Apple Discounts Cinema Displays

[dante@sisna.com]

I will say it.

I'd really like to get an Apple display but these models are just so old and overpriced. The fact that the Apple 30" dropped by $200 still doesn't change the fact that you can get the new Dell High Color 30" on eBay for $1250 with no tax. I'm not sure who here would say that the over 2 year old Apple monitor is a better display than that one, regardless of the fact that it can be had for a huge amount less. If there is no new Apple display in June that outperforms the new Dell and HP, I'll have no choice but to go with the Dell. Honestly, who wouldn't? The only reason I want the Apple at this point is looks.

I'll Say It: For the very high end Print Production Work I do, where color match to offset printed output and proofer output is critical, the 2-Year Old Apple Display is a better monitor that the $1250 Dell High Color Display: I would not use that Dell in my studio.

Maybe for video, games or Apple TV, but not for my Studio-Critical work.

 

[dante@sisna.com]

The new Dell has better color than the 2 year old Apple, plain and simple. It might need some calibration to make it more accurate, but it's still a better display bar none. To suggest otherwise is simple misdirection. The Apple displays are far too overpriced for the yesterdays tech that they are. Whoever pays the $1799 plus tax for one when they can get the Dell for 1250 with no tax either really wants a matching monitor, or does not understand that the Apple is too old to command that price. The old Apple does not offer better color than the new Dell, (in fact it offers worse color) yet Apple still charges more for it. In fact, I might even go so far as to say that if the Dell were a sexier looking monitor than the Apple, no one here would consider it for a second over the Dell.

Sorry, but my 18-years of advanced color matching work and my knowledge of the Wide Gamut Monitors you speak of, and your comments lead me to say this: You really don't know what your talking about when it comes to Color Accuracy, SWOP Color Match and Colorsync System integration as suited for design studios.

You need to "repeat and return:" most of the basic info you need is in this thread if you are willing to take the time to read it. After that starting point, goto Google and begin your education process -- you've got anywhere from 20 to 60 hours work to get up to speed on this topic if you really want your posts to sound knowledgeable.

No personal offense meant: Just Color Match Facts.

 

[YoYoMa]

I don't see a good reason why that would be. The Dell has a better picture, which I would imagine is also important for the kind of work you do. If it's true that it needs to be calibrated to get the accuracy that the Apple supposedly provides, then get it calibrated. This is koolaid at its worst. Show me one professional link where it is suggested that photo work requires only the Apple to get things done right.

 

[stealthman1]

Are you serious? Have you even checked out the specs of the new Dell and compared them? Are you aware of the larger color gamut that it has? Do you know anything more than what you learned from drinking the Apple kool-aid? The Apple monitor came out 2 YEARS ago. Beleive it or not, there have been advances in LCD technology since then.

Arggh! There are numerous Mitsubishis that have better specs than my SLK55 AMG, but none of them are actually better! If I saw a Dell monitor better than my ACD, I'd buy it, but I haven't seen it yet.

 

[dante@sisna.com]

I'll prove it to you and get you started.

Are you serious? Have you even checked out the specs of the new Dell and compared them? Are you aware of the larger color gamut that it has? Do you know anything more than what you learned from drinking the Apple kool-aid? The Apple monitor came out 2 YEARS ago. Beleive it or not, there have been advances in LCD technology since then.

Let me get you started on YOUR comparison. I'll start by explaining to you WHY larger color gamut monitors are not the best for high end Offset and Digital Print production where color match is critical.

This from Monitor God, Karl Lang, the architect of the Sony Artisan, the Radius PressView, ColorMatch, ProSense and many other products. He has worked with display technology both CRT and LCD for the last 15 years.

He says:

A wide gamut LCD display is not a good thing for most (95%) of high
end users. The data that leaves your graphic card and travels over the
DVI cable is 8 bit per component. You can't change this. The OS, ICC
CMMs, the graphic card, the DVI spec, and Photoshop will all have to be
upgraded before this will change and that's going to take a while. What
does this mean to you? It means that when you send RGB data to a wide
gamut display the colorimetric distance between any two colors is much
larger. As an example, lets say you have two adjacent color patches one
is 230,240,200 and the patch next to it is 230,241,200. On a standard
LCD or CRT those two colors may be around .8 Delta E apart. On an Adobe
RGB display those colors might be 2 Delta E apart on an ECI RGB display
this could be as high as 4 delta E.

