WWDC: New LCD Displays

[brooklyn]

Butt Crack

I hope Apple gives us something like this:

Dude, that thing looks like the crack of someone’s ass!

 

[army_guy]

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.
[/url]

As I said before 16ms does ghost and I gave reasons for it doing so, as for the so called 12ms panels they sacrifice contrast and colour to achieve a lower response. I dont believe the 30" to have 16ms response time anyway. I dont see that it matters since you cant run games at the native resolution anyway and the 1280x800 resoulution will just look rediculus as well.

 

[iGary]

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.

Yes, I was talking about the 30".

 

[amberashby]

In the keynote they were pumping up the new Quick Time codec and how great it looked. I am wondering if I get the 20 inch monitor instead of the 23 inch will I get a lesser picture quality since it isn't HD?

Since the new codec will be used on the new HD DVDs I assume you would need the HD monitor to truly get the HD quality.

Am I correct?

 

[MrSugar]

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.

I would say it is hard to judge if it's 30ms or 45ms. I don't understand why you think this. These new displays have been totally reworked and aren't the same is the previous displays in most every way. Therefore, I assume the problem with the 20 being at 16ms is something you are talking about in relation to the previous model. No one will be able to know for sure until they have the new displays in hand and can run some tests which will accurately show this. Until then we should avoid trying to speculate on whether the 30" achieves 16ms or not. However, I haven't known Apple to post specs that are so blatently false before (35 or 45ms) that seems a bit outragous to me.

 

[army_guy]

We will see what happens when I see one but Iam assuming its gona be around 20-25ms maybe more, I dont trust manufactures claim until a third party is physicaly measuring the specification like xbit labs did, from the results few panels met thier specified response with deviations ranging from 2-3ms upto 15ms.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/response-3.html

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/response-2.html

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/response.html

 

[MrSugar]

As I said before 16ms does ghost and I gave reasons for it doing so, as for the so called 12ms panels they sacrifice contrast and colour to achieve a lower response. I dont believe the 30" to have 16ms response time anyway. I dont see that it matters since you cant run games at the native resolution anyway and the 1280x800 resoulution will just look rediculus as well.

What you said is that the 16ms does ghost. But soon after we had several people comment that each display has qualities which are reported by the manufacturer that can be exagerated. Facts are often misprinted or mis-used. Perhaps 16ms displays you have seen do ghost, I however work on 2 all day long that don't. I know I am not blind or crazy, perhaps at an EXTREMELY fast fast pace I might expirience ghosting ... but I have played everything from action DVD's to UT2004 on these displays and NEVER seen a problem. This simply goes to show that there are 16ms displays that DO NOT GHOST!!!

Apple is a company that is of high quality and very involved with video, it would blow me away if they falsly reported a response time that doesn't exist, or if they accepted ghosting in any form on their new displays.

I however don't make false claims about 16ms not ghosting. I have many friends who are hardcore PC gamers, and I have seen a variety of displays that run at 20 ms or under, ghosting is not a problem.

 

[army_guy]

We will see what happens when I see one but Iam assuming its gona be around 20-25ms maybe more, I dont trust manufactures claim until a third party is physicaly measuring the specification like xbit labs did, from the results few panels met thier specified response with deviations ranging from 2-3ms upto 15ms.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/response-3.html

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/response-2.html

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/response.html

Of coarse I can just run a few games and see if the panel shows any kind of ghosting, streaking or bluring all of which I can see even on highend 16ms panels (DELL 19" and Samsung etc.. and these are the ones considered the best for response)

 

[jsw]

In the keynote they were pumping up the new Quick Time codec and how great it looked. I am wondering if I get the 20 inch monitor instead of the 23 inch will I get a lesser picture quality since it isn't HD?

Since the new codec will be used on the new HD DVDs I assume you would need the HD monitor to truly get the HD quality.

Am I correct?

The 23" will provide you with true HD resolution, and the 20" will have to scale the image, so the 23" will look sharper. Of course, that's assuming true 1920x1200 video, which you're unlikely to see much (if any) of for a LONG time.

The 20" will look fine, and for US$700 less.

However, if you're looking for an excuse, the 23" will look better....

 

[daveg5]

Of coarse I can just run a few games and see if the panel shows any kind of ghosting, streaking or bluring all of which I can see even on highend 16ms panels (DELL 19" and Samsung etc.. and these are the ones considered the best for response)

same goes for brightness and contrast and viewing angle, the only thing that can be trusted in diagonal size and perhaps .dot pitch.

 

[daveg5]

What you said is that the 16ms does ghost. But soon after we had several people comment that each display has qualities which are reported by the manufacturer that can be exagerated. Facts are often misprinted or mis-used. Perhaps 16ms displays you have seen do ghost, I however work on 2 all day long that don't. I know I am not blind or crazy, perhaps at an EXTREMELY fast fast pace I might expirience ghosting ... but I have played everything from action DVD's to UT2004 on these displays and NEVER seen a problem. This simply goes to show that there are 16ms displays that DO NOT GHOST!!!

Apple is a company that is of high quality and very involved with video, it would blow me away if they falsly reported a response time that doesn't exist, or if they accepted ghosting in any form on their new displays.

I however don't make false claims about 16ms not ghosting. I have many friends who are hardcore PC gamers, and I have seen a variety of displays that run at 20 ms or under, ghosting is not a problem.

