[Macworld]

Post your comments for Apple 27-inch LED Cinema Display here

[John]

Color accuracy on a glossy screen is a contradiction in terms as the screen reflects the color of the surroundings and blends this in with the colors on screen. It is hard to recommend such a monitor for do or die color critical situations such as at a comping or color house unless everything being reflected plus the ambient lighting is absolutely neutral.

[hayesk]

John, on 29 October 2010 - 04:10 AM, said:

Color accuracy on a glossy screen is a contradiction in terms as the screen reflects the color of the surroundings and blends this in with the colors on screen. It is hard to recommend such a monitor for do or die color critical situations such as at a comping or color house unless everything being reflected plus the ambient lighting is absolutely neutral.

Matte screens also reflect the color of the surroundings and blend with the colors on screen. They just diffuse the light due to the non-smooth surface of the display. You would be kidding yourself if you didn't think it had an effect though. This is why people use display hoods for color critical work.

[quakerotis]

There used to be some distinction between Apple's pro monitors and the rest of the pack. But I don't believe that that exists anymore. There are higher quality alternatives at significantly lower prices from a variety of manufacturers. Viewsonic offers models with better specs for much less. It's not Apple's fault. It's just easier these days to manufacture high quality displays. Add $30 to hook it to most mac workstations to accommodate yet another proprietary connection scheme.

[samrod]

For those of us with older Macs lacking DisplayPort out, Dell is the only other vendor offering this specific 27" LCD panel in a monitor. It's the Dell U2711, costs $100 more than the Cinema Display, but trades the camera, speakers and design with composite, component, 2 DVI's, VGA, HDMI, and DisplayPort inputs, adjustable height, pivotable, and tiltable anti-glare screen with a 4-way USB2 hub and 8 in 1 media reader builtin.

SPECS:
LED backlit, IPS anti-glare hard coated display

2560 x 1440 @ 60Hz

1000:1 typical, dynamic contrast ratio: 80:000:1 max

350 cd/m2

6ms response time

178 degrees viewing angle

1.07 billion colors (10 bit color)
*I think the article may be incorrect about the Cinema Display only having 16.7 million

I just have to get used to a DELL logo on my desktop. But this is the first LCD display that I finally felt matches the color accuracy and quality of the CRT it replaced. My first new monitor purchase since '95. Not bad.

[lwdesign]

I currently have a dual monitor setup: a 30" and a 20" Cinema Displays, both with matte screens. My design studio office has a large window in it which brings in natural light and makes it very pleasant--but it entirely precludes the purchase of any glossy glass monitor. I'm sticking with my "old" displays until they eventually die in 7-10 years, and then I'll look for matte finish replacements, although it annoys me to have to buy a non-Apple monitor. Hopefully Apple will come to their senses and realize that many design and photography professionals simply must have matte screens to continue to do their jobs with better color accuracy and reduced eyestrain. I work at my computer often for 10+ hours a day, and even a slight annoyance can become a physical burden with that amount of use.

[Macalways]

John, on 29 October 2010 - 04:10 AM, said:

Color accuracy on a glossy screen is a contradiction in terms as the screen reflects the color of the surroundings and blends this in with the colors on screen. It is hard to recommend such a monitor for do or die color critical situations such as at a comping or color house unless everything being reflected plus the ambient lighting is absolutely neutral.

Why would anybody recommend this monitor for do or die critical situations? Well who would? As we have always declared, the only true color output has to come from the press. That is we we always ran press-proofs on high-end productions. As such, this monitor would suffice in a most circumstances.

We used to have Radius's and now more EIZO's for comping. But we would not hesitate with the LED Cinema Displays. Our pre-press monitor rooms are dark, thus no glare or reflection what-so-ever. And all our studios are sans-fluorescent lighting free.

And as EIZO even says in their white paper on Glossy vs Matte:

Quote

Influence of Surface Treatment on "Color Space" and "Grayscale"
Our perception of color is greatly affected by ambient light. An image displayed on a monitor will look different whit the room light is on and when it is off. Our color perception is also influenced by a visual trick isn which a small digitally-taken picture displayed in the center on a monitor looks different on different backgrounds.

When comparing a glossy LCD and a non-glare LCD, it becomes lear that the diffused reflection of light and the resulting washing out of the screen on a non-glare LCD greatly affect our perception of color. In low brightness or shadow areas, especially, the diffused reflection of light from external lights and backlit affect the grayscale tones. In the high brightness area, too, the washed out screen reduces color saturation.

As for the inherent color space and grayscale of LCD monitors, EIZO and other manufacturers usually measure them in a dark room. The measurement results show that a glossy LCD and a non-glare LCD have little differences in their performance in color space and grayscale rendering.

I should add, Apple has never contended that we don't have a choice, especially with monitors. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Certain functions and features may not be ideal. As a result, for a few thousand dollars more, an ultimate product is there for purchasing. But not from Apple. Perhaps we should respect their decision.

