[leicaman]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

However still expensive for LCD Montiors..
Dell 20"
E207WFP 20-inch Widescreen Flat Panel LCD w/ DVI $259.
Are Apple LCDs that much better?

---

No.
I researched this myself awhile ago and what I found is that the guts of the Dell monitors and Apple monitors are the same. The only differences were the ports available and the look. Oh, and the Dell monitors were significantly cheaper.

---

Hogwash, the internals are what makes them different. Apple's monitors have less contrast - which is good unless you're zapping monters in Quake IV. Too much contrast and you can't calibrate the monitor properly for graphics, or photo work.
ONLY Apple's and Eizo's more expensive high-end monitors are SWOPE-certified. Dells may have more imputs and memory card slots, and they, and Sony, use the same LCD panels as comparable Apple monitors, but they also use LCDs that Apple's QC rejects.
If you're not a graphics/photo professional, you don't need to spend mor emoney. But if you are, they can't be beat for anyting less than about $5,000.

[hayesk]

Quote:

---

The Samsung SyncMaster 225BW Widescreen LCD Monitor features: ultra-wide 9:5 aspect ratio and 1680 x 1050 resolution, Fast 5 ms response time, 700:1 contrast ratio and 160-degree viewing angles. $222 for 22" widescreen.
Dell 20"
E207WFP 20-inch Widescreen Flat Panel LCD w/ DVI $259.
Are Apple LCDs that much better?

---

Yes, Apple's displays are that much better if you depend on colour. Lots of displays advertise high contrast, fast response time, and wide angles, but what they don't mention is that even though the display is bright over a wide viewing angle, the colour shifts quite a bit - not enough to made things unviewable, but enough that you couldn't do any colour work accurately with these displays.
I'm sitting infront of an LG display that advertised a 1400:1 contrast and wide viewing angle, but if I move my head just a few centimetres to the side, the white areas start to look yellow. I don't do publishing or video work, so it's not a huge deal for me, but our iMac doesn't exhibit that same problem and none of the Apple displays do either.
That's not to say other vendors don't sell decent displays at a slightly cheaper price, but if the price is less than half, you're probably going to end up with a display with lots of colour shift.

[hayesk]

Quote:

---

It would figure the day after I order a 30 inch Apple display the price drops...oh well, it's not my money I'm spending /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

---

Apple has 10 day price protection. You should call them and they will adjust your order.

[alansky]

"The Samsung SyncMaster 225BW Widescreen LCD Monitor features: ultra-wide 9:5 aspect ratio and 1680 x 1050 resolution, Fast 5 ms response time, 700:1 contrast ratio and 160-degree viewing angles. $222 for 22" widescreen...
"Are Apple LCDs that much better?"
Comparing specs on paper is not a valid way to evaluate produts from different manufacturers. The advertising industry would have you believe otherwise, but that's another story. On paper, a Chevy sedan may be "better" than a Honda Accord (more horsepower, bigger back seat, etc.). But which one is really the better car? Take a wild guess!
In your example, the 22" Samsung doesn't compare even on paper since the resolution (1680x1050) is considerably less than the 1900x1200 resolution of the 23" Apple Cinema Display. Not even to mention the Apple display's excellent color reproduction, sleek form factor, etc.
For those who think buying a computer monitor is like buying potatoes, by all means go for the cheapest price you can find.

[moose_n_squirrel]

Quote:

---

If you want the exact same monitor and can accept non-apple packaging, get the Dell 30". It's even cheaper.

---

Man, this comes up every time. Like the other posts say, Apple and other mfgs tune the internals differently, for better pro color. Which you should only pay for if it matters to you.
Pro graphics users = get an Apple.
Everybody else = save your money, get a Dell.
The continuum of LCD monitors is like this:
Dell etc. = Cheap, good for most people.
Apple = Midrange color, affordable for pros, but not the best.
Eizo ColorEdge, etc. = Best color for pros, totally unsuitable for consumers, $1600 for a 23" monitor.

[montgomery_burns]

Tom's Hardware has a review of the 23 inch Cinema Display:
http://www.tomshardw...2005/08/30/all/

[tchaten]

however mentioned that I should go for a dell 30" is out of their mind: Education Discount at Apple store: brings the display to 1599 whereas dell is 1499 (I would pay 100 for a better quality apple display )

[moose_n_squirrel]

2005...I wonder if that was before or after they revised that model. The original apple 23 got lots of complaints.

