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

Why buy an ACD?

dante@sisna.com said:
Apple displays are calibrated before they leave the factory and the 20, 23 and 30 inch displays are therefore SWOP certified for color matching using colorsync profiles.

If you understand this, then you understand that the cost is worth it for high end design work.

You can calibrate a dell with both colorsync and a calibrator (about $300) but there is not substitute from having that original default calibration profile for sure.

For me, this alone justifies the cost difference. Far more important than any other variable.

DJO
Click to expand...

Colour profiles need to be periodically updated. The usual practice is one every 2 weeks, so if you work depends on colour accuracy and you think you can trust Apple's factory calibrated screen and save on the hardware pug instead you really... deserve to be doing something else.

For the price of Apple's LCDs you can probably get something better, like the Lacies.

Heck, there was a while ago when Adobe had this video with interviews of many photographers talking about their latest Lightroom, just take a look at the number of ACDs you see in that video, not very many. Take a look again at the NECs and Lacies (basically rebranded NECs), heck of a lot more.

Most people buy something to do a job. People who buy something for an image are just.... poseurs. They will be gone the moment something cooler appears on the market regardless of whether or not it is fruit branded.
 
20" Dell and ACD use the same panel if you get lucky with the Dell. Dell was using S-IPS panels, but then starting swapping in the cheaper PVA panels. Google "Dell panel lottery" and you will find some info. The Apple is grossly overpriced, so I woudl take my chances on the lottery.

The 24" Dell does not use a S-IPS panel. The 23" ACD does. Up until a few months ago there was no 24" S-IPS panel out there. There is one now, so the 23" ACD may go to 24", but who knows. Between the 23" ACD and 24" Dell I would say there is no comparison if you are doing GRAPHICS work. Also, the Dell has some horrible gradient banding, which is far from fixed. The Dell does have more inputs like a card reader and component (which is **** at best) it does have them though. I don't find the 23" to be much more over the Dell, I also have EDU and when I bought one I bought gift cards on eBay. I also got a $70 credit from Apple since I kept getting some terrible backlight bleed.

All 22" panels are TN also known as cheap but fast panels. They are mainly in gaming displays and these new "Vista" ones. There my be some PVA 22", but regardless the quality there is surely lacking.

It comes down to this. What will you be doing with the display? Do you just want a general display to browse the web on? Go with a Dell or similar. If you want to do graphics (seriously), stick to the S-IPS which unfortunetly rules out the 24" Dell.

I will concur that the 20" pricing is atrocious. The rest are fine if you shop around a bit I think.

iW00t said:
Colour profiles need to be periodically updated. The usual practice is one every 2 weeks, so if you work depends on colour accuracy and you think you can trust Apple's factory calibrated screen and save on the hardware pug instead you really... deserve to be doing something else.

For the price of Apple's LCDs you can probably get something better, like the Lacies.

Heck, there was a while ago when Adobe had this video with interviews of many photographers talking about their latest Lightroom, just take a look at the number of ACDs you see in that video, not very many. Take a look again at the NECs and Lacies (basically rebranded NECs), heck of a lot more.

Most people buy something to do a job. People who buy something for an image are just.... poseurs. They will be gone the moment something cooler appears on the market regardless of whether or not it is fruit branded.
Click to expand...

Some people like to have matching stuff. A Mac Pro with an ACD looks hot. Not so much with the Dell, it is alright but...

Regardless Apple offers nice displays that do offer some high points for graphics pros. Arguably they are actually budget displays for the pros. A 20" Lacie runs about 2x the 20" ACD ($1399 vs $699). It does use a better 12-bit panel of course, but at that point we drag on the argument.

Some will say the Dell is fine, even for graphics. Some will say no, only ACD. Then there is the Lacie.

Buy the display that fits your needs and budget. Would I buy an ACD for the looks, heck yeah. But I do know that they are great displays regardless. If it doesn't fit in my budget I have to look somewhere else.
 
dante@sisna.com said:
Apple displays are calibrated before they leave the factory and the 20, 23 and 30 inch displays are therefore SWOP certified for color matching using colorsync profiles.
Click to expand...

i'm sorry but this shows you dont know a thing about color, my friend :)
the whole thing about "ACDs are calibrated before they leave the factory" is a very wrong perception and only means Apple's got a good marketing strategy.

to tell you the truth, the pros don't like canned color profiles.

for example: you spend about $100-200 (not 300) to buy calibrator, and you can use it to calibrate whichever monitor you buy, to fit your working environment.
versus you spend those extra hundred bucks on a monitor that you "think" they are already calibrated out of the factory (while in fact it's not) and you "think" that it reproduces "standard" or "proper" colors (while in fact it's not even close to).

remember, LCDs' backlights got degraded overtime. that's why you have to recalibrate them every (few) month in order to get good color reproductions. and that's why old LCDs are so cheap.
 
phuong said:
i'm sorry but this shows you dont know a thing about color, my friend :)
the whole thing about "ACDs are calibrated before they leave the factory" is a very wrong perception and only means Apple's got a good marketing strategy.

to tell you the truth, the pros don't like canned color profiles.
Click to expand...

