If you Google deltaE and monitor you will come up with a lot of tests. The problem is that there is lots of variables in tests like these, unless these tests are run side by side you may not end up with a exact way to compare. You may be able to come up with some general ideas of what's good and what's not.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
why on Earth get a ACD?
- Thread starter zoran
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If you Google deltaE and monitor you will come up with a lot of tests. The problem is that there is lots of variables in tests like these, unless these tests are run side by side you may not end up with a exact way to compare. You may be able to come up with some general ideas of what's good and what's not.
I did a little research and came up with a little info about the EIZO and the ACD. I found a site that had deltaE measurements on both using the same setups. I this case a 6500K 2.2 gamma setting, I added the screenshots below. To explain these a little more about deltaE (again), it is the measurement of a monitors color accuracy, 1 deltaE is the first point a human eye can tell the difference between two tones, actual color vs displayed color. A reading under 1 is perfect, under 2 is excellent and under 3 is very good and considered expectable as a color calibrated monitor. As you look at both of the charts on the right (with the bars) you will see just about all the values under 3, the average deltaE would be in the 1s. You are looking at 2 excellent monitors. Here's my take on it, I give more weight to the grayscale side of the chart than the color side, the reason for that is a fully saturated color takes a lot of adjusting to move it to another color. The slightest variation in a color like a warm gray can easily become a cool gray. Also, the ability to see your shadow and highlight detail correctly to me is more important than fully saturated color. That said, I give the EIZO a slight edge over the ACD. The EIZO monitor that was tested is not the highest end EIZO so I would hope that the high end ones would be even better.
As side note, one of the things that the EIZO website talks about is the internal 14 bit processing (the new CG211 is 16 bit) and it's the deltaE average being 0.5. That's what happens internally, the problem is Photoshop is only a true 8 bit program and not able to handle the 14 bit coming from the EIZO, so it's translated. That's why these bars are not averaging 0.5 deltaE. While all that horsepower is great it's not used to it's fullest yet, it's real world numbers are not quite as good. The new CG211 has a 16 bit processor and claims "16-bit internal processing for grayscale rendering that is on a par with high-end CRT monitors". Interesting, what that suggests to me is the Barco is still the king of calibrated monitors, sadly Barco seems to have left the graphic arts market. I have been using Barcos for 10 years now and I found them to be stellar in color calibration.
I have links to the articles I got the charts from. It's interesting that even with these numbers they loved the EIZO and hated the ACD. One of the reasons they site is the fact that ADC can only get good calibration from a hardware calibrator. It seems like a moot point to me, to get good calibration you must use a hardware calibrator for any monitor, period.
http://www.behardware.com/articles/583-1/test-apple-cinema-display-20.html
http://www.behardware.com/articles/587-1/eizo-s2110w-the-big-come-back.html
They also have a review on a Dell but used completely different testing methods, not a good way to compare it with the ACD and the EIZO. From what I understand it's easier to get good calibration at a higher color temperature (9000) as opposed to lower ones like 5000. For the print market 5000 to 6500 is the color range to work in.
Here's another link to deltaE tests on the ACD. The results are very much the same as the tests above but they love the ACD. Funny that similar results can be so differently read.
http://www.colormanagement.nl/reports/index.php?id=5,2,0,0,1,0
Hope some of you find this helpful.
As side note, one of the things that the EIZO website talks about is the internal 14 bit processing (the new CG211 is 16 bit) and it's the deltaE average being 0.5. That's what happens internally, the problem is Photoshop is only a true 8 bit program and not able to handle the 14 bit coming from the EIZO, so it's translated. That's why these bars are not averaging 0.5 deltaE. While all that horsepower is great it's not used to it's fullest yet, it's real world numbers are not quite as good. The new CG211 has a 16 bit processor and claims "16-bit internal processing for grayscale rendering that is on a par with high-end CRT monitors". Interesting, what that suggests to me is the Barco is still the king of calibrated monitors, sadly Barco seems to have left the graphic arts market. I have been using Barcos for 10 years now and I found them to be stellar in color calibration.
I have links to the articles I got the charts from. It's interesting that even with these numbers they loved the EIZO and hated the ACD. One of the reasons they site is the fact that ADC can only get good calibration from a hardware calibrator. It seems like a moot point to me, to get good calibration you must use a hardware calibrator for any monitor, period.
http://www.behardware.com/articles/583-1/test-apple-cinema-display-20.html
http://www.behardware.com/articles/587-1/eizo-s2110w-the-big-come-back.html
They also have a review on a Dell but used completely different testing methods, not a good way to compare it with the ACD and the EIZO. From what I understand it's easier to get good calibration at a higher color temperature (9000) as opposed to lower ones like 5000. For the print market 5000 to 6500 is the color range to work in.
