...

[zer0tails]

seems to me that the lines between pro and consumer have blurred. The design of the current macbook illustrates that perfectly.

In the past, it was in Apple's interest to have a dedicated product line up for the pros since consumers weren't interested. Pros helped Apple stay afloat.

But now with the success of the iPod, iPhone and macbook, it's not in Apple's interest to devote significant resources to the Pro market.

What you have in place now is a Prosumer product line up. Pros may not like it but that's the way it is. That's where the $$ is for Apple.

 

[Mal]

The Apple Cinema Display (new glass model) can be calibrated to be just as color-accurate as any high-end display (perhaps of course with some notable, and even more expensive options). They are also capable of far greater brightness than Apple's previous displays, and thus can overcome the glare issue either.

They may not be your preference, but they are not unsuited for graphics work, not by a long shot (especially if you do get the opportunity to lay out your work environment and lighting especially).

jW

 

[3282868]

...

 

[Shake 'n' Bake]

Incorrect. LED and CCFL are DIFFERENT LCD's. CCFL LCD displays are the most common up until LED and then OLED took notice in recent years (please read up on this before attempting to sarcastically call any one out).

Wow, I never thought I would state this, but talk about people losing it over something as trifling as glass on a display. Fact is up until recently most LCD display's did not have a glass layer. In fact, glass has not been generally used in the computer display industry since CRT's. CCFL LCD's without a glass front were a breath of fresh air for many in the graphics and the advent of the digital photography industry (keep in mind mainstream digital photography did not take hold until the late 80's/early 90's, and as such only CRT's and then CCFL LCD's have been utilized in the mainstream industry up until the recent use of LED LCD).

So then is LED just the back lighting? I always thought that the LEDs actually displayed the image.

 

[3282868]

So then is LED just the back lighting? I always thought that the LEDs actually displayed the image.

Exactly. Thank you . Light Emitted Diodes refers to the backlighting of the panel. Previously (and still used) is CCFL.

 

[Shake 'n' Bake]

Exactly. Thank you . Light Emitted Diodes refers to the backlighting of the panel. Previously (and still used) is CCFL.

Thank you very much for the clarification.

 

[elatpdx]

HP LP2480zx

I don't see why all the fuss. IMHO any pro in the market for an LCD display would get the HP LP2480zx Dreamcolor display. It has a tri-color led backlit display to change the color temperature. It allows one to switch from sRGB to adobe RGB to NTSC color space with a push of a button. The HP Dreamcolor was created through a collaboration with Dreamworks and HP to make a color critical monitor that doesn't break the bank.

If one wants a 30" display in my opinion NEC wuxi and spectraview displays are the best without breaking the bank.

Eizo displays are so EXPENSIVE!

BTW all of the above monitors are matte and not glossy. I wonder why? I'm sure Dreamworks isn't stupid with color?

 

[3282868]

...

 

[173080]

seems to me that the lines between pro and consumer have blurred. The design of the current macbook illustrates that perfectly.

Exactly, and I hate it. The product differentiation used to be very clear: plastic for consumers, aluminum for the professionals or those who wanted an upscale computer.

Now the consumers get aluminum just like we do, what gives?

Now someone can pay $1200 for a Macbook that looks and feels just like my $2800 Macbook Pro. It's ridiculous. If Apple gave the consumer line aluminum, they should have given the upper market segment a finer alloy and design to differentiate it.

You can tell a Mercedes-Benz A-Class from an S-Class. The same should stand for the Macbook and Macbook Pro.

 

[monokakata]

Whew, bedifferent, I was wondering when somebody would point that out.

Mind if I repeat? Some folks might need to read it twice.

LED = a form of panel backlighting
CCFL = a form of panel backlighting

LCD = the elements that make up the screen that is backlit by either CCFL elements, or LEDs.

My early 2008 17" Macbook Pro has a TN LCD screen with LED backlighting (I got the optional screen). The ordinary screen for that model, then, was TN LCD with CCFL backlighting.

My 23" Sony display has an S-IPS panel with CCFL backlighting.
My 20" ACD is S-IPS (I think) with CCFL backlighting.

I believe that all the Macbook Pro models now have LED backlighting.

I prefer LED backlighting, but not everybody does. When there's a good-quality LED-backlit IPS panel that's not glossy and not $900, I'll replace the Sony and maybe the ACD.

And so on. Please don't confuse backlighting method with the panel technology.

 

[3282868]

...

 

[eXan]

LED and LCD are different things. LED is Light Emitting Diode. LCD is Liquid Crystal Display. There's a big difference.

