Sidebar Sidebar
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

lifeinhd said:
And to the people who think glossy is more color accurate, remember that any ambient light will wash the colors out, and that the light from the display is refracted as it passes through the glass :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

And it matte its diffused through the screen, resulting in loss of sharpness and color.
 
The Human animal

I do love these glossy vs matte arguments. They show why we as a species are doomed, in the long run. Can you distinguish between your opinion and a fact? Nope? Thought not.
 
quadgirl said:
Quite how Apple have the nerve to sell a 'mirror' for 900 quid is beyond me. Steve really does believe in 'our consumers love glossy screens'. More like the outrageous profit levels.
Click to expand...

I'm a consumer and I love glossy screens - I've had about three or four glass/glossy screened monitors before getting my MacBook and I am getting this screen partially because of the gloss screen, I think it looks better.
 
myke said:
I do love these glossy vs matte arguments. They show why we as a species are doomed, in the long run. Can you distinguish between your opinion and a fact? Nope? Thought not.
Click to expand...

There is more of a distinction than there used to be.
 
Laptops... And angle of view=

HLdan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually, you are misinformed on multiple points, no matter what your personal experience is telling you. Much of your difficulties with your glossy pro screen have more to do with the huge shifts you experience with most laptops field of view, meaning the screen can look widely different depending on the position of your head, and the angle of the screen. Most desktops have a wider angle of view, and the users head position is much more easily controlled. Want to test this? Pull up any image and then adjust the angle of the screen, and then rotate the screen left and right... You will discover the screen image varies quite a bit. Many desktop monitors suffer the same plight as well. My last iMac which was a first gen had an exceptional consistency and a huge field of view, so did my ACD 17", and my new i7 27" is great as well. None of my laptops could be reliably calibrated without resorting to elaborate head to screen restraining devices (kidding, but they could not be calibrated).

All screens have a much wider Color gamut than what can be reproduced with traditional CMYK printing. Calibration is all about reducing the color gamut and bringing it in line with what can be reproduced, so what you see on screen matches what you get when it is output. Output meaning press proofs pulled from your printer, and not just spit out of your desktop inkjet. I have been a design professional for over 26 years, and I never cease to be amazed how many folks, including professionals and agencies, don't accurately calibrate their screens. If stuff wasn't matching what you saw on your screen, the issue was your own, and had nothing to do with the twaddle of glossy vs matte...

By the way, my 27" i7 calibrated easily. My in house proofing matches my screen, and most importantly matches the press proofs from my printers.
Cheers,
Michael
 
Au Revoir

I don't care anymore, Apple obviously don't give a rat's ass about pros. Going to spend my money on an HP Dreamcolor instead. I'll take quality over shinyness, and even size.
 
quadgirl said:
Quite how Apple have the nerve to sell a 'mirror' for 900 quid is beyond me. Steve really does believe in 'our consumers love glossy screens'. More like the outrageous profit levels.
Click to expand...

If those really are mirrors, does that mean there are two actual leopards in the room, or do you think he might have pasted pictures up??

Jeez, some people are just so spoiled. You might hate the thing because its shiny and doesn't calibrate to your obscenely demanding standards, but for the vast majority of people it's exactly what you would want to be using... hence the profits ...
 
gorgeousninja said:
If those really are mirrors, does that mean there are two actual leopards in the room, or do you think he might have pasted pictures up??

Jeez, some people are just so spoiled. You might hate the thing because its shiny and doesn't calibrate to your obscenely demanding standards, but for the vast majority of people it's exactly what you would want to be using... hence the profits ...
Click to expand...

I would buy you a beer.
 
HLdan said:
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.
Click to expand...

That is the whole point of calibration.

cmyk has a very low colour range compared to any modern display so pretty much any modern display that has been calibrated correctly can give a fairly accurate representation. Colour profiles also help.
 