It's very nice to be able to display all kinds of saturated colors you
may never use in your photographs, however if the smallest visible
adjustment you can make to a skin tone is 4 delta E you will become
very frustrated very quickly.

More bits in the display does not fix this problem. 10 bit LUTs, 14
Bit 3D LUTs, 10 bit column drivers, time-domain bits, none of these
technologies will solve problem 1. Until the path from photoshop to the
pixel is at least 10 bits the whole way, I advise sticking to a display
with something close to ColorMatch or sRGB.

********** Now on to those "Front Panel Display Controls" that so many like to tout as making the New Dell's Superior:

Lang Says, "Unless the display has "TRUE 10 bit or greater 1D LUTs that are 8-10-10" ( and the Dell's are not) user front panel controls for color temp, blacklevel and gamma are useless for calibration and can in fact make things worse. An 8-10-8 3D LUT will not hurt things and can help achieve a fixed contrast ratio which is a good thing.

As an example the fact that Apple's display has no controls other than
backlight is actually a very good thing for an 8-8-8 LCD if your going
to use calibration. Apple optimizes the factory LUTs so as to provide
the most individual colors. smooth greyscale and the least loss. Then
the calibration is done in the graphic card LUT. As these are all 8 bit
it's best if the user does not mess with the display LUTs at all."

*****You can find the full text of Lang's posts and related discussions at:

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=9613&hl=prosense

My own experience producing high Color Matched Offset Print, Web, Digital Print and Flash Video confirms this.

Our new high gamut HP 30" is great for Video and Web Playback -- but it goes not where near our production workflow.

So there: I have compared your "new Dell" to the 2-Year Old Apple.

Now you can "hopefully" understand why a 2-Year Old Apple is far Superior to your New Dell for High End Color Matched Production.

Dante

 

[dante@sisna.com]

I don't see a good reason why that would be. The Dell has a better picture, which I would imagine is also important for the kind of work you do. If it's true that it needs to be calibrated to get the accuracy that the Apple supposedly provides, then get it calibrated. This is koolaid at its worst. Show me one professional link where it is suggested that photo work requires only the Apple to get things done right.

You do not understand the difference between Calibration and Profiling and Between Accuracy and Monitor Bit Depth.

Read my latest post where I show you exactly why (if you have the experience to understand it, which I doubt you do) you are mistaken.

No amount of Calibration can make a monitor that is not suited towards a specific purpose (in this case High End Color Matched Production) better than one that is -- Higher Gamut is acutally a NEGATIVE thing and a "newer" monitor means very little in this case.

Learn, Learn, Learn.

You say I drink "kool aid" -- I say you use cliché's to mask your lack of knowledge. I have MANY non-Apple components, monitors and equipment in my studio.

Dante

 

[dante@sisna.com]

I don't see a good reason why that would be. The Dell has a better picture, which I would imagine is also important for the kind of work you do. If it's true that it needs to be calibrated to get the accuracy that the Apple supposedly provides, then get it calibrated. This is koolaid at its worst. Show me one professional link where it is suggested that photo work requires only the Apple to get things done right.

I would NEVER say that "photo work requires only the Apple to get things done right" -- in fact Apple monitors are considered low to middle of the road compared to high end Eizo's, NEC's, LaCies and perhaps one Samsung. Notice I did not mention any Dell's.

Now here is the link you asked for:

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/...13&hl=prosense

I have MANY more.

Dante

 

[YoYoMa]

What I do know is that when comparing the old Dell with the current Apple, their pictures were usually practically identical, and that the new Dell puts out a much more pleasing picture than the old Dell.

You're right when you say that I'm not educated on the insanely intricate details of print studio work and the technical details of how Photoshop interacts with a monitor. I am, however, still not mistaken about the fact that the Dell (not MY Dell) is the better monitor for most situations. For anyone to suggest that the Apple display is superior simply because of the one thing it offers the small percentage of users that would actually require such an insane level of accuracy in Photoshop is being rather misleading indeed, and they are most assuredly pouring everyone here a big fat cup of Apple kool-aid.

What I just read does not suggest that the Apple is worth the extra money. It is still yesterdays LCD tech and thus still overpriced. It just shows that it possesses a feature that is necessary to a very small number of people, and those people are being required to pay too much for it.

