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

You wisely chose a favorable perspective of the Lab-Plot for your argument... ;) See the attached image for another perspective that draws a different picture. The effect can be even more dramatic with inkjet prints on good paper, as seen in the second attachment. Now granted this time I have been a little unfair with the perspective. :p But you get the point: RGB and CMYK color spaces are different, that's the nature of the problem. The typical RGB space as a whole may be larger than that of the usual CMYK output device, but that doesn't help you when you have specific color decisions to make in an area where it is not. The advantage of a wider color gamut than sRGB is not the increase in the areas where sRGB already tops CMYK gamuts by far (the ones you marked) - the use of gains in this areas is to encompass those areas that are typical weakpoints of additive color devices.
 

Attachments

  • 4cvsrgb.png
    4cvsrgb.png
    268.9 KB · Views: 95
  • 4cvsrgb2.png
    4cvsrgb2.png
    282.3 KB · Views: 79

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

I doubt that sincerely. When the MacBook Pro came out with glossy screens, all of the "matte" people were freaking out over it. Now that Apple has a matte option available, my impression is that they haven't sold many. I've never seen one. I have to turn mine a bit sometimes to reduce glare. It's never been a big deal. I guess some people can't handle seeing any reflections.

IMHO if you can control the lighting situation, go ahead and get one. If you can't then don't. Simple as that.
 
Oh really? Impressive. I've been working with images for the last 38 years, and I've been working with computers since 1981.

Another e-peen contest! Woot!

Lay them out on the table and just measure, boys.


"I like to waste money needlessly because I heard this brand is the most expensive, therefor best"

That argument didn't fly on these boards when I used it to compare apple's expensive base mac pro to a PC that cost half as much and was twice as fast.
 
Neck ache? Wish list: Adjustable Height iMac & Cinema Display

How come Apple still has yet to offer a telescoping monitor? The ability to move the monitor up-or-down with a few incremental notches?

An HP LCD monitor from 2003 had this capability. Even a $100 AeroGarden has this ability, but not a "pro" monitor?

Yes, you can mount to a wall. I get it. However, the monitor itself should not
be sitting at a fixed height. That is why they have an aching neck.

Same goes for iMac. Wish list: Adjustable Height for iMac and Cinema Display.
 
how long does it take you guys to look from the far left to the far right of the display? 5 hours? good luck with that..
 

As I stated, that is impressive! Apple is quite good with design, and that beauty is no different. I’ve been using Mac products since the beginning of time (1984) and yet I’m still pawing at the LaCie 324i.

I guess I’m just stubborn as I sit here and type and view my 1st generation non-glare Apple Cinema Display. I’m not at all against the new Apple 27-inch offering; it’s just that I’m hell-bent on trying the LaCie contender. In fact, I just tried to order one but it's not available until October. I will buy the darn thing' and report back on whether I chose wisely. Granted, it isn't as cool looking' as the Apple-27 but I have a pretty good gut feeling just the same.

Regards,
Dan O.
 
27" ACD sleep qualities

Enough with the Glossy v. Matte drivel.

The question really burning in my mind is.... Does the screen dim before the computer goes to sleep?
 
Can we please get more 27" ACD reviews and pictures and less matte vs. glossy blah-blah-blah heard it a million times before $^@!? Thanks!
 
...The typical RGB space as a whole may be larger than that of the usual CMYK output device, but that doesn't help you when you have specific color decisions to make in an area where it is not. The advantage of a wider color gamut than sRGB is not the increase in the areas where sRGB already tops CMYK gamuts by far (the ones you marked) - the use of gains in this areas is to encompass those areas that are typical weakpoints of additive color devices.

Meanwhile, while we spar about color space... chances are the OP never even converted his files from RGB to CMYK, much less used hardware calibration at all, lol. Hence his "shock" at the difference between his screen, and his printed work.

I always die a little bit when I have to convert my images from RGB to CMYK, as it kinda sucks a lot of life out of them. Printing files from my Canon 9000 I can far exceed what is reproducible in CMYK...
peace,
michael
 
Cable length

Would one of you lucky owners please let me know the precise measurement of the cable for the mini dv connector? My Mac Pro sits on a table some distance from my desk. I need to know if I will need to buy an extension.
 