Here's another link to deltaE tests on the ACD. The results are very much the same as the tests above but they love the ACD. Funny that similar results can be so differently read.
http://www.colormanagement.nl/reports/index.php?id=5,2,0,0,1,0
Hope some of you find this helpful.
Attachments
The last link has tests for the 20,23 and 30. Here it is again
http://www.colormanagement.nl/report...id=5,2,0,0,1,0
Very.
So if I read it right. The ACD is more accurate than the Eizo with colours and whites, but less accurate with blacks, and the ACD doesn't really go below a temperature of 6300K while the Eizo does.
I can't quite see why the ACD only gets two stars for colour quality while the Eizo gets five when the ACD seems more accurate in the 6300-6500 range.
Edit: Hm, those who tested in your last link doesn't seem to have any problems with the 5000K test. I'm confused.
Maybe the difference is that one test was done on Mac OS X and the other on Windows XP. The second test, colormanagement.nl, says colour deviation for the ACD averaged less than 1.5 delta E (perfect as monitors go) out of the box, while the first test, behardware.com, said the colour deviation was terrible out of the box. They also say things "With a PC it´s only possible to adjust brightness and contrast and that´s it" (without the calibration tool), so yeah, I guess their different conclusions have a lot to do with the difference between using the ACD on Mac OS X and Windows XP.
Because its the best computer screen I've ever had. I love when my computer looks nice, and the ACD looks amazing!
Also its a very good display all around. It gives me FW add ons and USB(I know others do to) so it suits my needs, and looks like a million bucks doing it!
Also its a very good display all around. It gives me FW add ons and USB(I know others do to) so it suits my needs, and looks like a million bucks doing it!
The ACD will go to 5000K.
I thought the numbers are a lot more telling than the stars. It seems the reviewer doesn't like Apple, he looked for small reasons to knock it down. The other reviewer loved it and the numbers are the same.
I have found my Netgear router works 100% of the time and cost £40, it was pretty easy to setup too, I'm not going to start a thread "OMFG Netgear t3h pwns Appl3's router t3h SUXXORS 4s t3y c0st 3x" because I have better things to do with my time.
Apples are known for easy setup though, every time I go into PC world there is someone spending another £60 on their network stuff, so in their case spending another £50-£60 on Apple stuff which works straight away and easily would have been worth it from them, (especially in terms on time).
Oh and on the Specs of Apple's displays, Apple specs them conservatively unlike Dell so although Dells may be better speced they come out equal or worse in reality.
I agree, it looks like that to me as well. I made some edits on my previous post about that.The ACD will go to 5000K.
I thought the numbers are a lot more telling than the stars. It seems the reviewer doesn't like Apple, he looked for small reasons to knock it down. The other reviewer loved it and the numbers are the same.
But doesn't it seem to you like behardware had troubles with 5000K on Windows XP?
behardware.com said:
A member by the name of Blonde Readhead posted this a while back. Link
And that was my understanding of this as well, except I was told Apple uses A-TW-IPS on their new aluminum enclosure displays.
Dell does not use photo professional quality LCD pannels.
The member who started this topic needs to be on wikipedia more.
Here.
Peace out.
And that was my understanding of this as well, except I was told Apple uses A-TW-IPS on their new aluminum enclosure displays.
Dell does not use photo professional quality LCD pannels.
The member who started this topic needs to be on wikipedia more.
Here.
Peace out.
Are the Apple displays overpriced? Sure!!!
I don't think they are worth what they cost,
but that doesn't matter to Apple. Apple expects
maybe 5% of computer customers to purchase
an ACD. Dell expects way more of their customers
to purchase their displays.
It would be nice if Apple had more features and
better ACDs, but they are making good money
with good profit margins on their ACDs. People
still buy them for various reasons already listed
by people here. They don't have to sell thousands
of displays to make a profit. They just have to have
the ACD available as an add-on to computer
purchases to make a few quick bucks, and because
they are known for making quality products and
for having good customer service, people will still
buy ACDs, even if they aren't the best value out
there.
I don't think they are worth what they cost,
but that doesn't matter to Apple. Apple expects
maybe 5% of computer customers to purchase
an ACD. Dell expects way more of their customers
to purchase their displays.