In the interest of injecting some sanity into the religious war over glossy vs. matte, this article on Tom's Hardware gives a neutral treatment of the topic. The money quotes:

In controlled lighting environments, there is very little difference in color accuracy between the two types of monitors when using a colorimeter. In uncontrolled lighting, the glossy screen has better color accuracy except for the parts of the screen with bright reflections. The matte screen has less of a difference in the image, but has poorer color accuracy due to the diffusion of the light producing haze over a larger area.
Click to expand...

and again

Fans of matte displays can point out that top-of-the-line desktop monitors for digital photography such as the HP DreamColor LP2480zx or Eizo ColorEdge CG301W are matte designs. Again, given that color quality is dependent on the LCD panel and backlighting technology more than the polarizer, monitors such as the LP2480zx are arguably among the best of the best. On the other hand, fans of glossy displays can point out that flagship digital mammography displays such as the Eizo RadiForce GS520 are designed with glossy screens because the superior sharpness (MTF) over matte screens allows radiologists to better detect more subtle changes in the breast and identify breast cancer at earlier stages. So, when it’s comes to making a life or death decision, glossy wins.
Click to expand...

The fact that the new ACD is glossy is only relevant when considering the type of environment in which the display will be operating. When discussing whether or not this is a good display, what people should be asking about is the quality and performance of the display (uniformity, gamut, calibration performance, etc.). Until we see a comprehensive review, we just won't know how this display stacks up against the competition.

Disclaimer: I've recently chosen the NEC PA271W, and one reason (of many) I chose this display is that I don't have perfect control over ambient lighting. I've been using a glossy iMac in this environment, and it has been miserable. But I am prepared to accept that the 27" ACD could be a great display.
 
so the only difference between this and the 24'' one is you have to go to the doctor every week to check your neck?

cool.
 
mlblacy said:
All screens have a much wider Color gamut than what can be reproduced with traditional CMYK printing.
Click to expand...

No, most screens more or less match sRGB color gamut in shape and size. I think the 27inch Apple does so as well. As an example for traditional CMYK printing in Europe ISO Coated v2 (while being smaller overall) exceeds sRGB in the Cyan corner by a noteworthy degree. Hence the need to use in color spaces like Adobe RGB or eciRGB as working space.
Granted not so long ago all but the most expensive displays/CRTs could not nearly reproduce those gamuts. But that is changing, as prices for wide gamut displays decrease bit by bit. As Apples (iMac & 27") screens being glossy does nothing to improve color gamut significantly, the improvement for quoted "color accuracy" of a glossy screen appears neglectable.

What remains is that you mirror yourself in the screen. Which many people consider unnerving - whether they're preparing a print job worth the price of a mid-range car or they're writing an email.
 
fat phil said:
I don't care anymore, Apple obviously don't give a rat's ass about pros. Going to spend my money on an HP Dreamcolor instead. I'll take quality over shinyness, and even size.
Click to expand...

Bu,bu,bu,but the HP doesnt have an apple on it!:confused:
 
lifeinhd said:
I'm not exactly sure why anyone "needs" a color accurate monitor. Let's say you edit feature films. Remember that your films will be viewed by consumers... on their uncalibrated glossy monitors. If you're a photographer who prints to glossy paper, your work will again be viewed by the untrained eye of the consumer. So really, the weak link is not the monitor, or the camera, or the printer, but the consumer.

And to the people who think glossy is more color accurate, remember that any ambient light will wash the colors out, and that the light from the display is refracted as it passes through the glass :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I work a lot in Photoshop and what is on the screen and what prints out can be very different. I'm looking forward to getting my Mac and the glossy screen. :D
 
kevinkt said:
Lawl! Is that a smart car? Typical. But anyways I'm thinking of getting one or maybe just a HDTV and use it as a monitor. What's the difference? Does anybody know?
Click to expand...

difference is that a 27'' mac screen has 2560x1440 resolution and a HDTV has only 1920x1080. tv will work fine if u work at a 3 meter distance from it. if any closer. it will probably be unconfortable to watch and your eyes will tire easily.
 
you39 said:
No, most screens more or less match sRGB color gamut in shape and size. I think the 27inch Apple does so as well. As an example for traditional CMYK printing in Europe ISO Coated v2 (while being smaller overall) exceeds sRGB in the Cyan corner by a noteworthy degree. Hence the need to use in color spaces like Adobe RGB or eciRGB as working space.
Granted not so long ago all but the most expensive displays/CRTs could not nearly reproduce those gamuts. But that is changing, as prices for wide gamut displays decrease bit by bit. As Apples (iMac & 27") screens being glossy does nothing to improve color gamut significantly, the improvement for quoted "color accuracy" of a glossy screen appears neglectable.