I'm no expert, but am I the only one who walks into the apple store and thinks that the ACDs all look the same?
 
psychofreak said:
I'm no expert, but am I the only one who walks into the apple store and thinks that the ACDs all look the same?
Click to expand...

Well, some are bigger than others, but maybe that's just because I'm stood further away to some than I am to others. Distance and perspective aren't my strong points :(
 
psychofreak said:
I'm no expert, but am I the only one who walks into the apple store and thinks that the ACDs all look the same?
Click to expand...

if you adjust their brightnesses they'll look differently right away, won't they ;)

but that doesnt mean i prefered the Dell. to me they are both good. and if you're not a pixel peeper and you don't care about "things that match look hotter", you should never hesitate between them.
i have two reasons:
1. the cost in the long run would be the same. if you got the Dell, you'll save a few hundreds. but if you got the ACD, they got higher reselling prices.
2. the overall graphic qualities: unless you're a pixel peeper, you won't be able to really recognize the differences between them. (like you who i'm quoting)
 
dante@sisna.com said:
Apple displays are calibrated before they leave the factory and the 20, 23 and 30 inch displays are therefore SWOP certified for color matching using colorsync profiles.

If you understand this, then you understand that the cost is worth it for high end design work.

You can calibrate a dell with both colorsync and a calibrator (about $300) but there is not substitute from having that original default calibration profile for sure.

For me, this alone justifies the cost difference. Far more important than any other variable.

DJO
Click to expand...


OK...I don't understand that or much else of the technical graphics commentary, so whether dante is right or wrong the post may still make a very good point. But is this really the target market for the ACD? If so, then fine, I'll take my own advice and stop whining about the prices of products that don't apply to me. But if not: for the regular, nonprofessional (but still very into computing/media LCD usage) Apple customer who loves the Apple form factor, it still hurts to have to pay 100% more for something that doesn't perform anywhere near 100% (if at all) better for regular computer/media center needs.
 
FleurDuMal said:
The ACD is a thing of sheer beauty. Like someone said below, you wouldn't buy crappy looking furniture.
Click to expand...

I'm amazed this thread hasn't turned into the bitching it normally does on these topics!

Just like Fleur, I entirely agree and it was the reason I purchased my ACD - style and looks. It is annoying that they are much more expensive so I purchased mine on eBay and got a great deal! It really doesn't solve anything though because the second hand market for Dells are even cheaper!!

Still, I love my ACD! *Hugs*
 
iW00t said:
Colour profiles need to be periodically updated. The usual practice is one every 2 weeks, so if you work depends on colour accuracy and you think you can trust Apple's factory calibrated screen and save on the hardware pug instead you really... deserve to be doing something else.

For the price of Apple's LCDs you can probably get something better, like the Lacies.

Heck, there was a while ago when Adobe had this video with interviews of many photographers talking about their latest Lightroom, just take a look at the number of ACDs you see in that video, not very many. Take a look again at the NECs and Lacies (basically rebranded NECs), heck of a lot more.

Most people buy something to do a job. People who buy something for an image are just.... poseurs. They will be gone the moment something cooler appears on the market regardless of whether or not it is fruit branded.
Click to expand...

Acutally new LCD's do not need the regular calibration you suggest. Certainly older LCD's and CRT's do. We make our living on color here and have verified the uselessness of weekly calibrations on our ACD's. It is precisely by calibrating often that we realized we did not need to. We'll re-calibrate every 4 months or so, or if we change media/lighting conditions.

As far as your LaCie or NEC recommendation goes I think that's a good point: some NEC's match or exceed Apple on the very high end. But many NEC monitors do not. It really depends on the LUT path in the monitor and on the display control settings. As an example the fact that Apple's display has no controls other than
backlight is actually a very good thing for an 8-8-8 LCD if your going to use calibration. Apple optimizes the factory LUTs so as to provide the most individual colors. smooth greyscale and the least loss. Then the Calibration is done in the graphic card LUT. As these are all 8 bit it's best if the user does not mess with the display LUTs at all.

