[Rugby]

As I have a dying CRT display I also had a wish Apple would have a new pro specced display up it's sleeve (= not glossy). I will wait for the review but so far not promising, Might go for Dell Ultrasharp or NEC ...

"LaCie 526 LCD Monitor
www.lacie.com/us/products/product.htm?pid=10896" - as these displays are made by NEC one could find it cheaper with more specs "over there"

[tallscot]

Rugby said:

As I have a dying CRT display I also had a wish Apple would have a new pro specced display up it's sleeve (= not glossy). I will wait for the review but so far not promising, Might go for Dell Ultrasharp or NEC ...

"LaCie 526 LCD Monitor
www.lacie.com/us/products/product.htm?pid=10896" - as these displays are made by NEC one could find it cheaper with more specs "over there"

I've been looking at the Samsung LCD monitors. The 245T has HDMI input, 6 ms response time, 1000:1 contrast, 400 brightness and costs around $620 online.

http://www.samsung.c...=LS24HUCEFV/XAA

They have a 30" without HDMI for $1,145 online.

[MacRick]

I am shocked has made no effort to re-assure professionals that they understand the need to offer a choice ... for professionals, and confirming that they will be continuing to make non-glass, non-glossy displays. Perhaps they have already decided to write us off. But if they do care, they should begin to defining where they stand, instead of leaving everyone to guess whether or not photographers and other graphics professionals are going to be left out in the cold.

That they haven't said whether or not the new MBPs (not the transient "new" 17 that will be displaced come January or whenever the new 17s start shipping) will have a non-reflective screen with accurate color and contrast shows that they aren't loyal to their professional customer base. That there is no word on whether or not the Cinema displays will continue to be available with a high quality non-glossy screen with accurate color and contrast is just as off-putting. Frankly, it's like the established customer base is the enemy, and all they care about is the next generation of students and professors that either write documents, watch movies or music videos, or play games. It's very disturbing.

I remember talking to some Apple Store sales people about this issue, and they all said, prior to the intro of the new MBP and the new 24" monitor that Apple would never abandon its professionals and produce a glossy only screen. Now that it is looking Apple is about to do just that the same sales people are saying ... "You know, I never thought it would come to this! We are really surprised!" I'm very happy that Apple has some models that kids really love, and I hope they sell a ton of them. However, Apple needs to acknowledge that this direction is not well suited for professionals who very specialized needs both in the field and in the studio, and, therefore, continue to support design that meets those needs. So far, with the new designs, they are failing to do exactly that.

[Fpryor]

There's hope.

Aperture was a disaster. After listening to the (impassioned) reaction of the professional community, Apple re-tooled the application so that it is quite usable. I'm told it's quite usable. I was burned so badly by my experience with it that I won't ever touch it again.

Anyway... Apple may be considering non-glare screen options on the rest of the Cinedisplay line, may be considering it for the 17 inch book, may have been thinking of offering a non-glare option on the smaller, more portable books as well. The feedback they've received in the four days since releasing these laptops, brilliant except for this one crippling choice, may give them reason to re-calibrate their thinking going forward.

Let's hope so. Otherwise I'll have to pick up a PC laptop for location photography and an NEC monitor for my workstation.

fp

[Peter Cohen]

Fpryor said:

Aperture was a disaster. After listening to the (impassioned) reaction of the professional community, Apple re-tooled the application so that it is quite usable. I'm told it's quite usable. I was burned so badly by my experience with it that I won't ever touch it again.

That's cutting off your nose to spite your face -- there's a demo, just like there was with Aperture 1. I think you'll be impressed. If not, you'll almost certainly agree that it's a lot better than Aperture 1.

[MacRick]

Thanks for your reply.

Yes, work in the field does require a non-glossy screen, but sadly the choices on the PC laptop with glass are had to find too. Does the IBM still offer a matte finish? I know Sony and HP and Toshiba all are glass. Dell too, I believe. This is one reason why I want a MBP with matte, and it's one of the things that has kept me from buying a PC (Apple are you listening). I want the same matte non-glossy Cinema Display for the Mac Pro I plan to buy. I'm sick of PC and Windows, but it's killing me to think that now that I finally successful enough to afford high end Macs that I am being sold the glossy song and dance. It's not better; it's different. We know what we need.

I'll try to stay hopeful, and hope that Apple listens. I have called Customer Relations and told them what they can do with their glossy screens. I am happy to hear that others are voicing the same objections. I know there can't be that few of us. Everyone I know in my line of work understands why I can't use the glass screen.

- r.

[Fpryor]

[quote name='Peter Cohen']
>

Fpryor said:

> Aperture was a disaster. After listening to the (impassioned) reaction of the professional community, Apple re-tooled the application so that it is quite usable. I'm told it's quite usable. I was burned so badly by my experience with it that I won't ever touch it again.

That's cutting off your nose to spite your face -- there's a demo, just like there was with Aperture 1. I think you'll be impressed. If not, you'll almost certainly agree that it's a lot better than Aperture 1.

Not cutting off my nose at all. Adobe released Light Room which, unlike Aperture, was honestly advertised as Beta software. I've been using it to good effect ever since and, unlike Apple, Adobe never had to issue a 40% rebate on the product to mollify furious customers.