It would be nice if Apple had more features and
better ACDs, but they are making good money
with good profit margins on their ACDs. People
still buy them for various reasons already listed
by people here. They don't have to sell thousands
of displays to make a profit. They just have to have
the ACD available as an add-on to computer
purchases to make a few quick bucks, and because
they are known for making quality products and
for having good customer service, people will still
buy ACDs, even if they aren't the best value out
there.
I love my ACD's. I love them mostly for the design and materials used in contruction, not to mention their seemless integration with OS X. As for colour and wotnot, well, I'd not really know, but everything looks superb on it.
It's nice when one has to sit infront of a computer for so long for it to be really aesthetically pleasing.
It's nice when one has to sit infront of a computer for so long for it to be really aesthetically pleasing.
People get the Apple Displays because it looks good, they want their stuff to match. In my opinion i think they do look nice indeed, but not as nice as what they charge them for. If i had the money, of course i would get a Apple Cinema display, but if not, oh well i would just go for a Dell or something.
Well, look at it this way, Apple still sell monitors, but they don't sell Printers or Scanners anymore.
There maing money, and there selling ACD's, so i don't think there going to radically change thre buisness plan on the ACD.
One thing i would kike to know, what is the % of sales to Non Apple users?, in other words Windows and Linux.
One thing to sell to the converted.
There maing money, and there selling ACD's, so i don't think there going to radically change thre buisness plan on the ACD.
One thing i would kike to know, what is the % of sales to Non Apple users?, in other words Windows and Linux.
One thing to sell to the converted.
In response to the original question, sometimes there is no choice.
I bought my 30" ACD just 2 weeks ago in Hong Kong. I wanted a 30" screen and this was the only one I could get. In fact, at the time the actual screen I got was the only 30" screen I could find in both the Island and Tsim Tsa Shui. The store I got it from was the only one that could source a 30" display, and I tried everyone. I had no particular preference between Dell and Apple, but the only option to buy a Dell was to order online which was not an option as I was a foreign tourist so could only order online for delivery in the UK - no good for me - I went to Hong Kong to make big ticket purchases and save money.
Anyway, I'm very happy with the screen, it's connected to my 17" rev A MBP, makes using Aperture and FC a dream, seeing and working with full size images is fantastic. Being able to read documents and webpages at full resolution while lounging back in my chair is much preferrable than squinting at the 17" screen. However, I'm sure it makes my MBP run slightly slower. An example is if I use the straightening tool in Aperture on my MBP screen it moves fast and smooth, on the 30" it is not quite as smooth, and I'm sure the response is slightly slower. This may be a result of the magnification, anyway, it will not prevent me from using and recommending the screen.
I bought my 30" ACD just 2 weeks ago in Hong Kong. I wanted a 30" screen and this was the only one I could get. In fact, at the time the actual screen I got was the only 30" screen I could find in both the Island and Tsim Tsa Shui. The store I got it from was the only one that could source a 30" display, and I tried everyone. I had no particular preference between Dell and Apple, but the only option to buy a Dell was to order online which was not an option as I was a foreign tourist so could only order online for delivery in the UK - no good for me - I went to Hong Kong to make big ticket purchases and save money.
Anyway, I'm very happy with the screen, it's connected to my 17" rev A MBP, makes using Aperture and FC a dream, seeing and working with full size images is fantastic. Being able to read documents and webpages at full resolution while lounging back in my chair is much preferrable than squinting at the 17" screen. However, I'm sure it makes my MBP run slightly slower. An example is if I use the straightening tool in Aperture on my MBP screen it moves fast and smooth, on the 30" it is not quite as smooth, and I'm sure the response is slightly slower. This may be a result of the magnification, anyway, it will not prevent me from using and recommending the screen.
After a lot of research looking for a pro graphics monitor with a fair price, I got in contact with a serious reviewer from a specialized photography magazine, and here's what he had to say:
"My experience with both the Samsung 244T and the Eizo CE210W, as well as just recently with a LaCie 320 has been to find they produce a more desirable screen quality and the advantage of a full range of adjustments to fit them to every environment and use, and therefor I would chose any one of them over the Apple Cinema display. In fact I recently purchased an LG Electronics L2000C 20.1 inch display that equals the Apple displays in performance quality, was less costly and provides a full range of adjustment controls."
(more calibrating adjustments than ACDs)
I also asked him if the Samsung 214T was everything the 244T is, just smaller, and what would I be loosing by choosing the 214T over the 244T. He said:
"From all I could tell from all the documentation and talking with the Samsung representative the performance factors of the Syncmaster 214T should be the same as the 244T in a size that has 3 inches chopped off the sides - its not as wide as the 244T but just as tall."
