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

WWDC: New LCD Displays

my two cents......

you have got to be kidding me.
AUD$6000 for a 30"er? + AUD$750 for the card??
the bloody box is $5300 to start with.......
if it gives me a headjob and makes my coffee for me while i work, maybe, but this is definatly not on my shopping list.

"i am from the planet CA$H, take me to your leader....." :mad:
 
rendezvouscp said:
This is such a long thread, I haven't been able to read all of it. But I wanted to mention that the 30" is only 29.7" viewable. Interesting.
–Chase
Click to expand...

I think that with the 30" size, it wouldn't concern me that I was missing 3 tenths of an inch. Concerning an earlier post on the 30" being too big. Just like memory you can never have too much. I think that the DVD wide screen movies will be awesome. It will be better of two people to view. Just look at the large flat panel screens moving out of stores.
 
This display does a few things for Apple:

1. Generates press about the largest flat panel HD on the market, which in turns drives more interest in an sales of their 20 and 23 inch panels.

2. Allows large pre-press departments to have monitors for their people that can display multiple 2 page spreads on a single screen - massive time and $ saver.

3. Allows movie and video professionals the opportunity for enhanced productivity.

This is not a consumer product (except for people who have a ton of money laying around). It's a pro product aimed at establishing Apple's place in the flat panel game.

So quit bitching, you couldn't afford it to begin with. Geebus - the same people I saw whining for this update are the same ones whining about how much it costs!

Just my thoughts... :)
 
Arael said:
But actually, since I plan to 90% Mac and 10% PC
(the PC is just-in-case for games and some obscure video files), I'll be happy to accept analog input for the PC.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I have about the same usage ratio and rely on my PC only for supporting PC clients. That's why I couldn't justify a second display for the PC (talk about clutter) and why I can't go with an Apple display. I think it shortsighted of Apple not to include at least an analog input for those of us with such needs. I have seen many a post here and there from folks who require 2 inputs and will thus buy their displays elsewhere.

iGary said:
This display does a few things for Apple:

1. Generates press about the largest flat panel HD on the market, which in turns drives more interest in an sales of their 20 and 23 inch panels.

2. Allows large pre-press departments to have monitors for their people that can display multiple 2 page spreads on a single screen - massive time and $ saver.

3. Allows movie and video professionals the opportunity for enhanced productivity.

This is not a consumer product (except for people who have a ton of money laying around). It's a pro product aimed at establishing Apple's place in the flat panel game.

So quit bitching, you couldn't afford it to begin with. Geebus - the same people I saw whining for this update are the same ones whining about how much it costs!
Click to expand...

1. Great.
2. Great.
3. Great.

I assume you are speaking only about the 30" because the other displays certainly are consumer products, particularly the 20". Otherwise, there are some great points being made all around here which don't fall under the category of "bitching". I maintain that for the consumer-sized displays, lack of dual-inputs was a mistake.
 
When the heck is apple going to get rid of the sorry butt keyboard and mouse, seriously, please....everything else is aluminum, kick the keyboard (at serious cost) and the mouse. It's crazy. I'm going to buya dual 2.5 and a big 30" display and get stuck with a sorry keyboard and mouse, please...
 
Captnroger said:
When the heck is apple going to get rid of the sorry butt keyboard and mouse, seriously, please....everything else is aluminum, kick the keyboard (at serious cost) and the mouse. It's crazy. I'm going to buya dual 2.5 and a big 30" display and get stuck with a sorry keyboard and mouse, please...
Click to expand...

If someone made an aluminum keyboard skin, they could make a fortune.... (hint, hint)
 
Video Card For 23"

If you were going to nab the 23" Cinema to go with a Dual 2Ghz G5 what video card would you get? Is the new nVidia card overkill for the 23" display?
 
Cooknn said:
If you were going to nab the 23" Cinema to go with a Dual 2Ghz G5 what video card would you get? Is the new nVidia card overkill for the 23" display?
Click to expand...

If you game, get the 6800. It is an awesome graphics card that will push the frame rates. It is NOT overkill for the 23" display. Heck, it isn't overkill for a 17" display. It all depends on what you use your machine for.
 
Twist my arm

Yeah, it's $400 for the Radeon 9800 Pro. What's another $200 for the nVidia 6800 :eek: I game some. Would love to see what that card and display would do for a full field at Hockenheim with the TPTCC Mod! I am also getting into DVD authoring with DVDSP3 and FCE2 so the extra power from that GPU might come in handy...
 
broken_keyboard said:
The new monitors have a cable that splits in to video, usb and firewire.
But if you have 2 displays how do you connect the second firewire?
Click to expand...

