Apple Releases 27-Inch LED Cinema Display

[LeoFio]

Add me to the list of those complaining about the discontinuation of the matte ACDs. Not only do I hate the glass of the new ones, but also the design direction with these and the newer imacs. The black border is not growing on me at all.

I hope my 23" ACD lasts for a long time..*knocks on wood*..otherwise hello ebay or a different brand.

 

[toke lahti]

Especially for a display targeting pro users.

I don't think this is targeted to pro users. At least not to pros doing visual work.
I think this is targeted to consumers that know nothing about real picture quality.

 

[toke lahti]

I APPLAUD Apple for demonstrating the commitment to the environment. Aluminum and glass are recyclable materials, and their systems have been arsenic, mercury and PVC free for a long time now. Everyone complains about the "glossy" glass displays, but research the difference between glass and plastic fronts, not just on the environment but also on color/gamma correction.

There's nothing ecological in adding extra glass in front of display. More bulk and wasted energy. It would be much more ecological just to leave that glass not being manufactured.
1/3 of carbon footprint of IT gadgets comes from manufacturing them, so the most ecological way would be using state-of-the-art technology, so the product wouldn't get obsolete so fast and therefore would have longer life span.

Since there's already support for 10-bit colors in Windows7 and we have this monitor from HP:
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF05a/382087-382087-64283-72270-3884471-4194577.html
, I'd say, IMHO, it's no brainer to me which I will choose.

I'm not sure if OsX will ever get 10-bit colors, but my next display, computer & os will have it.

Btw, how much would it cost for me to get GPU with miniDP to my MP1,1 (2006)? Or does it even exist?

And about PQ difference between glass and plastic fronts.
There's 100 types of both, so it really depends on combination. There's no rule of thumb.

 

[toke lahti]

STOP IT!
No one makes a panel with that resolution.
No one makes a panel with that pixel density at that size.
That 27" holds just as much info on it as the 30"

We have discussed this before, but once again:
there was no 30" 2560x1600 before Apple started to sell them.
Apple could introduce new size & resolution again.
Sadly those days of Apple being in technological front seems to be over.

Lcd panels are manufactured in huge "mother glasses" and factories can cut them in any size ordered.
Of course 40" retina display with zero defect pixels would cost 1000x...

 

[toke lahti]

I've had a Japanese after market high gloss filter on my 23" Cinema since the day I bought it. It's actually less glare because of the optical construction, but it's more specular which is what people notice. I like that my entire display doesn't wash out in ambient light. I'm still amazed that more people don't see the benefits, but they don't and I don't spend my time ranting on line about it.

Maybe it's a personal thing-- I'm not so enamored of myself that I stop working so I can view myself in my monitor. I keep the lights such that the reflections are minimal and focus on what's on the screen.

If your filter is in contact with lcd panel, it is optically better construct than with these glass-Apples that have air in between plastic panel surface and glass. Too many surfaces, too many reflections, etc.
You are right that it is a personal preference, so everybody's right except Apple. They should give option for people that prefer matte, like they do with bigger MBPs.

 

[kalsta]

You're not "plain out of luck". Just buy another display.

And if you want an iMac or MacBook??

 

[Digital Skunk]

We have discussed this before, but once again:
there was no 30" 2560x1600 before Apple started to sell them.
Apple could introduce new size & resolution again.
Sadly those days of Apple being in technological front seems to be over.

Lcd panels are manufactured in huge "mother glasses" and factories can cut them in any size ordered.
Of course 40" retina display with zero defect pixels would cost 1000x...

It would be Apple asking for the panel from another company, not Apple producing it themselves.

Like the 30" panel made in the original 30" ACD, it would have been announced before hand. Although, Apple did introduce the 27" hi res in the 27" iMac about a day after the tech was made public.

I agree, Apple has long since been a non-innovative company in terms of tech that's not the iPhone or iPad. I will always agree with that.

