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

Which 30" LCD Monitor

I go with Apple mainly for that FW400 port which I get use out of everyday. It's be nice to have a media reader, but only if it's going to use FW800.

Which I do hope is on the next bezel design for the ACDs.
 
The 3008FPW costs a bit more then the ACD, but has two DVI inputs, HDMI, component, S-Video and digital media readers.
Click to expand...

Here in the uk the 3008wfp is cheaper
ACD
1,199.00

dell 3008wfp
£985.83 inc VAT (atm)
normally £1100

I think if Applle does not Update there Screens with aat least HDCP on DVI and a HDMI Port ill defo go with the dell
 
Lord Zedd said:
It isn't. They have a 14ms response time. Apple's displays are long overdue for new technology.
Click to expand...

IPS panels have lower response times then PVA or TN. The only way Apple could improve the response time is to choose a different panel technology.

If you mostly play games or watch video on your display, then you're likely better off with an S-PVA panel.

If you do "color-critical" work, you will want to stick with an IPS panel. Since a major Apple market is professional and prosumer photography and video work, Apple uses IPS panels in their displays.
 
CWallace said:
IPS panels have lower response times then PVA or TN. The only way Apple could improve the response time is to choose a different panel technology.

If you mostly play games or watch video on your display, then you're likely better off with an S-PVA panel.

If you do "color-critical" work, you will want to stick with an IPS panel. Since a major Apple market is professional and prosumer photography and video work, Apple uses IPS panels in their displays.
Click to expand...

Thanks Wallace, was about to say that myself.
 
CWallace said:
IPS panels have lower response times then PVA or TN. The only way Apple could improve the response time is to choose a different panel technology.

If you mostly play games or watch video on your display, then you're likely better off with an S-PVA panel.

If you do "color-critical" work, you will want to stick with an IPS panel. Since a major Apple market is professional and prosumer photography and video work, Apple uses IPS panels in their displays.
Click to expand...

TN Film Panels have by far the best response time (5ms btb on 24-28in screens)but limited viewing angles. I have looked at the LG 2600 something but didn´t like it at all bc it was way too bright at even Zero setting and also suffered from way oversaturated colors I couldn´t get rid off. There is a competing device from Samsung that looked MUCH better to me. I forgot the part number but it´s the one with the black and red bezel.
As for the 30in ACD using the same panel as the 3008 and LG W3008H, this piece of information is wrong. The part numbers are different as are the specs. The LG W3008H is the least expensive of the bunch and not bad at all.
Provided that the 30 in ACD uses the same panel as in 06 -and I have not seen anything that would contradict this notion - it is too expensive.
While the ACD is still a good 2D and Video performer it´s totally useless for ANY gaming imo and also obviously for br playback (AnyDVD HD discounted)
There is a new revision (A2) of the 3008 out right now that will probably correct some of the issues. It also sports great interpolation features that make it the 1st choice for gamers that don´t own ultra expensive VGA Kit and those who simply need other resolutions than the native to look very good as well. You can always call DELL and strike a deal. Don´t pay the suggested retail.
 
i find it funny that on dell.co.uk the 3007 or 3008 doesn't exist to buy on home section :eek:

lucky i can get from ocuk
 
nick9191 said:
Please don't spout rubbish.

The picture quality is far superior to any junk ass Dell monitor I've ever seen, and comparable NEC display is around double that price.

Apple do many things, but one of them is not ripping off their professional customers.

Also because they are not outwardly saying so, or changing the design, they are not using the same technology in the display that they were 2 years ago. The panels change on a regular basis, and the current panel is the same as the 30" Dell, except with a superior backlight.

Just an FYI to the OP, you can't use more than 1 external display with a Macbook.

Get the Cinema Display, you will not regret it.
Click to expand...

You posted the rubbish. Apple offers ok quality at very high prices.

Samsung and Dell is what I would recommend.
 
Spanky Deluxe said:
BTW to the OP, you can only use one external monitor with your MacBook and the only really viable resolution you could use is 1280x800 otherwise everything will be blurry and will be a pain on your eyes. I really would advise waiting until you buy your Mac Pro. For all we know, new ACDs will be out by then and you might prefer a matching display. If you buy an ACD with a Mac Pro and get Applecare all through the same purchase then the ACD is covered by the same 3 year extended warranty.
Click to expand...