Dude(t), I didn't think about that. That totally sucks. Unless you (oddly) hook it up to the first monitor...
–Chase
 
bkopi said:
According to nVidia's specifications the GeForce 6800 GPU can deliver a resolution of up to 2048x1536. The specs are on their web site at http://www.nvidia.com/page/pg_20040406661996.html

I wonder now, how on earth can any video card based on that GPU drive the new 30" display at a resolution of 2560x1600?! And why this display is only supposed to be good for MACs? The GeForce 6800 is available for PCs also!

If anybody has any info on that I would appreciate a response, as I'm trying to find out if there is any kind of scaling going on there (which would mean low graphics quality) or even worst, if this is all marketing crap?!

In principal the GPU should be able to drive (2048x1536)x2, given the two DVI outputs. So another explanation could be that there is a special driver (probably for MAC OS, that's why the 30" display only for MACs) that 'steels' pixels from one DVI and drives them to the other.. producing some kind of (2560x1600) on one DVI and the remaining (1536x1472) on the second? Don't know, just speculating.. And anyway, Apple never claimed that a dual 30" display configuration can be driven at maximum resolution at the same time by a G5 with a GeForce 6800..

Any links to relevant tech discussions are highly appreciated
Click to expand...

Dave G5: there are PC versions of the card which most likely will drive the card, unless apple has added lockouts to Pc users, I doubt that, rather I think they will announce that later, as usual the PC version is usually much lower.
It's the internal dual dual link dvi bandwidth enhancement circuitry on the inside that allows it to output more than 1920X1200 DVI X 2, the 2048X1536 X 2 is analogue VGA only.
the Nvidia card has "2" dual dual link DVI circuits, there fore it can drive two 30" monitors. so it basically has the out put of 4 X 1920X1200 dvi outputs
dual link dvi #1-dvi port1 (1920X1200X2) = 30" display #1
dual link dvi #2-dvi port2 (1920X1200X2) = 30" display #1
Ibm has a 22"LCD display with over 9 Million pixels, thats more than 2 Apple 30" displays combined, for cad and art and scientific work for $4000 refurb at Tigerdirect or $7000 new, and some of the video cards for that have 4 dvi ports which all get plug into the back at the same time if I remember correctly. I wonder if the Apple nvidia 68000 can push 9 million plus pixels.
What resolutions do the 20", 23" and 30" look good at other than Native?
 
rendezvouscp said:
Dude(t), I didn't think about that. That totally sucks. Unless you (oddly) hook it up to the first monitor...
–Chase
Click to expand...
you leave that dongle hanging near the back of the computer out of sight or plug it in the other firewire port, I guess?
 
MrSugar said:
AHHHHHHHH!!!
So what about the specs? Resolution, Brightness, Contrast, Response time, Pixle Pitch, etc. Most EVERYONE is overlooking this. While some of you are legit and actually look and compare before making blatent annoying statements most people are just comparing Inches to Inches. This is sheer ignorence.

First of all the 100 pixles per inch on these monitors is amazing, I am sure they look absolutely crisp and stunning. See if you find this on most PC monitors, also see if you see less than a .25mm pitch, once again this just means extremely crisp text, sweet images, and easy on the eyes.

How about response time, people sit here and make outragous and crazy comments that are uneducated about 16ms response time. 16ms is EXTREMELY good, you will never see ghosting, how do I know? Both of my monitors run 16ms response time and I have watched many fast pace DVDs, and played a TON of games. Screens with a 20ms response time and below RARELY ever ghost. The fact that apple has been able to include such a nice response time in such a high size monitors is amazing.

Lets continue onward to brightness and contrast. Contrast, while these monitors may not be 600 to 1, 400 to 1 is extremely good. To give you an idea the past Apple monitors which are some of the best looking monitors I have seen had a contrast ratio of 350 to 1. I have a 500 to 1 on my current VP171B's and it hurts my eyes when it's all the way up I keep it at just about 2/3 in the settings. Brightness, my current monitors have a 260 birghtness, and they are SOO bright. I keep it lower than max brightness at all times. Apple's displays have 250 and 270 now.

Now throw in the convinience of one cable out the back, and a fire wire and usb2 hub...

DaveG5
Great points, I read more than a few reviews on monitors, and most said that you can take stats like brightness, contrast, and response time with a huge ton of salt, as each vendor is very liberal with this stats. Just as they are with their dead pixel policies.
Also there is A Pc monitor with 3800X2400 resolution, .12 dot pitch, yea you heard that right, and over 200 pixels per inch. it's called the IBM T221
http://www.pc.ibm.com/us/intellistation/t221/
Click to expand...
 
