's a subjective choice.

 

[3ric]

I'd been waiting and waiting and waiting...

Then I saw a 23"er in the local Apple store with a yellow tag labelled "refreshed" for $1699. After checkin it out thoroughly for stuck/dead pixels (none) and other wear (don't see any) I bought it.

I'd been looking at other with higher contrast ratios (& price tags) and really, looking at this, even though it's 300:1... seems good to me! And for the $, I can't complain!

So when they do come out with Aluminum or whatever new displays, I'll just save my cash for the next generation. Maybe Apple will be the first to use a holographic display!

 

[army_guy]

DUAL 23" yeah that would be nice, layout design on one panel and VHDL coding+Schematic design on the second yeah! or maybe TRIPLE 23" mygod!! Apple do you have anything bigger??

 

[Sir_Giggles]

Originally posted by army_guy
When the issues have gone then an LCD it will be, but until then Ill stick with CRT's.

Footprint I dont really care, the refresh is at 85Hz so very comfortable, energy i dont care, weight I dont care as I dont move it. The heat is there but then the larger LCD panels generate alot of heat anyway so that desnt count.

Dude, if you never used a Cinema Display for any period of time, you'll find just how ignorant you are. After having used my 20" Cinema Display for several weeks now, I will never go back to CRT.

 

[army_guy]

Ive tried many LCD panels including the Apple, they dont match my CRT in anyway. The larger panels are the worst 23" though the Apple is pretty good, the SONY LCD is a LOAD of C##P. Heck I even put my DADS PB 17" side by side and its not good enough.

Fix the things below then ill consider LCD's, until then iam happy.

1) Response Time. (<10ms NO panel can currently excell at this)
2) Contrast (Need pure black and pure white, not dark green and grey).
3) Dead pixels. (though I can live with 1 or 2 if there not obstructive).
4) Brightness. (Apple panels not bad on this, but just a little bit more please)
5) Colour. (Apple panels allready OK on this)

 

[benpatient]

sir giggles, you simply don't know what you're talking about, i'm sorry...

graphic designers and movie editing people need accurate, calibrated color. Most LCDs cannot meet the needs of someone who is looking for a very accurate color/contrast image on their screen. In fact, there is not yet an LCD that can match the color on say a LaCie Electron Blue 22.

Not one.

I've gotten mine calibrated pretty closely, but it still doesn't match the contrast or brightness of the CRT, and when I'm checking color, I have to pull it up on the second monitor.

Video/film editing simply cannot have ghosting problems, and there are some LCDs on the market now that have a fast enough response time to avoid ghosting (generally anything under 16-20 is fine for film), but the large apple displays are not on the list, and i'm not sure that the small ones are. There is no ghosting issue at all with a CRT.

My LCD is more pleasant to look at for long periods of time, and it's definitely more "cool" and all of that, but for down-and-dirty work, coolness just doesn't matter if it hurts productivity.

The reason you see contrast and brightness numbers on an LCD and not on CRTs is because it's so incredibly huge on a good CRT as to not matter at all. In fact, from a purely honest, no-cool-factor-involved stance, a 200 dollar 17" ViewSonic CRT is a better choice for color correctness, film editing, or game playing than any LCD currently on the market.

Like army_guy said, when contrast is up around 1000:1 on upper-mid level LCDs and brightness is about the equivalent of 400-500, coupled with a good response time and refresh rate (under 10ms would be just great), it will be time for serious visual professionals to use LCDs in critical applications. It's not yet that time.

 

[Rower_CPU]

Again, benpatient, you're extending the needs of a small group of users to everyone who uses a machine, just as army_guy keeps doing to back up the claims that CRTs are better than LCDs. In some very particular applications, yes, CRTs are superior. On the things that are important to me and many others, LCDs are light years better than CRTs.

In the near future, LCDs will completely replace CRTs. Get over it.

 

[Foxer]

So when the updates come (and they will), I guess we can assume that they will match the aluminum/brushed metal look of the G5's. Any idea how they'll do that. I can't really picture a metal LCD display (maybe I just got used to the current design). I guess that just a enlarged version of the PowerBook creen (with metal on the back, that display basically taking the entirety of the front, with only small, wrap-around boarders) would look sleek.

 

[army_guy]

Originally posted by benpatient
sir giggles, you simply don't know what you're talking about, i'm sorry...

graphic designers and movie editing people need accurate, calibrated color. Most LCDs cannot meet the needs of someone who is looking for a very accurate color/contrast image on their screen. In fact, there is not yet an LCD that can match the color on say a LaCie Electron Blue 22.