He never said they are the same thing...

 

[Shake 'n' Bake]

He never said they are the same thing...

I read the posts and it sounded to me like he did say they were the same thing.

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

LED and LCD are different things. LED is Light Emitting Diode. LCD is Liquid Crystal Display. There's a big difference.

The poster was obviously talking about LED backlit LCD displays and CCFL backlit LCD displays.

 

[Shake 'n' Bake]

The poster was obviously talking about LED backlit LCD displays and CCFL backlit LCD displays.

It would be nice if people read the whole thread. We already know this.

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

It would be nice if people read the whole thread. We already know this.

Your response was "I read the posts and it sounded to me like he did say they were the same thing."

To me that sounds like you were defending your comment, so I felt the need to clarify.

thanks

 

[elatpdx]

Who cares

Exactly, and I hate it. The product differentiation used to be very clear: plastic for consumers, aluminum for the professionals or those who wanted an upscale computer.

Now the consumers get aluminum just like we do, what gives?

Now someone can pay $1200 for a Macbook that looks and feels just like my $2800 Macbook Pro. It's ridiculous. If Apple gave the consumer line aluminum, they should have given the upper market segment a finer alloy and design to differentiate it.

You can tell a Mercedes-Benz A-Class from an S-Class. The same should stand for the Macbook and Macbook Pro.

I personally don't really care about the looks of my computer it's function that counts. I'm really disappointed that apple dropped firewire 400 and dual-link dvi in their new macbook pros both of which made the difference between macbook and macbook pro that much bigger. And the backlit keyboard which used to be MBP only. I might be talking to the wrong person about looks for you are talking about Mercedes-Benz.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Exactly, and I hate it. The product differentiation used to be very clear: plastic for consumers, aluminum for the professionals or those who wanted an upscale computer.

Now the consumers get aluminum just like we do, what gives?

Now someone can pay $1200 for a Macbook that looks and feels just like my $2800 Macbook Pro. It's ridiculous. If Apple gave the consumer line aluminum, they should have given the upper market segment a finer alloy and design to differentiate it.

You can tell a Mercedes-Benz A-Class from an S-Class. The same should stand for the Macbook and Macbook Pro.

OMG. This DEFINES the Mac stereotype of thinking the case is more important than the contents of the case. The very idea of paying almost twice as much just to get an aluminum case being the DEFINING CHARACTERISTIC of Pro versus Non-Pro is just plain laughable. No wonder so many Mac users get made fun of by PC users all the time (shakes head). In the PC/Linux world the case is just a CHOICE in the personal selection process. You can have your PC to be any way that you would like it to be. I suppose when you're completely used to Steve Jobs telling you what you can buy, you might think the case matters most instead of what's under the hood, particularly if the computer is to be more of a room decoration than for actual computing work.

 

[elatpdx]

I don't know what apple is thinking but on the configuration page for the 17" MBP one gets the option of "MacBook Pro 17-inch Hi-Resolution Antiglare Widescreen Display [Add $50.00]"

You can have non glossy if you pay $50 more. What are they trying to say by doing this?

I'm saddened I may replace them with non-Apple displays.

I was hoping that someone may inform me of Apple's intentions on releasing a non-glossy/glass LED (or even CCFL) LCD ACD lineup (clearly the current 24" LEC LCD display is/was marketed for the portable lineup, I'm surprised Apple is releasing desktop units with MINI-DisplayPorts as DisplayPorts are a great next step in the desktop display evolution, and MINI isn't essentially needed for them as space isn't an issue). I'm hoping that more displays are released with more options for professionals in need of non-glossy displays.

I have no brand loyalty what so ever. If apple makes a good product I will buy it, if not who cares. As for displays, in the mean time they don't have one worth spending money on, who cares. NEC, HP, EIZO and Samsung have great displays for sale. There's enough good, high, quality, color-critical displays available to fulfill every pro's needs.

Thank You. Another model I am considering along with the NEC 24" 90 series (and careful with the glossy comment, they're out for blood tonight )

I don't see any 24in display better than the lp2480zx. Its got all the inputs you could possible want. A nice adjustable stand. BTW Apple needs to get up to date with adjustability in terms of the display stand and buttons on the display itself.

Review:
http://www.justechn.com/2008/06/10/hp-dreamcolor-lp2480zx-lcd-display
Color gamut comparision:
http://www.justechn.com/images?g2_itemId=10639
Review:
http://www.trustedreviews.com/monit...r-LP2480zx---24in-Professional-LCD-Display/p1

 

[throttlemeister]

Don't you have any idea how ridiculous some of the things you state are?