 

[dante@sisna.com]

What I do know is that when comparing the old Dell with the current Apple, their pictures were usually practically identical, and that the new Dell puts out a much more pleasing picture than the old Dell.

You're right when you say that I'm not educated on the insanely intricate details of print studio work and the technical details of how Photoshop interacts with a monitor. I am, however, still not mistaken about the fact that the Dell (not MY Dell) is the better monitor for most situations. For anyone to suggest that the Apple display is superior simply because of the one thing it offers the small percentage of users that would actually require such an insane level of accuracy in Photoshop is being rather misleading indeed, and they are most assuredly pouring everyone here a big fat cup of Apple kool-aid.

What I just read does not suggest that the Apple is worth the extra money. It is still yesterdays LCD tech and thus still overpriced. It just shows that it possesses a feature that is necessary to a very small number of people, and those people are being required to pay too much for it.

You are correct about Dell's being "better for the masses." They are great for Video, Everyday Use, HD, Games, etc.

You are wrong about "what I just read does not suggest that the Apple is worth the extra money." For high end print production where color match is important they most certainly are -- If you understood the article than you would know that this is exactly, not literally, what it says.

For the People who need the Apple, its PRICE is actually a Bargain -- Go compare it to an EIZO, NEC, LaCie or Samsung -- APPLE IS THE CHEAPEST!

 

[3282872]

What I do know is that when comparing the old Dell with the current Apple, their pictures were usually practically identical, and that the new Dell puts out a much more pleasing picture than the old Dell.

There's the fault in your logic. It's not about what "your" eye sees, but about color match, calibration and screen to print spec's. The ACD's two years old are still better products than anything Dell can produce, for professional work, which is why the architects at Frank O. Gehry's new office in NYC all use ACD's on their Windows PC's (as AutoCAD is a Windows only program) and a few on their Mac Pro's running Vista. It's a better monitor. Period.

 

[dante@sisna.com]

There's the fault in your logic. It's not about what "your" eye sees, but about color match, calibration and screen to print spec's. The ACD's two years old are still better products than anything Dell can produce, for professional work, which is why the architects at Frank O. Gehry's new office in NYC all use ACD's on their Windows PC's (as AutoCAD is a Windows only program) and a few on their Mac Pro's running Vista. It's a better monitor. Period.

Yep!

I do that "Color Match Dance" everyday, bound to the desk, surrounded by an NEC LCD, a Mitsubishi CRT, a Dell LCD (for Pallets) and an ACD 30".

ACD blows 'em all away.

 

[zap2]

There's the fault in your logic. It's not about what "your" eye sees, but about color match, calibration and screen to print spec's. The ACD's two years old are still better products than anything Dell can produce, for professional work, which is why the architects at Frank O. Gehry's new office in NYC all use ACD's on their Windows PC's (as AutoCAD is a Windows only program) and a few on their Mac Pro's running Vista. It's a better monitor. Period.

And they look as cool as anything!

Sometime I wish the ACD support other inputs, but I'll live. What can I say? I like my set up to look nice!

 

[YoYoMa]

Well LaCie is known for pricing higher than what they actually offer, and the Samsung is actually newer and cheaper than the Apple, and I think it also uses the new High Color gamut.

Now I'm not saying that there aren't a select few (very very few) out there that may require that very little bit of accuracy (we're talking about at the pixel level here) that the Apple supposedly provides. Apparently there are.

I'm saying that the Dell is actually BETTER for the majority of people, is tons of money less than the Apple, and if it weren't for the looks of the Apple and the Apple kool-aid factor, not a person on this earth would ever consider it for a second over the Dell. That's a BIG deal. It means Apple is providing less value to its customers than its competition. Your situation is very very far away from a typical monitor user and should not be used to defend the Apple as a valuable bargain. It is NOT a bargain and that feature you need does not cost Apple the extra money they are expecting you, and especially its everyday customers, to pay. The Dell IS a bargain. The Apple is simply cheaper than a LaCie and that's hardly a bargain compliment because everything's cheaper than a LaCie. Considering the Apple is almost three years old it better be cheaper than something more than the most expensive monitors out there.