Not one.

I've gotten mine calibrated pretty closely, but it still doesn't match the contrast or brightness of the CRT, and when I'm checking color, I have to pull it up on the second monitor.

Video/film editing simply cannot have ghosting problems, and there are some LCDs on the market now that have a fast enough response time to avoid ghosting (generally anything under 16-20 is fine for film), but the large apple displays are not on the list, and i'm not sure that the small ones are. There is no ghosting issue at all with a CRT.

My LCD is more pleasant to look at for long periods of time, and it's definitely more "cool" and all of that, but for down-and-dirty work, coolness just doesn't matter if it hurts productivity.

The reason you see contrast and brightness numbers on an LCD and not on CRTs is because it's so incredibly huge on a good CRT as to not matter at all. In fact, from a purely honest, no-cool-factor-involved stance, a 200 dollar 17" ViewSonic CRT is a better choice for color correctness, film editing, or game playing than any LCD currently on the market.

Like army_guy said, when contrast is up around 1000:1 on upper-mid level LCDs and brightness is about the equivalent of 400-500, coupled with a good response time and refresh rate (under 10ms would be just great), it will be time for serious visual professionals to use LCDs in critical applications. It's not yet that time.

You took the words right out of my mouth!

Iam predicting LCD's will be good enough in 12-18 months and when that happens CRT's will be out as there will be no reason not to switch to an LCD unless theres a huge price difference though I doubt it, highend CRT's are not exactly cheap.

 

[army_guy]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Again, benpatient, you're extending the needs of a small group of users to everyone who uses a machine, just as army_guy keeps doing to back up the claims that CRTs are better than LCDs. In some very particular applications, yes, CRTs are superior. On the things that are important to me and many others, LCDs are light years better than CRTs.

In the near future, LCDs will completely replace CRTs. Get over it.

Particular applications? like what?

No one said LCD's wouldnt replace CRT's all were saying is that its not now. LCD's will continue to improve and IMO will reach CRT quality in no less than 12-24 months and maybe another 12 months before they come down in price to make them viable to ALL people. 3 years dude at least.

 

[Rower_CPU]

benpatient and you have listed the following applications:
Gaming, Digital Video watching/editing, color sensitive work in video and graphics.

Fact is, those aren't important to lots of people and LCDs strengths in the areas I've already discussed make it a viable option now, not 3 years from now.

Time is short in the world of technology. I'd say the 12-18 month estimate from this or the other LCD thread is more accurate for LCDs to supplant CRTs. In 3 years, the next generation of display technology will likely be coming into use.

But, unless any of us has a time machine or can see the future, this is all just so much hot air.

 

[iPC]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
benpatient and you have listed the following applications:
Gaming, Digital Video watching/editing, color sensitive work in video and graphics.

Fact is, those aren't important to lots of people and LCDs strengths in the areas I've already discussed make it a viable option now, not 3 years from now.

Time is short in the world of technology. I'd say the 12-18 month estimate from this or the other LCD thread is more accurate for LCDs to supplant CRTs. In 3 years, the next generation of display technology will likely be coming into use.

But, unless any of us has a time machine or can see the future, this is all just so much hot air.

All are areas Apple is trying strengthen their foothold in...

OLED will most likely be "the next big thing" the way it looks now.

We shall see.

 

[army_guy]

OLED will be the next thing, but not now. They have just started appearing in mobiles and will slowly emerge into monitors but its a long way to go.

 

[Selecter]

I am hoping the new displays will have the aluminum holes like on the front and rear of the G5 wrapped all the way around the bezel. Excellent heat reduction. Would look boss.

 

[aswitcher]

Originally posted by Selecter
I am hoping the new displays will have the aluminum holes like on the front and rear of the G5 wrapped all the way around the bezel. Excellent heat reduction. Would look boss.

I concur...

I really hope they change or offer options on the stand arrangement. Can't say I am sold on the current one. Lovely to see mounting points for an optional swivel tilt base, and for an arm...

 

[djdarlek]

Originally posted by Sir_Giggles
Dude, if you never used a Cinema Display for any period of time, you'll find just how ignorant you are. After having used my 20" Cinema Display for several weeks now, I will never go back to CRT.

I have to agree.. i jumped from a 17" CRT to a 20" at work, and its nothing short of revolutionary. the screen is exceptionally bright, when compared to my iMac and PowerBook. Its a bit chunky, but come on.. how sexy do they look! and no power cable! and that cool button to turn it to sleep!

I'm hanging out for a 30" at home.

 

[kingtj]

I hear you....