Some have stated that glass actually increases colour accuracy.

Read again. Glass does not desaturate by diffusion. That's close to your statement, but not quite.

High gloss glass merely over-saturates the image, rendering it extremely difficult for colour accuracy in image editing, photoshopping and especially screen to print accuracy (even with colour calibration).

I can't believe how you can state this with a straight face. Please tell me how a piece of glass increases saturation. I never noticed that looking out of a window. And the world doesn't change when I look through the finder of my camera either. It does not happen. Let me say that again, adding a piece of glass in front of a LCD panel does not do anything to the colors.

However, putting a matte screen in front of that same panel, DOES change colors and the overall image. Light from the pixels is scattered in the texture of the matte screen. At the same time, the image is blurred ever so slightly due to the same. So in the end, you end up with seeing an image that has flatter colors and is not as sharp as the real image.

And please don't even try to go against these two statements, as they are dictated by the laws of physics. If you are not willing to accept the laws of physics we have to live by, then this discussion really has no meaning at all. We can have another discussion about diffraction, refraction and reflection, but really that was discussed in high-school already.

But, laws of physics do not say anything about 1) personal preference, 2) business needs or 3) generic quality. If you want to say that a glass display sucks for what you want to use your display for, fine. Nobody would probably disagree with you. If you want to say a matte screen works better for you and the work you do, ditto. But bluntly stating any glass display sucks because of colors are off and it is impossible to do any serious work on them, is ridiculous and simply not true.

 

[nick9191]

I can't be bothered to quote, but the OP quoted an article saying the glass overlay makes the display harder to calibrate.

This is pure BS, as I've pointed out. Clear, untreated glass does absolutely nothing to the image or the ability to calibrate.

 

[3282868]

...

 

[OneFortheMoney]

Hate to break it to throttlemeister and nick9191, but the OP bedifferent is spot on. Reading the thread I don't know what nick9191's issue is, he doens't have any idea about high end design and photography work. There isn't a guy in the industry who would stake their reputation on working with a glass monitor that isn't coated or at least non-reflective. You'd be nuts to think otherwise.

Don't you have any idea how ridiculous some of the things you state are?

Read again. Glass does not desaturate by diffusion. That's close to your statement, but not quite.

I can't believe how you can state this with a straight face. Please tell me how a piece of glass increases saturation. I never noticed that looking out of a window. And the world doesn't change when I look through the finder of my camera either. It does not happen. Let me say that again, adding a piece of glass in front of a LCD panel does not do anything to the colors.

However, putting a matte screen in front of that same panel, DOES change colors and the overall image. Light from the pixels is scattered in the texture of the matte screen. At the same time, the image is blurred ever so slightly due to the same. So in the end, you end up with seeing an image that has flatter colors and is not as sharp as the real image.

And please don't even try to go against these two statements, as they are dictated by the laws of physics. If you are not willing to accept the laws of physics we have to live by, then this discussion really has no meaning at all. We can have another discussion about diffraction, refraction and reflection, but really that was discussed in high-school already.

But, laws of physics do not say anything about 1) personal preference, 2) business needs or 3) generic quality. If you want to say that a glass display sucks for what you want to use your display for, fine. Nobody would probably disagree with you. If you want to say a matte screen works better for you and the work you do, ditto. But bluntly stating any glass display sucks because of colors are off and it is impossible to do any serious work on them, is ridiculous and simply not true.

chilllll-ax dude. Sure, glass itself doesn't mess it up, but the reflection absolutely does. The op never said glass did this, they said increasing the monitor brightness or simply working the brightness of the display to take room lighting into account to avoid reflective qualities is what brightens the monitor and images to unnatural levels, and leads to oversaturation. Why don't you beam a flashlight at that glass next time you're working on it, or trying lowering the room lights and messing around with brightness balance while keeping the monitor brightness right where it should be for digital editing. Laws of physics indeed.

 

[throttlemeister]

Hate to break it to throttlemeister and nick9191, but the OP bedifferent is spot on. Reading the thread I don't know what nick9191's issue is, he doens't have any idea about high end design and photography work. There isn't a guy in the industry who would stake their reputation on working with a glass monitor that isn't coated or at least non-reflective. You'd be nuts to think otherwise.

No he is not. He may get to the correct conclusion, but how he gets there is complete bollocks.

 

[OneFortheMoney]

No he is not. He may get to the correct conclusion, but how he gets there is complete bollocks.

So you're upset with his methodology for getting to the right conclusion (thanks for admitting he was right and your were off base)? Doesn't make sense.