I actually thought the old aluminum ACD were prettier than the current ones. I still do actually. I've been trying to find a good price on a used one, but they're still pretty expensive. Apple monitors don't seem to be worth it for me.
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.
27-Inch LED Cinema Displays Photos and Impressions
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I actually thought the old aluminum ACD were prettier than the current ones. I still do actually. I've been trying to find a good price on a used one, but they're still pretty expensive. Apple monitors don't seem to be worth it for me.
My dad has a 30" ACD on his desk, I've got a 27" 09 iMac on mine. I much prefer mine. I'm not a fan boy, and nor is anyone just because they think this is better!
Is Apple a fan boy? Because they made it? lol
Ignorant. Glossy is more color accurate. Matte was never designed for color accuracy but outdoors/field work. If someone prefers color accuracy but works out on the field or anywhere outdoors, matte is for them. But most of us use our computers indoors, glossy is the clear winner. It's not impossible to calibrate, you just don't know how. Again, ignorant.
Speakers, iSight, MagSafe, MiniDP is considered inferior? And the response time for the 27" LED is 12ms compared to 14ms of the 30" ACD. The only thing the 27" LED doesn't have are 2 FireWire 400 ports. It does have 1 extra USB port. But if you really thought that the absence of 2 FireWire 400 ports makes the entire display inferior... well then. Matte displays were form over functionality. You get less glare at the cost of color accuracy. I will probably get a matte display on my next MBP because I don't want to have glare, not because I'm ignorant enough to believe it has better color accuracy.
In the dark with a white desktop.
The 27 looks kind of green compared to the 24, has it not been calibrated?
Sorry, I prefer my EIZO ColorEdge.
Sorry, I prefer not to pay more for less. Glossy > Matte.
Sorry, I prefer my EIZO ColorEdge.
To be fair, that is kind of a low blow considering they cost 4X as much. This is like me saying I prefer my Canon 5D Mark II, when others are discussing a point and shoot camera. To be frank, it makes you sound like an ass.
Yes
To me the color is very good, but it is hard to get a good picture of it.
Like the 24" LED ACD I'm sure in a room with very little ambient light it will be very easy to work with. I personally have no windows, and have complete control over the light in the room.
Exactly. I used to believe the "matte is better" simply because its what I read everywhere until a friend of mine who tests equipment for a photography magazine (and is a professional photographer) proved me otherwise.
Ever since then I switched and had several friends of mine (graphic designers, photogs, and one shoe designer) who have all switched to glossy. The difference is incredible.
Sadly everyone online just runs their mouth instead of going out and testing for themselves. Granted testing equipment like colorimeters and printer calibration devices run well over $1000 but still.
So why do these Highend Eizos have no Glossy?
http://www.eizo.com/global/products/coloredge/index.html
Anyway:
Eizo = five-year warranty
More Display-Inputs and an ergonomic stand
The Apple Cinema Display has also just 72% NTSC compared to WCG-CCFL 102% NTSC
---
NEC MultiSync PA271W
- 27", 2560x1440
- 14Bit 3d-LUT (SpectraView II)
- Gamma, sRGB and L * Gradiation
- WCG-CCFL 102% NTSC (Apple has White-LED with just 72% NTSC)
- flexible Coloremulation -> no problems with sRGB
- some nice functions like ColorComp
- no Glossy
- more than just one Display-Input (2 x DVI-D; 1 x DisplayPort)
- more than just one year warranty
You can always change it from glossy to matte with some fine grain sand paper.
But seriously I prefer matte monitors to glossy. I also prefer matte photos to glossy.
But seriously I prefer matte monitors to glossy. I also prefer matte photos to glossy.
I have the 24'' and I don't think I want a monitor that big, I think 24'' is the biggest I could fit on my desk.
I'm a photographer, at my Studio I have two 30 inch monitors on my desk, i'm pretty sure they cost me about $5,000, at home I have the 27 inch iMac, the iMac is way, way better than the 30 inchers, I can't really justify the expense of buying two new 27 inch monitors, but, if money was no object I would buy them in a heartbeat...
That's called terrible white balance.
Seriously thought I appreciate the comparison photo a lot. Makes me want my dual 27" setup even more now. Hope that theere are no yellow tints on the screens at all.
Remember these new screens lack anti-reflective coatings. You may be seeing the color of walls reflected from the screen. I doubt it is white balance problem, more likely simple reflection
Does Apple really save that much be not coating these screens?
The speakers are inferior to even many of the cheapest aftermarket speakers. The built-in iSight is already obsolete, considering that there are already aftermarket cameras that can do 720p HD video. They are quite cheap, too. Skype has supported 720p HD for over half a year already, and will support in in Mac versions soon. There are already 1080p webcams being developed, and in a few years, they will hit the marketplace. Also, with the built-in iSight, you have to tilt the entire monitor to get a proper camera angle. With a dedicated webcam, you don't need to tilt the monitor... You keep the monitor in the most comfortable position for your eyes and head, and you only tilt the webcam.
You are wrong when you say, "You get less glare at the cost of color accuracy"? Color accuracy has more to do with the type of panel used, and the back-lighting. Many colorimeters don't work properly with LED back-lighting.
So what is your point? My post simply stated that the view angle could not be the cause of the coloration UNLESS it is a poorly designed / manufactured monitor.
Whatever it is - it is not a view angle issue unless...
I don't know, the monitor looks to be the epitome of dumbed down Apple technology with limited appeal to any one other than the casual user. At the same time it's delivered in a beautiful package and works extremely well at its very limited assigned task.
The iPad and latest mini subscribe to the same philosophy.
The iPad and latest mini subscribe to the same philosophy.