As far as your comment that "we should be doing something else," well sorry, but we have a hugely profitable high-end color management, book production shop so I think we'll stay happy right where we are.
 
phuong said:
i'm sorry but this shows you dont know a thing about color, my friend :)
the whole thing about "ACDs are calibrated before they leave the factory" is a very wrong perception and only means Apple's got a good marketing strategy.

to tell you the truth, the pros don't like canned color profiles.

for example: you spend about $100-200 (not 300) to buy calibrator, and you can use it to calibrate whichever monitor you buy, to fit your working environment.
versus you spend those extra hundred bucks on a monitor that you "think" they are already calibrated out of the factory (while in fact it's not) and you "think" that it reproduces "standard" or "proper" colors (while in fact it's not even close to).

remember, LCDs' backlights got degraded overtime. that's why you have to recalibrate them every (few) month in order to get good color reproductions. and that's why old LCDs are so cheap.
Click to expand...

Well we've been working with high end color for 18 years so we DO know a lot about color, SWOP certification workflow, calibration, LCD degredation, etc. We are a major book publisher, especially focusing on children's picture books, and color is our largest variable in production.

You are wrong to state that Apple Monitors are not calibrated to SWOP standards at the factory. In fact the SWOP certification board works with Apple to enable Apple to build the custom profiles -- you can verify this on
http://www.swop.org and on Apple's site -- And we have discussed this issue with Apple itself in detail. This is a Driver-Based profile that is very useful right out of the box.

As far as stating that a "Canned Profile" is not useful, again you are incorrect. They are very useful as they contain a Color Algorithim that translates color gamut throughout a workflow between devices. They are a very useful starting point and a great point to return to in complex color workflows.

Certainly custom profiles are important for different combinations of media, lighting, etc, but having a stock profile is useful as a baseline. Custom profiles always exceed "stock," but not all users are skilled enough, have enough controlled lighting, etc to build a decent custom profile. In this area, the Stock profile is a HUGE improvement in CMM.
 
dante@sisna.com said:
You are wrong to state that Apple Monitors are not calibrated to SWOP standards at the factory.
As far as stating that a "Canned Profile" is not useful, again you are incorrect. They are very useful as they contain a Color Algorithim that translates color gamut throughout a workflow between devices. They are a very useful starting point and a great point to return to in complex color workflows.
Click to expand...

i didn't say ACDs are not calibrated with SWOP. and didn't say canned profiles were not useful. in fact i totally agree with you that canned/stock/standard/average profiles are very useful since they provide a good starting point.

dante@sisna.com said:
..there is not substitute from having that original default calibration profile for sure.
For me, this alone justifies the cost difference
Click to expand...

it was this comment (and partially my faut not reading your other comments) that made me think that you meant to say all ACDs are calibrated individually at the manufacturer and that the profiles that come with each of them are custom profiles.. hence the comment about you not knowing a thing about color and about Apple's marketing strategies. so, just a misunderstanding. i hope you accept my apology.

nevertheless, you do recalibrate your monitors at your factory about every 4 months. so i think it's safe to say that the factory default profile is 99% useless for you.

back to the topic. why would i or would i not buy an ACD? it depends on how you balance between cost and quality.
if you are an average pro, you certainly want to have a quality display to work on. whether or not you are able to see the subtle differences in quality is another story. that's why the hardcore pros are willing to pay double the price for the Eizo displays.
if you are on a budget, you certainly have to look for the cheaper alternates. the average user isn't really aware of the subtle differences in quality anyways.
and of course there are always those who like matching stuffs who are so loyal that they will beat you to death until you believe that Apple things are the best no matter what.
 
phuong said:
i didn't say ACDs are not calibrated with SWOP. and didn't say canned profiles were not useful. in fact i totally agree with you that canned/stock/standard/average profiles are very useful since they provide a good starting point.



it was this comment (and partially my faut not reading your other comments) that made me think that you meant to say all ACDs are calibrated individually at the manufacturer and that the profiles that come with each of them are custom profiles.. hence the comment about you not knowing a thing about color and about Apple's marketing strategies. so, just a misunderstanding. i hope you accept my apology.

nevertheless, you do recalibrate your monitors at your factory about every 4 months. so i think it's safe to say that the factory default profile is 99% useless for you.

