27-Inch LED Cinema Displays Photos and Impressions

[SnowLeopard2008]

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.

Completely irrelevant. I was comparing the features of the older ACD versus the new LED ones. Aftermarket add-ons don't matter. It is independent of whether or not I am using the older ACD or the new LED displays. My original point was that the new display offers the same resolution and IPS technology for a lower price. Saying that the older ACD is superior in every way is blatantly false.

You are partially correct because you misinterpreted my post but you have the right information. Both the new LED display and older ACD have IPS panels. LED offers whiter backlighting so it is technically better than the warm CCFL backlights used in older displays. Some colorimeters do work with LED backlit displays. Glossy displays offer better color accuracy than their matte counterparts. That is where I arrived at my statement, "you get less glare at the cost of color accuracy." Matte has less glare but color accuracy is not as good as a glossy counterpart.

I was a bit extreme in my previous posts, but glossy displays are more color accurate than matte. That is fact. If you believe otherwise, you are perfectly entitled to do so. Ignorance is bliss.

 

[Uragon]

Here's my set up,The Mac Pro is on the floor so the cable on the 27" LED Cinema is long

What's your sound system? Looks nice

 

[SnowLeopard2008]

How would adding treated glass (anti-glare) make the colors accurate? And don't just answer, "It just does".

And how can clear glass (not treated, cuurent model) cause the colors to be off?

Back in the day, pros would control the ambient lighting, and add a hood to the monitor. Now, all I hear is the lazy cry of "Give me non-glare".

+1 I agree with you. Most people somehow equate matte = color accurate. Matte is a coating applied to the surface of the LCD panel. It scatters incoming light across the surface of the display evenly. That is why there is less glare. But this scattering of light distorts the colors of the LCD panel. Glossy displays are just glass. Nothing else. Light can travel relatively unobtrusively to and from the LCD panel. Clear glass does not affect the path of light as much as matte. But, if you add glare to the equation then it really depends. In some setups, matte offers a better result. In others, glossy is better. Anyone who works in color sensitive fields won't have a huge window behind them if they could avoid it.

 

[8CoreWhore]

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

The NEC costs more than 50% more and the Eizo's even more... do I have to explain why that matters? Really?

 

[izimzis]

seriously can someone tell me the difference between the acd and imac panel?

 

[BullyBully]

Seriously? Did you really ask that?

is that the angle of the photo that was taken, or am i seeing some yellow tinge on the bigger screen?

Seriously? Did you really ask that? You're asking stupid questions like that when even a blind monkey can see the white balance in the photo is off? Damn man, your question has to be the stupidest thing I've read/heard all year.

But, to answer your question, is it the angle or is there yellow tinge? IT'S THE ********* WHITE BALANCE!

 

[chrono1081]

+1 I agree with you. Most people somehow equate matte = color accurate. Matte is a coating applied to the surface of the LCD panel. It scatters incoming light across the surface of the display evenly. That is why there is less glare. But this scattering of light distorts the colors of the LCD panel. Glossy displays are just glass. Nothing else. Light can travel relatively unobtrusively to and from the LCD panel. Clear glass does not affect the path of light as much as matte. But, if you add glare to the equation then it really depends. In some setups, matte offers a better result. In others, glossy is better. Anyone who works in color sensitive fields won't have a huge window behind them if they could avoid it.

+1. I will say this now. If someone doesn't have a hood on their monitor, then they don't need flawless color accuracy. Simple as that.

In my hardcore photography days I always had a hood on my monitor when working with images. It makes quite a difference. Now a days color accuracy isn't important to me for probably 70% of the stuff I do but for the other 30% I have my hoods.

 

[phonk]

Very nice looking display.
But I'm glad that I still prefer my good old NEC Wuxi2690 over this . But I can see why people like it.

 

[skellener]

Looks pretty sweet. I love my 24" iMac. Best computer I have ever owned. I think a quad iMac 27" along with a matching 27" Apple display will be my next rig.