More on the LG:
"One insider claims LGE makes the screens for Apple, and I would not dispute the evidence he gives for his claim, but I have no independent evidence to point to that would prove the point one way or another.
The LCD display business is very competitive and there only a very few prime manufacturers involved, so it is really a matter of choosing one that is specifically designed for pro graphics use and then you get pretty much the quality you pay for, the pricier the better the performance."
Dell is not even considered. Here are some helpfull links to understand their differences.
http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?art=2662
http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?art=3041
http://www.shutterbug.net/equipmentreviews/software_computers/1006ezio/index.html
Hope this helps.
"My experience with both the Samsung 244T and the Eizo CE210W, as well as just recently with a LaCie 320 has been to find they produce a more desirable screen quality and the advantage of a full range of adjustments to fit them to every environment and use, and therefor I would chose any one of them over the Apple Cinema display. In fact I recently purchased an LG Electronics L2000C 20.1 inch display that equals the Apple displays in performance quality, was less costly and provides a full range of adjustment controls."
(more calibrating adjustments than ACDs)
I also asked him if the Samsung 214T was everything the 244T is, just smaller, and what would I be loosing by choosing the 214T over the 244T. He said:
"From all I could tell from all the documentation and talking with the Samsung representative the performance factors of the Syncmaster 214T should be the same as the 244T in a size that has 3 inches chopped off the sides - its not as wide as the 244T but just as tall."
More on the LG:
"One insider claims LGE makes the screens for Apple, and I would not dispute the evidence he gives for his claim, but I have no independent evidence to point to that would prove the point one way or another.
The LCD display business is very competitive and there only a very few prime manufacturers involved, so it is really a matter of choosing one that is specifically designed for pro graphics use and then you get pretty much the quality you pay for, the pricier the better the performance."
Dell is not even considered. Here are some helpfull links to understand their differences.
http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?art=2662
http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?art=3041
http://www.shutterbug.net/equipmentreviews/software_computers/1006ezio/index.html
Hope this helps.
Very intresting links/post from Locatel.
See guys i knew there was more to this than meets the eye about ACDs.
Guys ACDs seem to be outdated, lets face it.
Our only wish now is that Apple manages to release new ACDs before xmas... after all i do need a xmas present!
See guys i knew there was more to this than meets the eye about ACDs.
Guys ACDs seem to be outdated, lets face it.
Our only wish now is that Apple manages to release new ACDs before xmas... after all i do need a xmas present!
Apple do not have to cater for people who demand more from their monitors then what they offer. However, i do think that they would be wise to take note and think about increasing the appeal of their ACD's to a wider audience.
With the Intel line some may say that it was a good move and some may say that is it was a bad move but nevertheless Apple are now appealing to more consumers than probably ever before.
I would love to buy an ACD but it simply does not meet my needs. I need a monitor to have at least one VGA output but the Apple displays do not offer that. An optional soundbar would be ideal as well so that i would not have to clutter my desk with more speakers.
I have had a look at the Eizo monitors and some of the resolutions are disappointing on some models. I would have been interested in some of their 19 inch if they had a resolution of at least 1440x900 but the models that i looked at only had a resolution of 1280x1024 so i cannot buy one from them. The higher res ones came with none of the discreet looking integrated speakers that were a feature of some of their 19 inch models so i couldn't get one of those either.
I am looking towards Dell and Acer now.
I do think that the Apple display are overpriced for what they offer.
If they do however meet your needs and you are willing to pay out extra because of the design then i do not see anything wrong with that either.
With the Intel line some may say that it was a good move and some may say that is it was a bad move but nevertheless Apple are now appealing to more consumers than probably ever before.
I would love to buy an ACD but it simply does not meet my needs. I need a monitor to have at least one VGA output but the Apple displays do not offer that. An optional soundbar would be ideal as well so that i would not have to clutter my desk with more speakers.
I have had a look at the Eizo monitors and some of the resolutions are disappointing on some models. I would have been interested in some of their 19 inch if they had a resolution of at least 1440x900 but the models that i looked at only had a resolution of 1280x1024 so i cannot buy one from them. The higher res ones came with none of the discreet looking integrated speakers that were a feature of some of their 19 inch models so i couldn't get one of those either.
I am looking towards Dell and Acer now.
I do think that the Apple display are overpriced for what they offer.
If they do however meet your needs and you are willing to pay out extra because of the design then i do not see anything wrong with that either.