Now I know what you're going to say. The Apple is the Mercedes of monitors, is a "pro" monitor, and thus deserves the higher price. Well that may be true, but it's not a good value to 99% of Apples customers and they should care about that. Not to mention the Apples are apparently WORSE for video. Those pro features you speak of CAN also co-exsist with newer LCD tech like LED backlights.

Simply put, for Apples core customer base, the Apples lack the value of the competition because their monitor tech is TOO DAMN OLD!!! Going on three years and still charging more than everyone else?? How can you guys defend that? Why is this thread filled with so little negativity about what Apple is charging for these out of date things? I know they're pretty but comeon already. Apparently if you're not a color accuracy nut at the pixel level in Photo work (quite the requirement,) then the Apples are WORSE compared to monitors that are almost 40% LESS money.

 

[matticus008]

Oh, get a life. My comment wasn't even directed towards you in the first place, so why you are taking the time in attacking someone's comment in a blog about Mac Cinema Display's is beyond me, other than you have some inherit need to proclaim your high intellect. As they say, this is an A and B conversation, so C your way out...

Perhaps you're confusing Macrumors with your own personal blog. From where I stand, you were trying to draw some sort of comparison to hotel prices, doing it incorrectly, and didn't like that you turned out to be wrong. There are no "A and B" conversations on a forum.

It's more helpful to those who don't understand UK pricing to have accurate information to explain the apparent price increase as you cross the pond. No one was attacking you or acting from any sort of "inherit" need for anything other than accurate information. When you make erroneous statements publicly while trying to explain something, expect it to be corrected. Anything else would be a disservice.

There are those in the world who don't know why Apple products are priced higher abroad. Having the right explanation is an obvious goal here.

 

[Evangelion]

The answer is simple: KVM Switch

Why do you guys insist on using overtly complex solutions for a problem that has a simple solution available? KVM makes the setup a lot more complex than simple additonal DVI-port does. It also costs extra.

 

[Evangelion]

That doesn't solve the problem for those who would like to use additional inputs without clutter.

*sigh*.... I really don't get it. There are people who could live with the additional cable going to the monitor. And those people would welcome the additonal port. Then we have those who couldn't stand the extra cable. And for those the solution is simple: they can simply choose not to use the port (like they are forced to do right now, due to not having that port available). Right now the issue of clutter is solved by making it very hard to attach a second computer to the screen. And the "clean-desk" crowd is extatic because they can avoid the clutter (because they are forced to, whether they like it or not). But they fail to understand that having an extra DVI-port in the monitor would NOT make their desktops more cluttered. Reason being that THEY ARE NOT FORCED TO USE IT! Or are they drones that think that if Apple offers them anything (like, and extra DVI-port) they are REQUIRED to use it? Then we have those who could live with the extra cable just fine, and they could use another port. But no, we can't have that port because "it would make our desktops more cluttered, even though we wouldn't be forced to use that port if we don't like the extra clutter". I mean, really?

This might come as a shock to you, but not everyone has a workdesk that is uber-clean.

Your line of thinking imposes an unnatural division.

your line of thinking is one of blind fanboyism. That is, anything Apple does, is good. Only one port in ACD? That's good because it reduces clutter! And it does that by making it practically impossible to attach a second computer to the screen. Go Apple!

People who like clean work areas might still need to work with multiple inputs.

And what do those people do now with the ACD? USse KVM's? Why couldn't they do that with an ACD with two DVI-ports? And how exactly does additional cable going to the display increase clutter, whereas KVM standing on your desk doesn't? And yes, your suggestion of external "box" does make the solution more complex than it needs to be. Keep It Simple, Stupid!

Right now the people who need more inputs and clean workareas are forced to buy something else than ACD's. ACD's look "clean" but they don't have the inputs. If they add extra inputs through KVM's, it would cost even more and it could look even more cluttered. At that point some other monitor with those ports built-in would look cleaner, while being considerably less expensive.

Why should they add additional inputs to serve the small market of non-professionals who want them and not consider anyone else?

No, the question is "why shouldn't they?". Because the current setup "looks pretty"? Um, OK. A screen with additional port would look just as pretty. Only time there would be a difference would be when the user decides to use the additional port. If he doesn't use it, there is no difference at all. Or are you OK with the fact that there are people bying something else than Apple because for some reason Apple does not offer them a suitable product? Shouldn't we want as many people as possible to buy Apple gear?