This is sort of mute as even some crts with response time of under 10ms can ghost if the media it is playing fits all the criteria to make it ghost, dark area of the picture with very fast movements, it does not make the display bad at all, the 16ms is that rise or fall, will be better than a 25MS, but alot depends on contrast, brightness, .pitch and the media being played and a whole slew of other intangible items, just enjoy.

 

[daveg5]

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.

I agree this is the ultimte photoshop monitor, you can open a 6MP image and have it look lifelike and room left over to edit, I also agree LCD.s dont scale well, however.
IBM has software that makes your desktop menu fonts, mouse pointer etc. scale in software. while allowing you to stay at full res for editing at the same time. So that takes care of the scale back theory in linux/windows.
my bad on the response, i thought apple was 16ms?, actually the biggest thing on the IBM other than the 204 DPI, 3800x2400, in a 22" aluminum frame, is the incredible dot pitch at .12, that is soooo amazing, I wish I could see one up-close, the new apple nvdia card should be able to handle one of these, but with no desktop scaling. so you would have to resize all the fonts and icons, dock.
Well actually it isn't that small, i just tried 1920X1080/60hz on my sony 13.8 crt and although the mouse pointer is small, everything is quite legible, now with the brightness and contrast of an LCD and .12 dot pitch it should be all quite good.
the 1920X1200 15" note book screens should be close, but maybe a little smaller in desktop size and legibility.

 

[sfwalter]

20" Delivery Date?

I was visiting eCost.com and I didn't realize they sell Apple product. Anyways I called them up to see if they knew when the 20" Alumimum Cinema Display would be in stock. Well after a couple of minutes of him complaing how slow his computer was, he said they are expecting delivery from Apple on July 23rd. Doh!!! When Steve Jobs said July he didn't mean the beginning of July.

 

[m.r.m.]

my other question that isn't in line with the display discussion is still open though. has anyone ever tried running cpu/gpu intensive games on a mac with virtual pc? is there a great loss in performance? i'd expect there to be one.

 

[MrSugar]

my other question that isn't in line with the display discussion is still open though. has anyone ever tried running cpu/gpu intensive games on a mac with virtual pc? is there a great loss in performance? i'd expect there to be one.

As far as I know VPC 6 can't run 3d... so that means no games.

 

[army_guy]

If you want games then get a PC. Faster, more titles, better drivers, less bugs and better quality overall for games VS the dodgy PC to MAC ports and using OpenGL in place of DirectX.

 

[m.r.m.]

cheers mate, that kinda ends it for me. no way i'm gonna completely switch to mac. i'd have liked to though.

 

[wdlove]

I hope Apple gives us something like this:

I agree, now that the monitor has the aluminum look. It's time for the keyboard and mouse to follow suit. I like the look of your mouse, it's very futuristic looking. The blue is awesome.

 

[jsw]

As far as I know VPC 6 can't run 3d... so that means no games.

VPC 7 is supposed to do graphics "natively" (Direct X). Of course, we'll see. But it's due out very soon, so there won't be much of a wait.

I'm not saying that VPC 7 on a G5 will give a cheap PC any real gaming competition. But rumor has it that it might be pretty fast. I, for one, am anxiously waiting on it to be released - and to read reviews of it.

 

[army_guy]

But Virtual PC is still emulating an x86 which is very slow anyway, you probably be able to run games albeit at low resolutions, with no AA, AF and low detail settings. It could work but you are still better off with a PC even with used parts of ebay youll get better perfomance anyway.

 

[jsw]

But Virtual PC is still emulating an x86 which is very slow anyway, you probably be able to run games albeit at low resolutions, with no AA, AF and low detail settings. It could work but you are still better off with a PC even with used parts of ebay youll get better perfomance anyway.

Oh, I definitely agree that a cheap PC will thrash a G5 on most PC games, even with VPC 7. I was just saying that maybe the beating won't be quite as harsh as with VPC 6, which was god-awful slow.

Still, yeah, US$600 or so will buy something that will play PC games at a speed a dual-2.5 G5 using VPC 7 can't touch.

 

[army_guy]

Iam saying that about the latest games, the classics will run fine.

 

[daveg5]

I agree, now that the monitor has the aluminum look. It's time for the keyboard and mouse to follow suit. I like the look of your mouse, it's very futuristic looking. The blue is awesome.

what ever happened to the rumored ipod mouse. this is the worst thing about apple their current mouse is not up to OSX standards, it is a joke for anything serious, like mya, photoshop, even browsing, I know some people prefer one button and keyboard combinations, so I say, then make 2 mice, one 5+ buttons and scroll and one single and update the white keyboard as well.
I suspect Apple will release aluminum mice and keyboard with wireless blue tooth in Paris in August when they release the Imac G5

 

[yadmonkey]

If you want games then get a PC. Faster, more titles, better drivers, less bugs and better quality overall for games VS the dodgy PC to MAC ports and using OpenGL in place of DirectX.

While this is certainly true now, times are changing quickly. The next Xbox will feature PowerPC processors and the current developer kits are simply G5's. That means a whole new generation of games will be developed for an extremely similar architechture to the Mac. I think its fair to say that better days are coming for Mac gaming:

Way easier porting -> Few "dodgy" ports.

Cheaper porting -> More games making it to the Mac and in better shape.

Personally I am of the opinion that console gaming is vastly superior to PC gaming anyway, but its really a matter of taste in games.

 

[army_guy]

Unless apples 2% market share actually increases nothings gona change for MAC gaming, developers wont port or ports will take months if they cant make a reasonable amount of profit from doing so. How many users of that 2% will actually buy that MAC port.