 

[8CoreWhore]

Eizo White Paper on glare Vs non-glare.

http://www.eizo.com/global/support/wp/pdf/wp_07-001.pdf

They prefer non-glare... but only because of reflections, not for accuracy and calibration. They say there's no diiference there. Glare is caused by uncontrolled ambient light. If you are a working pro, you must control the ambient light anyway, and best use a hood. So, in that sense, there is no glare.

Eizo knows customers are lazy and will not control that ambient light, so they ask for non-glare treatment.

 

[HLdan]

I absolutely hate this glossy screen crap. It's absurd.

Here here! I don't know why Apple decided that taking a perfectly great screen, glossing it up to enrich and over-saturate already beautiful and natural color was a good idea. The glossy was invented to fool people into thinking they are getting a much more vibrant color rich picture but when they print it out it shows otherwise. A matte screen will only give the most accurate and natural color. You won't find any professional printing companies using glossy screens to edit their projects. Save the glossy for the people who want the fake look. Save the matte for people who really care about the picture on their screen and how it looks before it prints. Therefore, I cannot ever see myself buying that useless Apple 27" glossy monitor. If anything should've had a matte option, the Cinema Display should have. I'll get an Eizo for a professional monitor.

 

[tablo13]

The 27 looks kind of green compared to the 24, has it not been calibrated?

It seems the opposite to me.

 

[TennisandMusic]

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd&sku=224-8284&redirect=1

Still $1100.00 and no speakers or camera, etc.

The problem with this is that with anyone except Apple you can find a lower price.

Such as...

http://bookstore.ucsd.edu/computers/hardware/monitors.htm

 

[heisetax]

What is the same display & what isn't?

No. LG's monitor does not have the MagSafe connector.

If you want to talk about the non LCD items than the most noticeable item would have to be the aluminum case. It can still be the same LCD screen & have a different case, a different set of cable & power connections.

 

[meatballs]

It seems the opposite to me.

Are you on a 27 ACD?

 

[heisetax]

some ba comments are always made111

Seriously? Did you really ask that? You're asking stupid questions like that when even a blind monkey can see the white balance in the photo is off? Damn man, your question has to be the stupidest thing I've read/heard all year.

But, to answer your question, is it the angle or is there yellow tinge? IT'S THE ********* WHITE BALANCE!

Some people just want to ask the question is the problem because the Apple display does not handle it correctly or is it a hardware/software need for adjustment?

 

[tablo13]

Are you on a 27 ACD?

No, I'm on an iPod touch 4g. Maybe I should clean my screen

 

[chrono1081]

Here here! I don't know why Apple decided that taking a perfectly great screen, glossing it up to enrich and over-saturate already beautiful and natural color was a good idea. The glossy was invented to fool people into thinking they are getting a much more vibrant color rich picture but when they print it out it shows otherwise. A matte screen will only give the most accurate and natural color. You won't find any professional printing companies using glossy screens to edit their projects. Save the glossy for the people who want the fake look. Save the matte for people who really care about the picture on their screen and how it looks before it prints. Therefore, I cannot ever see myself buying that useless Apple 27" glossy monitor. If anything should've had a matte option, the Cinema Display should have. I'll get an Eizo for a professional monitor.

Please try printing these pictures on calibrated monitors and printers. I have. You will find your comments about glossy are 100% incorrect.

 

[skyline r34]

What's your sound system? Looks nice

Logitech's Z-5500 Surround Sound System

 

[heisetax]

Same resolution?

Completely irrelevant. I was comparing the features of the older ACD versus the new LED ones. Aftermarket add-ons don't matter. It is independent of whether or not I am using the older ACD or the new LED displays. My original point was that the new display offers the same resolution and IPS technology for a lower price. Saying that the older ACD is superior in every way is blatantly false.

You are partially correct because you misinterpreted my post but you have the right information. Both the new LED display and older ACD have IPS panels. LED offers whiter backlighting so it is technically better than the warm CCFL backlights used in older displays. Some colorimeters do work with LED backlit displays. Glossy displays offer better color accuracy than their matte counterparts. That is where I arrived at my statement, "you get less glare at the cost of color accuracy." Matte has less glare but color accuracy is not as good as a glossy counterpart.

