What Cinema Display do YOU use?

[triton]

I'm torn between the 20 inch and the 23inch. What do you prefer? And why?

note: If any artists or designers can give me some feedback about what they use, that be cool too. I will primarily be using it for print design.

ALSO: any updates to the line of cinema displays?

 

[iJon]

well i have the 20 inch and my mom has the 23, so i play with both very much. i like the 20, big enough for my flavor and is very appealing. it just looks so f***ing awesome on a desk. the 23 from a distance doesnt look much bigger, well thats because its not. but you do gain a whole lot more real estate with the much higher resolution, its really a whole lot more if you ask me. i can see the whole screen with my 20 inch. when i sit at my moms desk, i swear if it was any bigger i would have to turn my head to see everything. there is no doubt that the 23 inch is better, we all know that. what it really comes down to is if you could use the extra space and able to cough up the extra money. space wise not much bigger, rez wise much bigger. i feel if you have to money go for the 23 inch, but if you just would like a big wide screen display, you cant go wrong with the 20 inch.

iJon

 

[Tiauguinho]

I have a 20'' Cinema and I simply Love It! The colors, brightness the angle of view, everything is just perfect! I do Webdesign and Flash has all the space it needs for its palettes. I recommend you get one.

 

[Bear]

What you need for screen size (and resolution) depends on what exactly you are working on.

I'm working with images that are 3000 by 2000 pixels. Having the extra pixels on the 23" has really helped in terms of getting more of the image on screen when viewing pixels at 1:1. It also allows more room for tool pallettes in Photoshop and the like.

I'd say if you have the room and the $$$'s, you'll like havng the larger screen better.

 

[realityisterror]

personally, i don't have a cinema display, but i say save yourself the money and go for the 20". if it's not big enough for you, you can buy an extra 17" and use dual monitors which would give you more room than the 23", but for the same cost

reality

 

[Freg3000]

I think that the 20" Cinema Display is brighter, has a better viewing angle, etc. So the "specs" are better. But the 23" is bigger. From a value standpoint, the 23" monitor costs the same as the 20" + the 17", which has a combined higher resolution. Just throwing that out there.

I prefer the 20" myself. Good Luck.

 

[Bear]

The 17" + the 20" give you better horizontal resolution, but not better vertical resolution.

So again, depending on exactly what a person is working withm the single 23" may be the better way to go.

 

[mactastic]

I wish I was having this dilemma! The 23"CD just blew me away when I sat down at one the first time. The amount of space is staggering. The 20" just didn't feel terribly large to me, but I was comparing it to the 23", so maybe it was just the fact that both were there.

Just wait until Apple busts out that rumored 30" CD!

 

[janey]

23">20"

 

[ibookin']

15"

Built into my iMac.

 

[thebossisback]

23">20"

no sh*t.

 

[Rezet]

I don't think 23" is necessary....
I think even 17" is good enough, but if we are talking about wide screen big boys, I'd go with 20". 23 incher... well, extra 700 bucks is a big money for not gaining that much of a size (in %).

It's like asking, "Is 60" TV better than 65" when 65 costs 1k more.
Up to you, but I wouldnt spend 2k on a display...

 

[triton]

"

I think that the 20" Cinema Display is brighter, has a better viewing angle, etc. So the "specs" are better. But the 23" is bigger. From a value standpoint, the 23" monitor costs the same as the 20" + the 17", which has a combined higher resolution.

Why would the 20 inch be bighter and have a better viewing angle? The 23 inch isn't the same?

 

[Bear]

Originally posted by triton
Why would the 20 inch be bighter and have a better viewing angle? The 23 inch isn't the same?

The 20" Cinema Display is a newer model. As with anything newer, there is always a chance it is using later and better technology.

In this case Apple did indeed use newer technology in the 20" display.

 

[Bear]

Originally posted by Rezet
I don't think 23" is necessary....
I think even 17" is good enough, but if we are talking about wide screen big boys, I'd go with 20". 23 incher... well, extra 700 bucks is a big money for not gaining that much of a size (in %).

I do believe you're missing the point about certain types of workloads are easier with a higher resolution screen. While the 20" is a nice size, the 23" has more vertical as well as more horizontal resolution.

This additional vertical resolution comes in handy and can not be replicated by using two smaller screens.

If you're happy with the 17" for what you use the computer for that saves you money. However, the person who started this thread apparently has the need for more resolution.

Remember, everybody has different wants and/or needs. That s why [some] companies offer choices.

As for the difference in resolution, the 20" (1680x1050) has 1,764,000 pixels and the 23" (1920x1200) has 2,304,000 pixels. The 23" screen has 30% more pixels. A larger display in general costs more to make. so about a 50% price increase for a larger screen with 30% more pixels sounds about right to me.

 

[triton]

Thanks Bear. That explains a lot !