[mdawson]

Quote:

---

bostonmacosx wrote:
However still expensive for LCD Montiors..
The Samsung SyncMaster 225BW Widescreen LCD Monitor features: ultra-wide 9:5 aspect ratio and 1680 x 1050 resolution, Fast 5 ms response time, 700:1 contrast ratio and 160-degree viewing angles. $222 for 22" widescreen.
Dell 20"
E207WFP 20-inch Widescreen Flat Panel LCD w/ DVI $259.
MacKayaker wrote:
The price drops are nice, but I still see the Apple LCDs as very overpriced without a clear quality difference supporting the high price.

---

I consistently see comments like this from people on these boards and there is obviously a lack of knowledge about professional-level displays vs. commodity displays. The Cinema Display line from Apple are, as their very name would indicate, professional-level computer displays and, as a number of others here have already mentioned, SWOP certified. Inexpensive displays like the afore mentioned Samsung and especially the Dell UltraSharps are designed and marketed as commodity displays for the average computer user. Even calibrated, those displays will rarely achieve ideal white points or color accuracy.
(And before anyone chimes in that once a display is calibrated it is no different from any other calibrated display, spare me the flames. I know enough about display/television calibration and have read through enough HDTV reviews to know that no amount of calibration on a sub-par display is going to get it to perform like a display that was designed from the outset to serve the professional design/photography market.)
If you were to look at the prices of just about any display targeting the pro market they are as expensive if not more expensive than Apples displays. Anyone that doubt this can look at Lacies display line or a high-end NEC.
Secondly, most displays are made from cheap materials (read: plastic). The Cinema Displays have an aluminum chassis and aluminum is not cheap. While not a precious metal, aluminum is expensive to process, and Apple is almost exclusionary in using aluminum for their product chassis, so they have to bear an expense that the rest of the industry does not. Should aluminum become a standard in computer chassis, then the price of using it to that end should decrease.

Quote:

---

ericorr wrote:
If you want the exact same monitor and can accept non-apple packaging, get the Dell 30". It's even cheaper.

---

That is a patently false statement. The 30-inch Cinema Display and the 30-inch UltraSharp use the same LCD panel, the similarities end there. Both displays have completely different electronics and both leave their respective factories with very different calibrations.
The Dell is too bright for any type of color critical work and even after calibration, it has been noted that the UltraSharps are still too bright for professional work. Dell calibrates their displays to the old showroom trickthe brightest display appears to be of better quality and therefore catches the buyers eye; the same trick is used in audio where a system that is slightly louder is perceived as having better audio quality.
The Cinema Displays are SWOP certified and calibrated to proper specs at the factory. Most videophile quality HDTVs cannot even claim that level of attention to detail; while they are more often than not better than run of the mill HDTVs, they still require calibration to get the best picture that they can offer. My refurbished 30-inch Cinema Display had richer, truer color reproduction and a better contrast ratio out-of-the-box without any calibration than the calibrated 22-inch Cinema Display it replaced.

Ultimately, it would be nice if Apple sold less expensive consumer-level displays, perhaps something in a milky white chassis to compliment the iMacs that have supported extended desktop since the later generation iMac G5s. As it stands right now, Apples displays cater mostly to the very market that stood by the company in its worst days: the professional photographer/desktop publisher.

[mdawson]