My solution gives whiny "more inputs" fools what they want without breaking the Apple aesthetic.

What, KVM's? those cost extra, and they are an extra hassle. Seriously, One DVI-connection = Apple aesthetics? Is KVM on the desktop also part of that "Apple aesthetics"? Are you REALLY saying that eliminating basic functionality (multiple inputs really are that. My old LCD I'm typing this on has multiple inputs, and it's several years old and it's wasn't top-of-the-line even back then) for the sake of "aesthetics" is OK?

What exactly is complicated or expensive about moving the ports off the monitor itself into a box 20" away?

And where would that box be? Wouldn't that box be A LOT more cluttery than a simpe DVI-port would be? Why create such an complicates setup, when the simple solution is to simply add an additional port to the screen?

 

[JFreak]

Right now people who need more than one port need to look elsewhere for their monitors.

Bingo! As well as right now people who need cheapest-computer-money-can-buy need to look elsewhere for their computers.

Bottom line: Apple does not cater for everybody, and Apple should not even have to. Apple does what they see is best and those will always buy who think Apple's is the best and at proper price point.

And there are more of us than ever, so Apple does not feel the need to change their way.

What you said is the truth, and I love it! It's so great Apple does not try to be another Dell who tries to sell something for everybody. Back in a day before Jobs came back, Apple used to try to do just that, but we can remember what happened. Currently, there is no PC manufacturer who has clearer product lineup than Apple does and that is really an *advantage* for Apple. If you talk about "a MacBook", everyone who knows anything about Apple products will know what you're talking about. But talk about "Inspiron" and you'll hear more questions than you want to answer.

That said...

I would love it if Apple expanded their Cinema Display lineup to smaller sizes. Should they have a 15" and 17" ACD of similar design and spec than the current low-end 20" model, I bet those would sell very well. But I'm just as pleased to see price drop for current low-end model. I just hope there would be a "sub 500 euro cinema display" for sale...

 

[killmoms]

Are you serious? Have you even checked out the specs of the new Dell and compared them? Are you aware of the larger color gamut that it has? Do you know anything more than what you learned from drinking the Apple kool-aid? The Apple monitor came out 2 YEARS ago. Beleive it or not, there have been advances in LCD technology since then.

PVA < S-IPS for color, sorry, play again.

 

[Bosunsfate]

Something better is certainly coming and if it saw me first I'd love it!

I don't know, as interesting as that sounds the idea of my computer "seeing" me makes me a bit uncomfortable. I mean, privacy, hello (j/k) lol.

Man, I spent about 15 minutes on www.imdb.com trying to find the movie, but I seem to recall an old 80's movie where a guy built a home computer and it took over his life and wouldn't let him out of his house.

Certainly not the best geek movie in the 80's a la Real Genius or Wierd Science, but hey, when the computer starts watching you..

 

[dante@sisna.com]

Well LaCie is known for pricing higher than what they actually offer, and the Samsung is actually newer and cheaper than the Apple, and I think it also uses the new High Color gamut.

Now I'm not saying that there aren't a select few (very very few) out there that may require that very little bit of accuracy (we're talking about at the pixel level here) that the Apple supposedly provides. Apparently there are.

I'm saying that the Dell is actually BETTER for the majority of people, is tons of money less than the Apple, and if it weren't for the looks of the Apple and the Apple kool-aid factor, not a person on this earth would ever consider it for a second over the Dell. That's a BIG deal. It means Apple is providing less value to its customers than its competition. Your situation is very very far away from a typical monitor user and should not be used to defend the Apple as a valuable bargain. It is NOT a bargain and that feature you need does not cost Apple the extra money they are expecting you, and especially its everyday customers, to pay. The Dell IS a bargain. The Apple is simply cheaper than a LaCie and that's hardly a bargain compliment because everything's cheaper than a LaCie. Considering the Apple is almost three years old it better be cheaper than something more than the most expensive monitors out there.

Now I know what you're going to say. The Apple is the Mercedes of monitors, is a "pro" monitor, and thus deserves the higher price. Well that may be true, but it's not a good value to 99% of Apples customers and they should care about that. Not to mention the Apples are apparently WORSE for video. Those pro features you speak of CAN also co-exsist with newer LCD tech like LED backlights.