That is the primary reason most users will not obtain any benefit from the larger displays. That, and being unable to locate the cursor. :D

Back in the OS 8 days I had a little extension that replaced the default arrow cursor with a different shape that more completely used the 32x32 bounding box. It came with a little editing app that allowed me to modify the colours and move the activation point: the actual pixel that was used to determine whether or not the pointer was over an active element.

Back then the tip of the pointer was not the activation point. The original Mac designers found that people did a better job of hitting a target if it was a few pixels away from the tip. Today in MacOS X the activation point is at the tip of the black part of the arrow pointer.

I used an "arrowhead" shaped pointer that appeared significantly larger than the default arrow. I experimented with many different colour combinations from the default black body and white outline to shades of green that would best be described as "tennis ball". In the end I settled on bright red with a yellow outline. I found that combination jumped off the screen on almost every conceivable background.

Today I work with two high resolution displays and wish I had my old OS 8 cursor back.
 
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.

Can you tell me what aftermarket cameras you are talking about that work with ichat and all other Mac apps? I may go this route and buy a non-Apple brand monitor. thanks!
 
The new 27" Cinema Display is mainly an RGB colorspace

Apple's new 27" LED Cinema Display is basically just a very nice but color gamut limited (98% RGB colorspace) monitor - which is more than fine for the vast majority of everyday average users, and non-color critical professional imaging work. For higher-end, highly color critical imaging work (design, photography, video..etc), this monitor comes up woefully short - with only about 75-78% of the wider gamut Adobe RGB colorspace. Apple strategically doesn't publish detailed colorspace specifications - mainly because none of their recent Cinema displays offers anything close to 100%, or more of the industry Adobe RGB gamut standard used by the vast majority of color critical professionals.

I work as a computer consultant and tech for several higher-end imaging companies (photo and video) and am a photographer myself. Only one of my clients uses any ACD's, or Apple LCD-LED anything for their post production color work (two 30" ACD's and a recently purchased 27" iMac), and they are not as demanding for color accuracy as my other 4 clients who own and work with much more serious professional monitors brands such as Eizo, LaCie, NEC's and even Dell's acclaimed 2405WFP's. All these higher end monitors do cost considerably more than the 27" ACD (except for the Dell 2405), but they also offer far more color accuracy, better calibration controls and much wider color gamuts that are essential for the type of imaging work that they do. Side by side, the wider color gamut monitors are hands down the winner in overall color accuracy - especially working in the much preferred and wider Adobe RGB color space.

And as someone posted earlier in this thread that color accuracy is not needed, or something to "laugh" at - well, I'd really hate to deal with your pseudo-professional output - as compared to the pro's that do rightfully consider color accuracy to be one of the paramount prerequisite todays highly competitive multi-media markets.

I own the LaCie 730 (a rebranded Samsung panel), and use a Colormunki to properly calibrate it. After testing it next to one of my clients 27" iMac's that I was setting up for them (also calibrated with the Colormunki), the Lacie had at least 30-50% more color gamut overall, and was noticeably more accurate in displaying subtle color variations and gradients than the iMac was able to do - which exhibited a propensity to crush fine details in darkened shadows and deep blacks. We also had quite a bit of problems in trying to get the iMac's brightness at, or below 120 Cd/m2 - where-as all of the larger color gamut professional LCD/LED monitors pretty easily calibrated down to even as low as 100 CD/m2 - which is essential for attaining highly accurate results in high-end proofing and large format printing.

In short, glossy vs matte screen debate aside, the new 27" ACD is not at all a unsatisfactory overall, everyday high resolution monitor for non-critical color work. It is exceptional for video playback (especially for uncompressed Blu-Ray and HD files that have been ripped to MKV format via Windows) It is also very good for general imaging work and graphics demanding online web content. But if you want, or need a wider gamut and more accurate colorspace (I shoot exclusively in Adobe RGB with my Canon 5D II) then this primarily RGB colorspace restricted monitor is probably not for you.
 
Nice articulate write up which should provide readers with good purchase guidance. I shoot with Leica and use LR, Aperture and Capture One. Still, I’m just a glorified hobbyist so the 27-ACD would actually be Ok. As it is, I’m holding off for the LaCie 324i.

BTW: w00tini, that's a nice set-up with some pretty clean cable management.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.