back to the topic. why would i or would i not buy an ACD? it depends on how you balance between cost and quality.
if you are an average pro, you certainly want to have a quality display to work on. whether or not you are able to see the subtle differences in quality is another story. that's why the hardcore pros are willing to pay double the price for the Eizo displays.
if you are on a budget, you certainly have to look for the cheaper alternates. the average user isn't really aware of the subtle differences in quality anyways.
and of course there are always those who like matching stuffs who are so loyal that they will beat you to death until you believe that Apple things are the best no matter what.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the additions to this discussion! I appreciate your comments and your knowledge. You sure are right about those Eizo displays, and many of the top end NEC's (and LaCie's, perhaps a Samsung) -- they are spectacular for color consistency and accuracy.

I responded to the original post as many people forget to include the basics of color in their discussions about ACD.

They also forget that many Dell 24" monitors are a "lottery" in terms of the actual display being switched from a high graphical quality IPS panel to a faster, but lower quality PVA version.

Regardless, thats for the added comments on this: it is good for the industry that discussions like this exist.

Best Regards,

DJO
 
I have a 23" ACD (older version). I have found the sharpness excellent and colour very good.

I calibrate every two weeks using the Spyder 2 Pro.



FJ
 
So if I'm following this discussion correctly, folks seem to agree that ACDs are worth the dough, even to the point of being a good buy, if you work with them on a professional basis, or if you are committed to the Apple form factor and aesthetic at any cost...but for consumers who are niether of these things, perhaps not?

It reminds me of MacPro discussions of yore, except the difference here is that there is no consumer-level alternative, which begs the question: is there any reason why Apple doesn't make an ACD at a price point SLIGHTLY higher than its competitors, as it does with most other hardware and peripherals? I'd buy a snazzy Apple 20" if it were, say, 100 Euros more than the Phillips or Acer I'm likely to buy...but its 450 more :eek: .
 
shikimo said:
So if I'm following this discussion correctly, folks seem to agree that ACDs are worth the dough, even to the point of being a good buy, if you work with them on a professional basis, or if you are committed to the Apple form factor and aesthetic at any cost...but for consumers who are niether of these things, perhaps not?

It reminds me of MacPro discussions of yore, except the difference here is that there is no consumer-level alternative, which begs the question: is there any reason why Apple doesn't make an ACD at a price point SLIGHTLY higher than its competitors, as it does with most other hardware and peripherals? I'd buy a snazzy Apple 20" if it were, say, 100 Euros more than the Phillips or Acer I'm likely to buy...but its 450 more :eek: .
Click to expand...

Bingo -- ACD's are worth the "painful" price difference for graphics, multimedia and perhaps video pros.

But you bring up a good point on the consumer-level alternative. Personally, I think Apple likes to drive folks to the all-in-one iMac. They probably have HUGE profit margins on these.
 
I bought an ACD for 3 reasons:

1. I was getting a new Mac Pro, so what better way to compliment it than to have a monitor by the same manufacturer and style?

2. I looked at a LOT of LCD monitors (including the Dells) and all of them seemed flimsy or cheesily built but, the Apple Cinema Display was rock solid, heavy duty as well as the most eye pleasing monitor I've seen.

3. Having a nice new Mac and using a Dell monitor just seems wrong to me. I don't wanna support Dell by buying their stuff. I wanna support the company I truly love by buying Apple stuff. (...won't buy Apple RAM though... hehe.)
 
Why buy an ACD ?

suneohair said:
The Apple is grossly overpriced, so I woudl take my chances on the lottery.
Click to expand...

Decadence ?

Seriously, if you want something with an excellent colour gamut, go for the tri-colour LED backlit samsung for about 1800 ? It has the largest known LCD colour gamut for professional work using distinct LED's to light AND colour the panel.

An excellent article is at xbit for modern LCD monitors:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/lcd-parameters_16.html

Pretty neat too.
 
TheSpaz said:
I bought an ACD for 3 reasons:

1. I was getting a new Mac Pro, so what better way to compliment it than to have a monitor by the same manufacturer and style?

2. I looked at a LOT of LCD monitors (including the Dells) and all of them seemed flimsy or cheesily built but, the Apple Cinema Display was rock solid, heavy duty as well as the most eye pleasing monitor I've seen.

3. Having a nice new Mac and using a Dell monitor just seems wrong to me. I don't wanna support Dell by buying their stuff. I wanna support the company I truly love by buying Apple stuff. (...won't buy Apple RAM though... hehe.)
Click to expand...