 

[Jimmdean]

Looks good to me.

It should be better than the U2711 due to the LED and (reviews pending) the speaker system being better (and prettier) than a Dell Sound Bar, and also good enough to not need a regular audio setup - we'll see on that, not to mention the camera/microphone and light sensor.

Personally, I would want to get this to connect to my 9400M Mini - that is better than an iMac to me because it is super-simple to put a SSD in there.

But 9400M Minis do not output audio over their Mini Displayport. Is Apple going to make even 1-year old systems somehow fully compatible with this? Or is it left to Monoprice selling a reasonably-priced alternative, or worst-case not being able to use the built-in speakers at all...

Edit: I like the "glass in front of the LCD" concept - I have 2 kids and all sorts of funky stuff comes out of their mouths, noses, etc. I'm happy to easily be able to clean something I like very much...

 

[JimMacFan]

deleted

 

[toke lahti]

It would be Apple asking for the panel from another company, not Apple producing it themselves.

Like the 30" panel made in the original 30" ACD, it would have been announced before hand. Although, Apple did introduce the 27" hi res in the 27" iMac about a day after the tech was made public.

Same factory (LG?) that's manufacturing 27" panels to Apple, could easily cut the same mother glass to bigger pieces. 3840 × 2160 with 109 ppi would be
40.4". Surprisingly displayport already supports this resolution. But with Apple tax it would cost $3k-$5k so it would be too niche for Apple to sell.

I agree, Apple has long since been a non-innovative company in terms of tech that's not the iPhone or iPad.

Well, iPhone was years without MMS, copy&paste and tethering. Standard tech in other phones for years before. iPad has resolution and aspect ratio from 80's...

 

[xStep]

That is lower resolution than 3840x2400.

3840*2400 = 9216000
4096*2160 = 8847360

And it's $60k, making it moot to this discussion.

"No one makes a panel with that resolution."

The point was that no one makes a display at 3840x2400. Maybe someone does, but not them.

If you're going to play gotcha, make sure you get them... 😉

jerry333 said: 'I was looking forward to a 36" or 40" display with something like 3840x2400'. Perhaps he was remembering the 22" IBM T220/T221 monitors.

I was responding to Digital Skunks statement that "No one makes a panel with that resolution". Since jerry333 was indicating rough numbers, I posted a valid link.

By the way, the monitor I linked to has a resolution of only 3840X2160, so has 8294400 pixels.

Perhaps the price does make it moot to this discussion, but if one wants it and can afford it, they do have the option to buy into extra high resolution monitors. Another issue maybe software or hardware issue to drive monitors like that via OS X.

 

[Santabean2000]

Will my MBP with a lowly 9400M be able to drive this thing?


Edit: Says MBA will power it, so guess I'm sweet.

 

[DoFoT9]

By the way, the monitor I linked to has a resolution of only 3840X2160, so has 8294400 pixels.

haha imagine having to upscale BD movies! thats just insane.

 

[xStep]

haha imagine having to upscale BD movies! thats just insane.

I saw a story a while back talking about manufacturers making true 4x(1920x1080) TVs. I think they were just experimenting. Imagine, you could enjoy that washed out pixelization effect of your Blu-Ray discs as you now get up scaling DVDs to HD. 😉

 

[Digital Skunk]

Same factory (LG?) that's manufacturing 27" panels to Apple, could easily cut the same mother glass to bigger pieces. 3840 × 2160 with 109 ppi would be
40.4". Surprisingly displayport already supports this resolution. But with Apple tax it would cost $3k-$5k so it would be too niche for Apple to sell.

Well, iPhone was years without MMS, copy&paste and tethering. Standard tech in other phones for years before. iPad has resolution and aspect ratio from 80's...

True, but the first Apple Studio Display at 22" debuted at $3000--$4000 if I recall. I don't doubt Apple could do it, they may be first run like that in the future.