Most of the reviews that reported the magenta color cast and uneven backlighting on the 23-inch Cinema Display were written shortly after the introduction of the new aluminum displays. Around the same time MacFormat, MacAddicts, now Mac|Lifes, sister publication in the UK, gave the 23-inch Cinema Display a 5 out of 5 rating whereas most other publications gave the display ratings of about 4 out of 5. The MacFormat review was a little after the other reviews, such as Macworlds (US and UK), but not by much more than a month or two. That indicates that either the MacFormat staff got lucky or Apple quickly rectified the matter.
Either way, when I was trying to decide whether I should go with a single 30-inch display or two 23-inch displays, the issues reported early on where of concern for me. I tested a number of 23-inch Cinema Displays at the local Apple Store and CompUSA and saw no signs of color casting or uneven color across the screen. You can best believe that the floor models are not calibrated beyond the factory settings unless a customer or errant salesperson chose to fiddle with the color settings in the system preferences.
I ultimately chose to go with a single 30-inch display because having two displays span four of the five feet across my work desk was not an attractive option; I have a 4-foot desk adjacent to my primary desk, but its primary purpose is as additional work surface and to house my printer and its paper supply. Add to that the fact that my scanner would be in the way of the leftmost display and the choice became easy. Given that the width of the 30-inch Cinema Display is about the same as my viewing distance, I find that I am very happy with my decision. Except in those applications where multiple displays are a must, and the norm, I can see where using two (widescreen) displays larger than the 20-inch models could have ergonomic issues that begin to outweigh the advantages of a multi-display set up unless the displays are arced about the users field of view.

[MacKayaker]

Well - I do see differently on this (pun intended). I will agree that Apple displays are good for critical color work - I've helped a number of customers establish color managed work flows on every model Apple has released. In the early days especially, I didn't really see many other brands worth considering. At this point, though, I don't think the limitations of the Apple displays are worth their high price - for color critical work. And you can't choose from the bottom of the barrel in LCDs for color critical work either, but I do believe there are better displays for the dollar that are equal to Apple's offerings or better. For me personally I will likely never have an Apple, as it is missing a key component for me - there have to be two inputs on the display and they never do. I have two 22" displays I use side by side for desktop publishing, digital imaging, and video work. At the end of the day, it's about color accuracy (which is influenced by the ambient light, the display(s), video card(s), system (profile) settings, and application software settings. No brand - straight out of the box, is suitable for color accurate work. And I do feel the Apple displays continue to be overpriced. Better to invest in very good displays and excellent calibrating and profiling tools than blow your wad on a nice display, because it is the easiest one to choose. For the cost of one 23, I can pretty well get two 22s and that's a boat load more screen real estate, which is a far more efficient way to work, in the DTP world - but as in all areas - to each his own, as long as it works for you. And I can say I get more calls from people with Apple displays with on-screen color issues than any other brand - because most people just pay the premium price, then call me to fix the problems they experience.

[hayesk]

Quote:

---

And I can say I get more calls from people with Apple displays with on-screen color issues than any other brand - because most people just pay the premium price, then call me to fix the problems they experience.

---

Probably because their accurate displays are calibrated better than your cheap ones. ;-) (just kidding)
Seriously, you said you demand two inputs, but haven't said why. I don't see why that is important. If you have two computers, a KVM will switch your displays and your keyboard and mouse.

[sigma8]

It's also maybe worth mentioning that while the panels are the same, LCD panels do not include backlighting. Backlighting is handled by Apple or Dell, or whoever constructs the monitor...with the panel only as a single component. Two cars with identical engines can be very different, as can two monitors with identical panels.
They probably also include identical power cables..nobody is harping on that. >.<

[MacKayaker]

I require two inputs per display because my primary computers are both at my feet and I use them both for different tasks. Each computer is connected to both displays, so that I can work on either computer focused on one display, or hit the input on the display and quickly have a two screen desktop for either computer. I could use a KVM switch for the displays, as I do my keyboard and mouse, but I'm not willing to have a break between my video card and my display. I've worked with customers who had that kind of setup and it was always bad for color, as it's another element in the chain and it's not needed. It makes my color management a bit tricky, as I can only calibrate/profile for one setup, and then just profile for the other, but I've been doing this for a lot of years and I do high end color work for print, photography, and some video work - using another display for evaluating NTSC color, since a computer's white point and gamut are vastly different than a TVs.
People were making a big deal about Apple's displays being "SWOP certified" and in truth, that's a misrepresentation. What Apple's site does say is "The color on Apple displays is so good that you can use them in a SWOP-certified (Specification for Web Offset Publications) soft-proofing workflow." And the same can be said of many of the better displays. It all depends on all the other factors I mentioned in my previous post. I never knocked the quality of Apple's displays - only their value.
Based on the customers I come in contact with, most people are naive to uninformed when it comes to accurate color on a display and it's relationship to either press or ink-jet printed output. And at the end of the day, I can't totally complain, since that is a part of the work that pays my bills.