Lies. I use 1680x1050 on my macbook all the time, looks fantsatic.
 
zmttoxics said:
Lies. I use 1680x1050 on my macbook all the time, looks fantsatic.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming you're using the 1680 x 1050 on a 20" monitor where it's the native resolution. On a 30" ACD the maximum resolution the macbook can drive is 1280 x 800 which is blurry enough on it's own since it's no where near the native resolution of the panel. Spanky Deluxe was suggesting that if you run the macbook at a different resolution then that, which on a 30" ACD has to be lower then 1280 x 800 since that's the max it will be even blurrier which is true.
 
panoz7 said:
I'm assuming you're using the 1680 x 1050 on a 20" monitor where it's the native resolution. On a 30" ACD the maximum resolution the macbook can drive is 1280 x 800 which is blurry enough on it's own since it's no where near the native resolution of the panel. Spanky Deluxe was suggesting that if you run the macbook at a different resolution then that, which on a 30" ACD has to be lower then 1280 x 800 since that's the max it will be even blurrier which is true.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make sense. You should be able to run a higher resolution then that, just keep the same aspec ratio as the 30". It might not look as pretty as native, but it will work. You cant tell me that it will ONLY run 1280x800. If there something in place to make macbooks default to that on ACDs, then I would never recommend one.

And its a 22" lcd.
 
zmttoxics said:
That doesn't make sense. You should be able to run a higher resolution then that, just keep the same aspec ratio as the 30". It might not look as pretty as native, but it will work. You cant tell me that it will ONLY run 1280x800. If there something in place to make macbooks default to that on ACDs, then I would never recommend one.

And its a 22" lcd.
Click to expand...

Believe me or not it's true. Here's a screen shot of my 30" connected to my powerbook which doesn't support dual link:

Picture 1.png


I'm not sure why Apple decided to limit non-dual-link connections to 1280 x 800 but they did. From what I've read, and posted about earlier, the 30" dells don't have the same limit.

22" or 20"... you know what I meant. I'm not denying that your macbook can output at a higher resolution then 1280 x 800, just that it can't when connected to a 30" ACD.
 
The MacBook should be able to drive a non-ACD 30" display to 1920x1200. It should be able to drive the ACD to that, as well, since it is a supported resolution for that display. :confused:
 
zmttoxics said:
That doesn't make sense. You should be able to run a higher resolution then that, just keep the same aspec ratio as the 30". It might not look as pretty as native, but it will work. You cant tell me that it will ONLY run 1280x800. If there something in place to make macbooks default to that on ACDs, then I would never recommend one.

And its a 22" lcd.
Click to expand...

I understand your skepticism, but it's true, I had the same experience too. My 30" monitor came in a day or two earlier than the Mac Pro, so I hooked it up to my PowerMac G5 with only a single link DVI, and I only got 1280x800. The same G5 could output 1920x1080 to a digital TV too. It's as if Apple skimped on a scaler in the display or something, because that's exactly half the resolution both vertical and horizontal, and the image was pixel doubled. If it was the 23" ACD, then I think it would work just fine at native pixels.
 
zmttoxics said:
That doesn't make sense. You should be able to run a higher resolution then that, just keep the same aspec ratio as the 30". It might not look as pretty as native, but it will work. You cant tell me that it will ONLY run 1280x800. If there something in place to make macbooks default to that on ACDs, then I would never recommend one.

And its a 22" lcd.
Click to expand...

Yes you can run it at in-between resolutions. In OS X you have to use custom resolutions but in Windows you can choose them to be what you want, the 30" ACD will accept pretty much anything. However, it looks rubbish at any resolution that can't be factored into 2560x1600.