Let's not forget wireless syncing, which the Palm Treos could do over WiFi and Bluetooth since 2004.

 

[BobHail]

So where is it? What´s the price?

 

[toke lahti]

True, but the first Apple Studio Display at 22" debuted at $3000--$4000 if I recall. I don't doubt Apple could do it, they may be first run like that in the future.

It would be really nice that now, when Apple has lots of money, it would have keep their status in making state-of-the-art products as "industry first", now that they really could afford it.
Like first computer with eSata. Or first computer with bd. Or first computer with usb3. Or first mainstream display with more resolution than 2560x1600.

WWDC keynote 2011: "We tried to develop our UI even better and our researchers found out that when apes turned to humans, they started using magical extension of their fingers: PEN!"
<Massive applaud.>
"Then we designed Apple pencil called iPEN"
<Even more massive applaud.>
"And as they say: pen is mightier than sword!"
<Too much laghter.>

WWDC keynote 2012: "We have sold more than 100 000 000 pencils today and it's time to release 2nd generation pencil: iPEN 2G!"
<Massive applaud.>
"It has a rubber on the other end of it, so it can MAGICALLY erase what you have drawn with the other end! BOOM!"
<Even more massive applaud.>

 

[DoFoT9]

I saw a story a while back talking about manufacturers making true 4x(1920x1080) TVs. I think they were just experimenting. Imagine, you could enjoy that washed out pixelization effect of your Blu-Ray discs as you now get up scaling DVDs to HD. 😉

thats 4k res isnt it? most cameras for the last 20 years have been capturing at those sorts of quality.

 

[randyhudson]

No Audio support over DisplayPort?

I was told by an Apple Store employee that my MacBook Pro (2009), and even the current MacBook Pros, do not send audio out over the mini DisplayPort (If, for example, you purchase a 3rd-party mini-DP->HDMI adapter).

Even the current Mac Mini specs only say that audio output is via HDMI, not mini DP.

I sure hope some pending OS/firmware update addresses the gaps between <1 year-old hardware and the new ACD...

 

[xStep]

most cameras for the last 20 years have been capturing at those sorts of quality.

What cameras? Film perhaps? As far as I know, it is relatively recent for video. At least digital video. Retail Digital photography has only been around for just less than 20 years.

 

[Digital Skunk]

...

Right, and when your iPEN runs outta ink, you just have to buy a new one.

 

[toke lahti]

Right, and when your iPEN runs outta ink, you just have to buy a new one.

Optionally you can buy more ink from iTunes Store, but you have to send the pen to Apple to be refilled and with postage it costs 90% of new one...

 

[DoFoT9]

What cameras? Film perhaps? As far as I know, it is relatively recent for video. At least digital video. Retail Digital photography has only been around for just less than 20 years.

sorry, yeh i meant film cameras. the film cameras (i believe star wars was one of the first ones) that was supposedly capturing at 4k quality.

Benjamin Button was one of the first films to adapt digital 4k (aka storing straight to hdds) filmography, i think anyway.

 

[potatis]

😎

 

[rajbonham]

sorry, yeh i meant film cameras. the film cameras (i believe star wars was one of the first ones) that was supposedly capturing at 4k quality.

Benjamin Button was one of the first films to adapt digital 4k (aka storing straight to hdds) filmography, i think anyway.

Okay... Let's clear some things up here. Digital "cinema" cameras are newer technology. For decades, most movies have been, and still are shot on 35mm film. 35mm film can resolve at least a minimum of 4K resolution. For major motion pictures, 35mm film is still the most popular format to use. Digital is making huge strides though.

One of the most popular digital cinema cameras available today is the Red One camera. That camera can shoot 4K footage and records to Compact Flash cards, hard drives, etc.

I'm pretty sure Benjamin Button was not the first movie shot with a digital cinema camera. There were plenty of movies shot digitally long before 2008. I think Benjamin button was also filmed at only a 2K or 1080p resolution.