That's exactly my point of view on the topic as well. Except I plan on getting a MBP not a MP! Anyways, I totally agree on the cheesily built Dells and the awkwardness of having a sleek Mac machine (like a Mac Pro, or MacBook Pro) to hook it up to a ugly, flimsy dell LCD. Great minds think alike!:)
 
Like someone mentioned before. Those big LCDs are like a piece of furniture if you put them into your private life. I bought an ACD because they look great and do great job (for me).

I gave my 20'' ACD away, but I'll buy a new one, definitely. No ugly LCD will enter my home.
 
Maxx Power said:
Why buy an ACD ?
Seriously, if you want something with an excellent colour gamut, go for the tri-colour LED backlit samsung for about 1800 ? It has the largest known LCD colour gamut for professional work using distinct LED's to light AND colour the panel.

An excellent article is at xbit for modern LCD monitors:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/lcd-parameters_16.html

Pretty neat too.
Click to expand...

What I am about to say applies to medium to high end Print Design work and photography where matching color from a monitor to printed piece is critical.

I used to believe wide gamut monitors where the way to go and almost bought the samsung quoted above or the new HP. That was until I read this post by Karl Lang (He’s the father of both the original PressView, ColorMatch RGB and the Artisan. He is a guru of Color Management).

He says:

"1) A wide gamut LCD display is not a good thing for most (95%) of high
end users. The data that leaves your graphic card and travels over the
DVI cable is 8 bit per component. You can't change this. The OS, ICC
CMMs, the graphic card, the DVI spec, and Photoshop will all have to be
upgraded before this will change and that's going to take a while. What
does this mean to you? It means that when you send RGB data to a wide
gamut display the colorimetric distance between any two colors is much
larger. As an example, lets say you have two adjacent color patches one
is 230,240,200 and the patch next to it is 230,241,200. On a standard
LCD or CRT those two colors may be around .8 Delta E apart. On an Adobe
RGB display those colors might be 2 Delta E apart on an ECI RGB display
this could be as high as 4 delta E.

It's very nice to be able to display all kinds of saturated colors you
may never use in your photographs, however if the smallest visible
adjustment you can make to a skin tone is 4 delta E you will become
very frustrated very quickly.

2) More bits in the display does not fix this problem. 10 bit LUTs, 14
Bit 3D LUTs, 10 bit column drivers, time-domain bits, none of these
technologies will solve problem 1. Until the path from photoshop to the
pixel is at least 10 bits the whole way, I advise sticking to a display
with something close to ColorMatch or sRGB."

<end>

So basically, he explains that this wide gamut leads to more difference between corresponding pixels: difference that will only lead to problems in color adjustment as the video data path and printers cannot possible maintain this diversity.

In his article he recommends the NEC 1990SXI, on up -- then the Apple's, Sony's and Samsungs and then the Eizo (actually says these are the best, but for the high cost). He indicates that the LaCies are basically an NEC with their label on it.

One last piece of info regarding Apple's lack of display controls, Lang says:
"The fact that Apple's display has no controls other than
backlight is actually a very good thing for an 8-8-8 LCD if your going
to use calibration. Apple optimizes the factory LUTs so as to provide
the most individual colors. smooth greyscale and the least loss. Then
the calibration is done in the graphic card LUT. As these are all 8 bit
it's best if the user does not mess with the display LUTs at all."

So there you have it. Again the above applies to print and photography, not video as most certainly a wide gamut in video is crucial to approach the full NTSC spectrum.

Here is the a link to his post:

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=9613&hl=prosense

DJO
 
dante@sisna.com said:
What I am about to say applies to medium to high end Print Design work and photography where matching color from a monitor to printed piece is critical.

I used to believe wide gamut monitors where the way to go and almost bought the samsung quoted above or the new HP. That was until I read this post by Karl Lang (He’s the father of both the original PressView, ColorMatch RGB and the Artisan. He is a guru of Color Management).

He says:

"1) A wide gamut LCD display is not a good thing for most (95%) of high
end users. The data that leaves your graphic card and travels over the
DVI cable is 8 bit per component. You can't change this. The OS, ICC
CMMs, the graphic card, the DVI spec, and Photoshop will all have to be
upgraded before this will change and that's going to take a while. What
does this mean to you? It means that when you send RGB data to a wide
gamut display the colorimetric distance between any two colors is much
larger. As an example, lets say you have two adjacent color patches one
is 230,240,200 and the patch next to it is 230,241,200. On a standard
LCD or CRT those two colors may be around .8 Delta E apart. On an Adobe
RGB display those colors might be 2 Delta E apart on an ECI RGB display
this could be as high as 4 delta E.