Army Guy, IMHO, you're not wrong at all. I love my Apple 22" Cinema Display I bought refurbished - but I also have a 21" CRT monitor sitting right next to it (attached to a docking station for a PC laptop), and the 21" is noticeably brighter - and of course, has a faster response time too).

Personally, I find the 22" Cinema to be teriffic looking and bright enough for my needs, but I also realize I'm using it in my basement, where the lighting isn't very strong. If I had it on a desk in an office, with sunlight glaring in from a window behind me - the brightness/contrast might suddenly become a big issue.

In the end, you just gotta work with whatever suits your unique situation the best. You can't really get a wide-screen display with any normal-sized CRT monitor I know of, so that's a mark against them for some people. Price is certainly a mark in the favor of the CRT. (And as cold as it is here right now, I'm finding the heat generated by my CRT to be a huge plus! I'll change that thought when summer arrives though.)

Originally posted by army_guy
Ive tried many LCD panels including the Apple, they dont match my CRT in anyway. The larger panels are the worst 23" though the Apple is pretty good, the SONY LCD is a LOAD of C##P. Heck I even put my DADS PB 17" side by side and its not good enough.

Fix the things below then ill consider LCD's, until then iam happy.

1) Response Time. (<10ms NO panel can currently excell at this)
2) Contrast (Need pure black and pure white, not dark green and grey).
3) Dead pixels. (though I can live with 1 or 2 if there not obstructive).
4) Brightness. (Apple panels not bad on this, but just a little bit more please)
5) Colour. (Apple panels allready OK on this)

 

[The Dreaming]

OLED Displays

I'm new on the boards (this is my first post) and just want to first start off by saying "Hello" to everyone!

I was reading the discussion on CRT, LCD, and OLED Displays, and just wanted to give those whom are interested a link to some interesting info on OLED

SAI: I switched to mac 2.5 years ago, after being a life long "PC" user. Needless to say, I'll never go back. During the many years of my self induced Windows 3.1-98ME Dementia, I spent time with a close friend who was brought up on everything Mac. I had then (1995) purchased a CD with interactive multimedia included on the disc, such as video, audio clips, live performances... It was Mac and PC compatible, but for the PC user, extensive loading and associated bs were involved. It never worked properly on my machine, but I decided to try it on his Mac. It just plain worked. -I secretly despised Apple for that. I think that's the case for anyone who fears something that goes against the grain. -Jealousy too. I like to think I've done a lot of growing since then.

Thanks for letting me post that little story here... I thought it would be a good opener.

 

[bug]

Never had a CRT as good as my LCD

I'm not saying this from a possition of knowledge on the subject, I'm just surprised at some of the reasons that are being given for why a CRT is better.

One person mentioned that LCDs don't have a black enough black or a white enough white in comparison to a CRT. That blows me away - I've always thought the blacks looked grey on my CRTs and if I turned down the brightness enough to make them black, then the whites were grey - even at max contrast. Granted, most of my CRTs were not the best, but even my Mitsubishi DP72plus, which received good reviews and was almsot twice as much as other 17 inches when I got it, had these problems. Its picture looks aweful next to my Samsung 191T LCD - and it is the best CRT I've worked on.

I agree the response time is an issue, but one post said that a $200 CRT would be better than the best LCD for contrast and colour - and I've got to say that my experience with many CRTs and just ONE LCD is exactly the opposite.

I've never seen a CRT with a dark enough black or a white enough white - is this really what most people are experiencing though- that they are better than LCDs in this respect? Also - I've gotta say that from both my laptops and my 19inch LCD, I've never had a dead pixel.

Like I say, I'm not saying I know monitors, just talking from personal experience and I'm really surprised from what I've read here.

 

[army_guy]

OK thats your experience, my experience i have not seen an LCD capable of displaying true white and true black, most of all the black they all look like a muddy dark green and yes the brightness and contrast are setup properly. Most of the time its OK but open studiomax/softimage and start viewing textures or looking at the viewports and its a mess. Gaming is even worse, try somin like Quake3/RTCW/DeusEx IW and the blacks will make you laugh.

 

[bug]

hmmm

That's funny - I experience exactly the opposite. I tolerate the slower response time in gaming specifically because the blacks in Quake 3/RtCW/ etc are so crappy on my CRT and the colours are not bright enough (still have a low end 19inch NEC CRT and a high end Mitsubishi CRT - so I can do a side by side, as you are it seems).

What kind of CRT and LCD do you have? Just for the sake of knowing what we're dealing with... maybe your CRT is just way better than mine are.