Simply put, for Apples core customer base, the Apples lack the value of the competition because their monitor tech is TOO DAMN OLD!!! Going on three years and still charging more than everyone else?? How can you guys defend that? Why is this thread filled with so little negativity about what Apple is charging for these out of date things? I know they're pretty but comeon already. Apparently if you're not a color accuracy nut at the pixel level in Photo work (quite the requirement,) then the Apples are WORSE compared to monitors that are almost 40% LESS money.

You are wrong to state that 99% of Apple's users don't need their level of monitor accuracy -- Do you know Apple's exact customer demographics?

Obviously you do not: the majority of Apple's users are professionals in Graphic Arts, Web and Video Production, Architecture, Scientific Research, Medicine and Dental, 3D Modeling.

So STAND DOWN my friend, you are starting to sound: 1) Inexperienced, 2) Foolish, 3) Blatently Wrong.

And by the way, LaCie sells repackaged NEC's with altered software and still MORE expensive than Apple ACD's -- Also to state that Samsung is "cheaper" means that you are looking at their low end stuff -- look at their Graphic Arts monitors. Look the 20" LED BLU -- So that is a 20" monitor for between $1500 and $1900 bucks -- I'll Say it Again, FOR The LARGE MARKET (probably 30% of Apple Users) that need them, Apple Monitors are now CHEAP.

 

[dante@sisna.com]

Why do you guys insist on using overtly complex solutions for a problem that has a simple solution available? KVM makes the setup a lot more complex than simple additonal DVI-port does. It also costs extra.

I don't insist on anything: I merely offer a reasonable solution to the PROBLEM of APPLE not including mutiple inputs.

Would I like them to? Sure. Do they? No.

I merely present an elegant solution.

 

[Veracon]

Say what?! A 30" is roughly $1250??? Do education discounts apply? How can I order it and have it delivered to NYC? lol ... no, seriously...

Oh, not at all, that's the price drop. The 30" was DKK 20.999 before the drop, now it's 13.999; that's a drop of DKK 7.000 which is around US$1250. The display itself is around $2500 (which, while still way more than the US price, is quite a lot cheaper than it used to be!)

 

[G4DP]

Price drops are a joke.

Even though they have discounted the ACD's in the UK wee still paying £100 more than the US store. It's rediculous. I know we pay a lot of tax, but that is a joke.

What's Steve Jobs e-mail again?

The difference in prices is becoming stupid for the same spec system.

8 Cores
2GB Ram
250 Drive 1
500 Drive 2

7300 GT Graphics

Everything else stock, and a 23" display, we pay almost $1500 more. Sorry this is to big a difference to justify.

 

[YoYoMa]

I seriously doubt that 30% of Apples customers require that intricate level of detail at the pixel level more than the higher contrast ratio, better pixel response time, hundreds of dollars of savings, higher color gamut, more display inputs, monitor movement flexibility, etc etc etc. You and many in this thread are looking for any way on earth to justify Apples shortcomings that are here not because of design flaws, but because of an almost 3 year old design. I would NEVER buy the Apple in its current form and would only think about it if it were remotely close to the Dells price because of its looks. There are so many people here that feel the need to defend Apples every decision but the truth is their displays are OLD and and lack many important features. PERIOD! Defend their goofy price with the fact that they are the equivalent to a $20000 Samsung all you want, but we all know they aren't. They are worse than the new 30" consumer Samsung that just came out overseas for $150 less, that's for sure. I think the fact that this color accuracy feature is the only plus you can defend for this thing proves it's a rip-off for most of Apples customers. It's not like the Dells are so much worse in this regard. If you're a Pro you have different needs than if you are not. Don't forget that. These are not being marketed just to Pros and should offer a lot more than the competition if they are going to charge this much more.

 

[dude-x]

Dante,
While Apple Cinema Displays are suitable for offset printing, what about people who own high gamut color inkjets like the Epson's 4x00 series and up, and the HP DesignJet series? I've read that some inkjets can cover most of the Adobe RGB gamut, so I am wondering if high end Eizo's and something like a Dell HC Display will be appropiate for this kind of work.

Also Windows Vista does away with the 8 bit limitation to hardware so that it can natively support 10 bit monochrome displays for X-rays, and future HDR, wide gamut displays.