I love my Mac. I love Apple. Steve is a genius. These screens are a big mistake. Not a disaster like Aperture was, but to flippantly ignore the requirements of professionals who know their own business as well as Apple knows theirs will discourage pros who might be on the cusp of switching, as well as chilling the cockles of loyal customers.


fp

[MacRick]

Well said.

[Fpryor]

And not to ignore your suggestion that Aperture is much better than it was when it was released, I have every reason to believe you. Colleagues of mine use it and tell me that it no longer flattens Photoshop files, strews artifacts through images that have masked layers, creates herringbone artifacting in the shadows, no longer destroys files and that highlight recovery and the white balance tool now actually work.

Many of these truly awful flaws had been addressed in the year I tried to make it work, but the last time I went to the trouble to find my serial number, download an update and give it a whirl it was still so slow that it was unusable with large libraries. I'm told that's not so much a problem now either.

But it's no longer my concern. I paid $300 for the privilege of beta testing half-baked software for over a year and the experience, as you might have noticed, has left me a bit raw. The other application targeting this particular niche is spectacular and if Aperture had not been such a disaster I never would have tried it. So Thanks Aperture Team!


fp

[tallscot]

Fpryor said:

And not to ignore your suggestion that Aperture is much better than it was when it was released, I have every reason to believe you. Colleagues of mine use it and tell me that it no longer flattens Photoshop files, strews artifacts through images that have masked layers, creates herringbone artifacting in the shadows, no longer destroys files and that highlight recovery and the white balance tool now actually work.

Many of these truly awful flaws had been addressed in the year I tried to make it work, but the last time I went to the trouble to find my serial number, download an update and give it a whirl it was still so slow that it was unusable with large libraries. I'm told that's not so much a problem now either.

But it's no longer my concern. I paid $300 for the privilege of beta testing half-baked software for over a year and the experience, as you might have noticed, has left me a bit raw. The other application targeting this particular niche is spectacular and if Aperture had not been such a disaster I never would have tried it. So Thanks Aperture Team!


fp

This is consistent with my experience with Final Cut Studio 2. It's full of bugs, doesn't work as advertised in many areas, and we aren't getting free bug fixes but will have to wait until the next version is released.

On top of that, the quality control of their hardware has gone down hill too. My Mac Pro couldn't wake up from sleep, but would restart, for a while after buying it until Apple put out a fix. At least they put one out for that because my G5 had a chirping sound (famous problem) and never ever got fixed.

And the GeForce 8800 video card that is supposed to be an upgrade in performance is actually about half as fast as the stock ATI video card in FCS. It's faster in Quake, though! So many FCS users are going out and spending $200 for the latest Radeon and replacing the video card that Apple said was an upgrade but hasn't been since it was released (in Apple's software).

So I'm getting Adobe's CS4 Production Suite this week and I'll not be upgrading to FCS 3, whenever it comes out.

[MacRick]

I thought this was a thread about the Cinema Display? Am I mistaken? If so, how come a discussion of image editing software is dominating this thread? Did I miss something? What gives?

[Fpryor]

MacRick said:

I thought this was a thread about the Cinema Display? Am I mistaken? If so, how come a discussion of image editing software is dominating this thread? Did I miss something? What gives?

Professional image editing, still, video or film, requires an honest monitor, that's why.

If you're just filling in spread sheets or authoring blogs it matters less what your screen looks like. If he quality of my tools didn't matter I could put up with the cheapest PC I could find. I use Apple products because they've facilitated my process better, and impeded my progress less, than the alternatives.

That's the argument I've been using on my PC brethren anyway. It's not getting easier to make that argument.

fp

[MacRick]

Of course, I understand that image and image editing software requires an "honest" monitor. That's what prompted my comments in the first place, so I don't need to be reminded of that obvious fact. The fact that is so still doesn't explain why you are attempting to turn this thread about the Cinema Display into a thread about Apple's software bugs. It would seem more appropriate in a thread about software shortcomings or in specific threads about either Aperture or Final Cut Pro.

[Fpryor]

MacRick said:

Of course, I understand that image and image editing software requires an "honest" monitor. That's what prompted my comments in the first place, so I don't need to be reminded of that obvious fact. The fact that is so still doesn't explain why you are attempting to turn this thread about the Cinema Display into a thread about Apple's software bugs. It would seem more appropriate in a thread about software shortcomings or in specific threads about either Aperture or Final Cut Pro.

Thank you very much for the lecture on what is and is not appropriate in a thread about display quality. I'm sure we all share your concern that each thread contain only one topic and no tangential discussion about marginally related issues.

Allow me to point out what I had thought was obvious from parts of the discussion you might have skipped:

Aperture's design indicated a profound unfamiliarity with the needs of the professional market Apple was selling it into as well as extremely sloppy software design.

Tallscott's observations about Final Cut Studio are parallel.

The move to glossy, over-saturated, over-bright screens in the new laptops and the new 24 inch cinema display seem to be an example of Apple's sloppy software development bleeding into their hardware.

Does that connect the dots?

fp