[Stewsburntmonkey]

lwdesign, on 29 October 2010 - 06:16 AM, said:

I currently have a dual monitor setup: a 30" and a 20" Cinema Displays, both with matte screens. My design studio office has a large window in it which brings in natural light and makes it very pleasant--but it entirely precludes the purchase of any glossy glass monitor. I'm sticking with my "old" displays until they eventually die in 7-10 years, and then I'll look for matte finish replacements, although it annoys me to have to buy a non-Apple monitor. Hopefully Apple will come to their senses and realize that many design and photography professionals simply must have matte screens to continue to do their jobs with better color accuracy and reduced eyestrain. I work at my computer often for 10+ hours a day, and even a slight annoyance can become a physical burden with that amount of use.

I always had worse problems with matte screens washing out in sunlight than anything else. My experience was never that they were in any way more color accurate than the glossy displays I've used.

However, as others have said, someone who is really concerned with color accuracy, doesn't work in an environment which would cause these issues on either a matte or glossy screen. Color professionals who are really worried about color accuracy use hoods or work in spaces designed to eliminate as far as possible the problems associated with ambient light.

[lawrance]

Reading these comments makes me glad I got out of the color business after 12 years in pre-press. Any monitor can be deemed accurate with nothing to compare to! (in a room by itself) I found the aftermarket color gadgets to be sketchy at best. Clients would come in to adjust +3% yellow in photos and make us do all new proofs. Then when the press ran the job and ALL the colors looked like dog doo-doo, the clients somehow were happy as can be. After years of this routine, I threw in the towel and couldn't be happier. I now have a 24" Apple monitor and feel it's the best monitor I've ever had the pleasure of working with. I roll my eyes at those who scoff at these screens and complain of glossy screens. Buy a $30 diffuser if you really think it will make a difference in what should be a dimly-lit controlled room with no natural light.

[leicaman]

As a photo professional, I'm more concerned about color range. I want a monitor that's at least 95-110 percent of the AdobeRGB color space. HP, Samsung and NEC all make (or rebadge) monitors that fit this better than Apple's monitors. I have been a very happy 23" Cinema Display owner. Use them at work and at home. But the next set of monitors is coming from someone else.

This post has been edited by leicaman: 29 October 2010 - 08:05 AM

[studiog]

What's puzzling about this glare/non-glare issue is the lack of anti-reflective coatings on glossy screens. Back in the day my 21" CRT monitor had a coating, similar to those on eye glasses and camera lenses. Nowadays you can buy "museum glass" in both glass and plastic (plexiglass) versions, for high-end picture framing. Museum glass has this same very effective non-glare coating. Why can't Apple put such a coating on the Cinema display?

[denniszam]

quakerotis, on 29 October 2010 - 05:48 AM, said:

There used to be some distinction between Apple's pro monitors and the rest of the pack. But I don't believe that that exists anymore. There are higher quality alternatives at significantly lower prices from a variety of manufacturers. Viewsonic offers models with better specs for much less. It's not Apple's fault. It's just easier these days to manufacture high quality displays. Add $30 to hook it to most mac workstations to accommodate yet another proprietary connection scheme.

Your only argument for "higher quality" is "better specs." We used 20" Apple displays from '05 and wish we still had them today. We decided to pick up a non-Apple monitor because they are cheaper and "better specs." After two different monitors that had amazing specs and reviews, even recommended by the gamers, I wish we had the 20" Apple monitors back.

Similar (failed) arguments were made about mobile camera specs (the MP is higher but pictures are not as good). The quality of the screen and overall fit-and-finish is superior to most anything out there in the same class (size, backlight, etc.). This "review" is mostly just a list of the specs. The Pros/Cons don't really address the quality. Use the monitor every day then get a "higher quality" (better specs, cheaper) non-Apple monitor then you'll see and feel the difference. I won't make this mistake again and this 27" will be our next display.

[moose_n_squirrel]

Macalways, on 29 October 2010 - 06:32 AM, said:

for a few thousand dollars more, an ultimate product is there for purchasing. But not from Apple. Perhaps we should respect their decision.

Indeed. Apple has made a decision and it is that Apple only sells one monitor now, and it's being marketed as the perfect companion to your laptop. Complete with automatic ambient light brightness adjustment, which is a total no-no for a calibrated screen.

Pros should get used to the idea that Apple no longer sells pro monitors, and they don't care that we know that. Which is fine. Apple doesn't feel they have to compete with all the better high-end monitors available now. And if Apple's "Last Monitor Standing" starts to fail to be profitable, don't be surprised if they exit the market. It will be like pining for the old LaserWriter: Apple pro monitors are gone, get over it.

[folklore]

moose_n_squirrel, on 29 October 2010 - 10:35 AM, said:

Apple pro monitors are gone, get over it.

Then who is this monitor for?

Are consumers really going to pay $999 for a monitor? I'm a consumer. I just ordered a maxed out 13" MacBook Air and there is no friggin' way I'm spending better than half the cost of my computer on a monitor. For the price of this monitor, I could have an 11" MacBook Air, or a MacBook. And I'd get much more use out of either than I would a monitor.

So who's the market for this monitor? If pros shun it, and consumers can't/won't afford it... who is left?

Has Apple reported sales numbers for their monitors in their quarterly results in the past? I'm very curious how many of these they're selling.