I was a bit extreme in my previous posts, but glossy displays are more color accurate than matte. That is fact. If you believe otherwise, you are perfectly entitled to do so. Ignorance is bliss.

My 30" ACD has a resolution of 2560 pixels by 1600 pixels. or a 16:10 aspect ratio. The new 27" ACD has a resolution of 2560 pixels by 1440 pixels, or a 16:9 aspect ratio. It just seems as if the resolution is 10% lower for the new display. But then I learned my math back in the days before the new math that is used these days.

 

[heisetax]

These are just great big boxes

It's that time again when adults get brand new apple stuff and feel the need to post pictures of the packaging it came in. Adults.

My kids only wanted large Christmas presents so that they could have the large boxes to play with. It seems that they were really grown up for their age.

 

[HLdan]

Please try printing these pictures on calibrated monitors and printers. I have. You will find your comments about glossy are 100% incorrect.

Well see you're assuming I've never used a glossy screen and did any printing. I had the 13" MBP which was a nightmare in terms of printing. The business I do involves making a lot of brochures which I create. When going to the printers I was greatly disappointed to find that my brochures did not look as rich and vibrate on paper as they did on my 13" glossy Macbook Pro screen. I've since dumped that Mac and bought a 15" Core i5 with antiglare and now I can easily create my brochures for my business and go straight to the printing company and know that my brochures will look very much like what was on the screen during editing. It's not really about the colors being off, it's about the colors being overly saturated from a glossy. So my comments about glossy were 100% correct out of experience. I mean, what are you trying to say, that the glossy gives more a realistic experience of what the end product will look like printed? If that's what you're saying then you're 100% incorrect.

 

[chrono1081]

Well see you're assuming I've never used a glossy screen and did any printing. I had the 13" MBP which was a nightmare in terms of printing. The business I do involves making a lot of brochures which I create. When going to the printers I was greatly disappointed to find that my brochures did not look as rich and vibrate on paper as they did on my 13" glossy Macbook Pro screen. I've since dumped that Mac and bought a 15" Core i5 with antiglare and now I can easily create my brochures for my business and go straight to the printing company and know that my brochures will look very much like what was on the screen during editing. It's not really about the colors being off, it's about the colors being overly saturated from a glossy. So my comments about glossy were 100% correct out of experience. I mean, what are you trying to say, that the glossy gives more a realistic experience of what the end product will look like printed? If that's what you're saying then you're 100% incorrect.

Obviously your color accuracy doesn't matter if you are editing with a laptop. I stand by my statement because I've had this demonstrated to me, and I've demonstrated it to many other friends. The prints on glossy screens are more color accurate then matte. Matte scatters light. Glossy doesn't. If your colors are looking oversaturated then you need to calibrate with a good colorimeter and if color accuracy is important, its never a good idea to use a laptop screen. Laptops are nice and convenient, but any color accurate work should be done on a desktop monitor.

 

[heisetax]

No 27" Apple display for me

Uh and Apple design and quality. Not to mention magsafe connector and Minidisplay cable, iChat camera, mic, usb ports. Good design isn't cheap, when will Windows groupies comprehend that? Do you expect to buy a Mercedes for the same price of a Honda, which will do the same thing a Mercedes does?

Magsage connectors are a pain, Minidisplay port can be good but not yet universal, "iChat" camera means that the display has to point in the camera direction no the viewing direction to be most useful, Mic seems to be the only item that may be there that is not there on other companies models, USB ports are on almost all of the competing displays. Both of my HP displays have 4 USB ports. That's just a couple more than on my 30" Apple display. But then my new HP 30" display has both a DLDVI port & a Display Port connectors. So it can connect to both my Intel Mac Pro with a DLDVI cable & to my Intel MacBook Pro with a DisplayPort to Mini DisplayPort with a $5-10 cable rather than a $100+ adapter.

 

[chanerz]

nice screen!