Just as a note, I've been shopping around for a comparison. The price Apple is charging is not a ripoff, especially since it will be a certified part directly from nVidia. Observe:

Chaintech GeForce FX 6800 Ultra
--$599 at newegg.com

PNY Verto GeForce FX 6800 Ultra
--Not yet available

EVGA e-GeForce FX 6800 Ultra
--Not yer available

Jaton GeForce FX 6800 (non-Ultra)
--$350 at dealtime.com

MSI NX6800 Ultra
--$598 at buyxtremegear.com

Axion PVT40FUD GeForce FX 6800 Ultra
--$621 from the manufacturer

BFG GeForce FX 6800 Ultra with water block
--$599.99 at Chumbo.com

MSI/Microstar GeForce FX 6800 Ultra
--$574.00 at eastluna.com

Leadtek LTKA400 Ultra (GeForce FX 6800 Ultra)
--$540 at logicalplus
 
Bhennies said:
Isn't that the 8,000 dollar monitor, or am I thinking of something else?
Click to expand...

CostCentral has them for $6,978, which they claim is the wholesale price for the things. If you poke through the statistics, though, there's a few interesting flukes...

First of all, the Intellistation t221 is the same contrast and size as the Apple 23" display, lower brightness (235 compared to 250 and 270 for Apple's models), uses two D-DVI connectors just for the one monitor, no mention is made of response time, and jumps resolutions. No, really. The top resolution is 3840x2400, but the next step down is 1280x1024. You can eiether burn your eyes out or have it at a resolution that's, frankly, less than inspiring. Meanwhile, Apple scales at 1024x640, 1280x800, 1920x1200, 2048x1280, and 2560x1600. Smaller at the top end, but more versatile... Oh, and the IBM is also as heavy as the far larger Apple 30" display.

In its favor, the t221 is half the pixel pitch of the Apple line, and it has a larger resolution crammed into a smaller panel. Oh, and it requires a Quadro FX of reasonably high specs to drive, with D-DVI just to power the one monitor, so you better hope that the SLI technology pans out in Quadros and nVidia offers twin cards to push two monitors.
 
daveg5 said:
you leave that dongle hanging near the back of the computer out of sight or plug it in the other firewire port, I guess?
Click to expand...

There is only 1 firewire port on the back of the G5, the other is on the front.
So you either have to plug it in to one of the ports on the other monitor or the front of the computer and I don't think either would reach. Oh well minor point I suppose
 
broken_keyboard said:
There is only 1 firewire port on the back of the G5, the other is on the front.
So you either have to plug it in to one of the ports on the other monitor or the front of the computer and I don't think either would reach. Oh well minor point I suppose
Click to expand...
there is 2, 1 400 and 1 800, just use a 800 to 400 adapter. Hmmm i wonder if Apple knows this and has something already, It seem like you could simply have 1 monitor with out firewire by not plugging that part in. or you could put a cable from one monitor to the next, nah best bet is 800 to 400 cable adapter or extender?
 
thatwendigo said:
CostCentral has them for $6,978, which they claim is the wholesale price for the things. If you poke through the statistics, though, there's a few interesting flukes...

First of all, the Intellistation t221 is the same contrast and size as the Apple 23" display, lower brightness (235 compared to 250 and 270 for Apple's models), uses two D-DVI connectors just for the one monitor, no mention is made of response time, and jumps resolutions. No, really. The top resolution is 3840x2400, but the next step down is 1280x1024. You can eiether burn your eyes out or have it at a resolution that's, frankly, less than inspiring. Meanwhile, Apple scales at 1024x640, 1280x800, 1920x1200, 2048x1280, and 2560x1600. Smaller at the top end, but more versatile... Oh, and the IBM is also as heavy as the far larger Apple 30" display.

In its favor, the t221 is half the pixel pitch of the Apple line, and it has a larger resolution crammed into a smaller panel. Oh, and it requires a Quadro FX of reasonably high specs to drive, with D-DVI just to power the one monitor, so you better hope that the SLI technology pans out in Quadros and nVidia offers twin cards to push two monitors.
Click to expand...

The next step down is actually 1600 x 1200, but yeah I see what you mean.

3840 x 2400 / 41 Hz
1280 x 1024 / 60 Hz
1024 x 768 / 60 Hz
1600 x 1200 / 60 Hz
640 x 480 / 72 Hz
640 x 480 / 75 Hz
640 x 480 / 85 Hz
800 x 600 / 56 Hz

If we compare the 22.2IBM to the Apple 23"; the IBM isn't too bad with both the 3840 and 1600 as the highest setting (the Apple 1920 and 1280)--the delta is just too freakin' huge, however, for the IBM -_-.

*upon a deeper search on the site, I failed to find ANY large LCDs that also had resolutions as high as Apple's 30". That is what I call industry-leading; the rest of the 30 or 40" LCDs available rite now are "TV" or those "media center" LCD's that run no higher than 1280...
 