It's very nice to be able to display all kinds of saturated colors you
may never use in your photographs, however if the smallest visible
adjustment you can make to a skin tone is 4 delta E you will become
very frustrated very quickly.

2) More bits in the display does not fix this problem. 10 bit LUTs, 14
Bit 3D LUTs, 10 bit column drivers, time-domain bits, none of these
technologies will solve problem 1. Until the path from photoshop to the
pixel is at least 10 bits the whole way, I advise sticking to a display
with something close to ColorMatch or sRGB."

<end>

So basically, he explains that this wide gamut leads to more difference between corresponding pixels: difference that will only lead to problems in color adjustment as the video data path and printers cannot possible maintain this diversity.

In his article he recommends the NEC 1990SXI, on up -- then the Apple's, Sony's and Samsungs and then the Eizo (actually says these are the best, but for the high cost). He indicates that the LaCies are basically an NEC with their label on it.

One last piece of info regarding Apple's lack of display controls, Lang says:
"The fact that Apple's display has no controls other than
backlight is actually a very good thing for an 8-8-8 LCD if your going
to use calibration. Apple optimizes the factory LUTs so as to provide
the most individual colors. smooth greyscale and the least loss. Then
the calibration is done in the graphic card LUT. As these are all 8 bit
it's best if the user does not mess with the display LUTs at all."

So there you have it. Again the above applies to print and photography, not video as most certainly a wide gamut in video is crucial to approach the full NTSC spectrum.

Here is the a link to his post:

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=9613&hl=prosense

DJO
Click to expand...

Interesting, but for graphics work, an LCD that comes close to a CRT would be ideal though. As for the wide colour gamut, a lot of LCD's don't even come close to the 16.7 million colours of RGB value combinations. A narrow colour gamut like on TN based LCD's (22") would display only about 264000 colours, you can get very uneven transitions between tones. On the other hand, an S-IPS would get you almost a CRT like colour gamut, and that samsung is way over that, probably better than any given CRT.

I'm definitely certain that the DVI interface is not the bottleneck, since professional CRT's used to come with this interface also, and they had a wide (compared to LCD) colour gamut. So, sure, that samsung won't go over this same limit on the CRT as it applies to the LCD using DVI, but it definitely can bring you colours like those you'd see on a CRT.

Another thing is that even for the same claimed max possible colours, the monitor with the deepest saturation for a colour (highest contrast) is often the one with the wider colour gamut. This is independent of the signal input, that for any given input, its the quality of the monitor.

That samsung is way over sRGB standard, it can pretty much represent all visible colours, but you won't get that on a print out. I wouldn't even know where to begin finding a printer that can possibly do a lot more colours than sRGB.
 
Maxx Power said:
On the other hand, an S-IPS would get you almost a CRT like colour gamut, and that samsung is way over that, probably better than any given CRT.

That samsung is way over sRGB standard, it can pretty much represent all visible colours, but you won't get that on a print out.
Click to expand...

Good discussion, thanks.

Can you share the exact model Samsung you are referring to?

I have looked at the 244T and liked it. Would appreciate the model you are familiar with. I am in the market for another monitor and would like to examine the model you refer to.

thanks,

Dante
 
the samsung's syncmaster series is very nice. i used to have a dual 213T when they first came out a couple years ago. bright, crisp, and cool design with slim bezel. works best with multiple display setups. a friend of mine who is a trader is still using them - a quad display setup for a total of 3200x2400 resolution. it looks very awesome.
 
dante@sisna.com said:
Good discussion, thanks.

Can you share the exact model Samsung you are referring to?

I have looked at the 244T and liked it. Would appreciate the model you are familiar with. I am in the market for another monitor and would like to examine the model you refer to.

thanks,

Dante
Click to expand...

I believe it is the Samsung XL20. http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/lcd-parameters_16.html
has a good review of it as part of their LCD testing methodologies guide.

I'm only familiar with the IBM S-IPS LCD's, but Im sure they use the same panels as the next guy when it comes to S-IPS. The things I observed with the IBM LCD's is that they have a fairly high response time, but you wouldn't care about with professional work. If you do, you can use a response compensation software (OverDrive) to reduce the rise-fall time by slightly overvolting the input signal (different manufacturers call it a different name).

The Samsung XL20 is a bit expensive though, on par with a good LaCie...
 
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