I've just created the following image to show you what different resolutions look like on a 30" ACD (make sure to click on it to get the full scale larger resolution):

attachment.php


Now, since I have font smoothing switched on (as anyone with an LCD will have), the letters all look quite smooth and the artefacting produced by the 'bad' resolutions aren't as pronounced in the text. You can really see it in the icons etc though. Running a 2560x1600 resolution screen at 1920x1200 looks *awful* and will probably hurt your eyes because its all so distorted. However, I would say that running games at 1920x1200 doesn't matter that much and in a way has the same affect as a bit of antialiasing. Work wise though, 1920x1200 is unusable on a 2560 screen. Take that from someone that is using a 30" ACD right now.
 

Attachments

  • resolutions.jpg
    resolutions.jpg
    150.2 KB · Views: 295
I'm quite happy with my HP LP3065 and was able to get it for under $1,000 over 5 months ago. It may be even cheaper now.
 
JeffDM said:
I understand your skepticism, but it's true, I had the same experience too. My 30" monitor came in a day or two earlier than the Mac Pro, so I hooked it up to my PowerMac G5 with only a single link DVI, and I only got 1280x800. The same G5 could output 1920x1080 to a digital TV too. It's as if Apple skimped on a scaler in the display or something, because that's exactly half the resolution both vertical and horizontal, and the image was pixel doubled. If it was the 23" ACD, then I think it would work just fine at native pixels.
Click to expand...

Which graphics card do you have in your G5? I dont have 30" anything, so I am just wondering if mine WOULD do the samething as yours. Mine is a 6600LE dual dvi head (pcie).

This all sounds wonky about the dual versus single link dvi stuff on the 30" ACD. But I will have to take everyones word for it. So my question is, is it just on the ACD, or all 30" monitors?
 
acd and many some others

dell does 1920x1200 with single link
 
Really don't know how long I can wait for the ACD update, I can get 35% off until August, should I bite the bullet. My current Dell (2407WFP-HC) colours drive me insane.
 
zmttoxics said:
Which graphics card do you have in your G5? I dont have 30" anything, so I am just wondering if mine WOULD do the samething as yours. Mine is a 6600LE dual dvi head (pcie).

This all sounds wonky about the dual versus single link dvi stuff on the 30" ACD. But I will have to take everyones word for it. So my question is, is it just on the ACD, or all 30" monitors?
Click to expand...

Just 30" ACD. No other brand or size has ever had that kind of thing.

Mine was the ATI 9700 or 9800, I forget the real numbers, it only had single link DVI. A card with a dual link DVI port will behave they way you'd expect, I think I have the AGP version of that card and it worked fine with the ACD 30".
 
All screens that support resolutions over 1900x1200 through DVI use dual-DVI connections. Single link DVI does not have enough bandwidth for 2560x1600 so you *must* use a dual link graphics card.
 
Spanky Deluxe said:
All screens that support resolutions over 1900x1200 through DVI use dual-DVI connections. Single link DVI does not have enough bandwidth for 2560x1600 so you *must* use a dual link graphics card.
Click to expand...

I think everyone here understands that. That's not the issue.

The problem is that it makes intuitive sense that it should be able to "fall back" to 1920x1200 when there is a single link, not 1280x800. The 30" ACD does the second.
 
JeffDM said:
I think everyone here understands that. That's not the issue.

The problem is that it makes intuitive sense that it should be able to "fall back" to 1920x1200 when there is a single link, not 1280x800. The 30" ACD does the second.
Click to expand...

No, OS X does that. The ACD can easily display 1920x1200. I've done it in Windows loads and I can set it to that in OS X too. Don't know why I've got it and nobody else apparently has, maybe its to do with the fact that I have an HD TV attached to my Mac too.

It looks aweful at 1920x1200 though. Awfully blurry and horrible. It would make my eyes sore after a while. I've only ever set it to that when I've decided to mirror my displays so that I can play WoW on the big TV or for full screen BBC iPlayer on my TV (since iPlayer seems to insist on only maximising on your primary display). In fact, most of the time I've changed it down to a 1920 resolution, its been 1920x1080 which is exactly as aweful as 1920x1200 on this screen, just with letterbox bars at the top and bottom.

If you run a computer LCD at anything other than its native resolution then you're insane.
 

Attachments

  • Picture 13.png
    Picture 13.png
    79 KB · Views: 69
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back