First of all, the Intellistation t221 is the same contrast and size as the Apple 23" display, lower brightness (235 compared to 250 and 270 for Apple's models), uses two D-DVI connectors just for the one monitor, no mention is made of response time, and jumps resolutions. No, really. The top resolution is 3840x2400, but the next step down is 1280x1024. You can eiether burn your eyes out or have it at a resolution that's, frankly, less than inspiring. Meanwhile, Apple scales at 1024x640, 1280x800, 1920x1200, 2048x1280, and 2560x1600. Smaller at the top end, but more versatile... Oh, and the IBM is also as heavy as the far larger Apple 30" display.
DaveG5:
What do you mean burn your eyes out? All the reviews have said this is the sharpest, clearest, display out bar none, including Apples displays, but with 3800x2400 at.12mm dot pitch, 16ms, 204 pixels per inch and over 9 million pixels, that's more than two 30" apple displays combined, that is a no brainer.
It is also lighter and takes up less desk space than 2 30" Apple displays, as for the resolution jump, IBM has special software that scales your desktop to an eye pleasing size (software scaling ala expose). So the resolution scaling point is mute, if you own a PC that is, IBM makes no such software for the mac.
That said, this monitor is admittedly, for extreme graphic-video, photo, cad professionals, like oil painters and graphic art archive savers, extreme cad, auto design, scientific and mathematic professionals, and a level of photoshop editing, beyond what is possible on any other monitor and priced accordingly, I wish it was available for the mac, with the IBM software resolution scaling. A refurb with the nvdia card, if that works would just be $4500..
With my budget however, the Apple 20" may be all i can squeeze into this xmas, and I am not complaining. I was not trying to put down Apple's great displays, as I will have one soon, just wanted everyone to know the top dog as far as I know is the IBM.
In two years the prices will tumble, resolution will increase, software/hardware scaling will be possible at more resolutions without much quality loss and no dead pixels.
http://www.cadalyst.com/cadalyst/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=92284
http://www.pc.ibm.com/us/products/intellistation/tour/t221tour/index.html
 
Captnroger said:
When the heck is apple going to get rid of the sorry butt keyboard and mouse, seriously, please....everything else is aluminum, kick the keyboard (at serious cost) and the mouse. It's crazy. I'm going to buya dual 2.5 and a big 30" display and get stuck with a sorry keyboard and mouse, please...
Click to expand...

I hope Apple gives us something like this:

msmouse.jpg
 
daveg5 said:
First of all, the Intellistation t221 is the same contrast and size as the Apple 23" display, lower brightness (235 compared to 250 and 270 for Apple's models), uses two D-DVI connectors just for the one monitor, no mention is made of response time, and jumps resolutions. No, really. The top resolution is 3840x2400, but the next step down is 1280x1024. You can eiether burn your eyes out or have it at a resolution that's, frankly, less than inspiring. Meanwhile, Apple scales at 1024x640, 1280x800, 1920x1200, 2048x1280, and 2560x1600. Smaller at the top end, but more versatile... Oh, and the IBM is also as heavy as the far larger Apple 30" display.
DaveG5:
What do you mean burn your eyes out? All the reviews have said this is the sharpest, clearest, display out bar none, including Apples displays, but with 3800x2400 at.12mm dot pitch, 16ms, 204 pixels per inch and over 9 million pixels, that's more than two 30" apple displays combined, that is a no brainer.
It is also lighter and takes up less desk space than 2 30" Apple displays, as for the resolution jump, IBM has special software that scales your desktop to an eye pleasing size (software scaling ala expose). So the resolution scaling point is mute, if you own a PC that is, IBM makes no such software for the mac.
That said, this machine is admittedly, for extreme professionals, like oil painters and graphic art archive savers, extreme cad, auto design, scientific and mathematic professionals, and a level of photo editing beyond what is possible on any other monitor and priced accordingly, I wish it was available for the mac, with the IBM software resolution scaling. A refurb with the nvdiac ard would just be $4500..
with my budget the 20" may be all i can squeeze into this xmas. I was not trying to put down Apple's great displays, as I will have one soon, just wanted everyone to know the top dog as far as I know is the IBM.
In two years the prices will tumble, resolution will increase, software/hardware scaling will be possible at more resolutions without much quality loss and no dead pixels.
Click to expand...

IBMs panels are ment for a different market, as for the 3840x2400 it takes two DVI connections to achieve. The high resolution is negated when you use a higher DPI in windows/linux as everything call be scaled backup so that it doesnt appear so small however you get a really detailed image, so you are right about that.

One thing I should say is that LCD's dont scale at all, any resultion not at the native will be poor quality and blury. The exception being that the resultion has to be say divided by 2 giving 1280x800 for the 30" but are you going to run your new 30" at that res?????

As for the IBM response time it doesnt matter as this is a CAD/MCAD/CAM/EDA LCD and your not gona be watching DVD's on it. As for Apple 30" it isnt 16ms, id put it around 30ms-45ms with the 20" strugling to achive 16ms.
 
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