What remains is that you mirror yourself in the screen. Which many people consider unnerving - whether they're preparing a print job worth the price of a mid-range car or they're writing an email.
Click to expand...

Yes. I stand by what I said. The visual color gamut of a screen (wide gamut or not) is much larger than what can be accurately reproduced by traditional CMYK printing. Period. While it is true that the monitor cyan slightly exceeds the CMYK color space, you are ignoring the elephant in the room, the rest of the color gamut that cannot be reproduced at all with the additive processes of putting ink to paper (those would be the vast grey areas in the screenshot comparing a generic RGB to a generic CMYK profile). Even converting from sRGB to CMYK cause a substantial loss in color fidelity, especially in the blues. Hardware calibration is the only way to achieve reliable on screen results, so that what appears on the screen matches a "press proof".

Without debating the minute intricacies of color spaces, and color profiles (which most large printers & prepress houses strip out anyway), the basic premise is that RGB technologies display a much larger color gamut than what can be reproduced in the narrow and limited gamut of CMYK.


Click for full size - Uploaded with Skitch

Most importantly I don't know of ANY screen out of the box that will match, Apple or not, wide gamut or not. EVERY single printer I have ever worked with will strongly recommend both monitor calibration, and more specifically calibration through the use of an external calibration device.

I don't claim that the glossies are more accurate, or not. Regarding reflections there are none in my working environment, ambient light is reduced, lights are kept very low, and I use shades when working on anything critical. Much as any imaging professional would do...
cheers,
michael
 
Detektiv-Pinky said:
And this is my trouble with glossy.

I am not concerned with color accuracy myself. But I do an awful lot of reading and writing on the computer. Glossy is fine for Media consumption - bad for getting work done.
Click to expand...

Anyone who buys a thousand dollar monitor for reading writing and media consumption is an absolute fool.

There are excellent $150 monitors for that.
 
Okay, let's say the glossy lovers are right that glossy offers the same color reproduction as matte, well aside from that the glossy is highly reflective, does not make for a good screen for editing photos unless you are in complete darkness because the reflections are annoying, cause headaches and eyestrain and glossy is not an ideal solution for anyone needing to do any lengthy work on a day to day basis under multiple lighting conditions.
What's even worse with Apple's glossy MBP's and the new Cinema Display is even if you turn up the brightness to overcome the highly reflective and annoying glossy screen, the bezel is still reflective and detracts attention from the screen, I have this issue with my iMac 27" and it's an absolutely poor choice on Apple's part to make the bezel glossy.
 

I really like the cosmetic curb appeal of the new 27-inch with all the added ecosystem perks! Good, bad or indifferent I will likely end up with one, but not because I like it. It’s simply a good value with all things considered. HOWEVER, the glossy screen of the 24-inch I used for about a week, was simply too annoying for my visual comfort. The 27-inch appears to be no different aside from perhaps the longer cabling.

Back when I worked for a living, I use to have an EIZO but it eventually died and frankly, if I could afford it I’d buy another one. Since that’s not a viable option I’m looking at the LaCie 324i. My high-dollar Bose studio monitors are hands down nicer than any built-in speakers, and I feel the same way with an external web-cam.

Here & Now:
I’m still using my old as dirt 22-inch ACD from 10-years ago. It was Apple’s very first entry into the desktop flat panel arena at $4,999.00. It’s still running strong with my 2009 MacPro albeit the ‘brick’ adapter. This whole debate of color accuracy, clarity, resolution, etc., doesn’t negate the fact that a lot of folks simply don’t like the glare and smudges. If Apple offered a non-glare version of the new 27-inch, I believe it would out-sell the glossy. :apple:

Regards,
Dan
 
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