[Moogs]

Regarding the 30" models at retail locations, makes you wonder what they're going to do at CompUSA and other places, where the NVidia 6800 (or whatever it's called) is not going to be shipped as an OEM option with the G5.

Maybe they'll do the old, video card in a white box treatement, perhaps offer a rebate for those buying a G5 and a 30" screen together, in order to get the extra video card / make it easier to stomach since you can't BTO with the card installed from the start.

[Escher]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 What I'd LOVE to do, honestly, is get a 12" G5 PowerBook a year from now, or whenever they come out. Hopefully, by then, that model will come with the lighted keyboard and the option for 128MB graphics. I'd get that cute little monster AND a 23" Cinema Display and just have the most ass-kicking, best-of-both-worlds setup I could ask for (ultimate portability AND screen real estate).

Originally Posted by onlyafterdark That is exactly what I am going to do. I cant use the new monitors with my rev. a 12" PB anyway so Im going to wait til the G5 PB comes out, whenever that is, and buy a 20" or a 23" screen to go with it. Now thats the stuff dreams are made of.

The Best of Both Worlds! That's what Apple's small (but not quite sub-) PowerBooks have been all about since the PowerBook Duo in 1992. The new 20" and 23" ACDs with DVI-in make this even more true.

Even though the Rev.A 12-inch PowerBook came out 18 months ago, I'm glad I waited for Rev.C. I can now get DVI, more Ghz and RAM, and all the little kinks of the Rev.A and Rev.B have been worked out. My wallet and I are also glad that I squeezed a solid three years of use out of my iBook (Dual USB), even though it was a Rev.A machine plagued by a design defect in the backlight cable/hinge.

Even with "just" an external 1280x1024 17" LCD, driven by the 12-inch in clamshell mode, I feel like I have entered a new dimension. The PowerBooks are very ergonomic. But nothing beats a desktop setup when you're at a desk.

I have no doubt that Apple will introduce a 12-inch PowerBook G5 in due time. (My hunch is late summer/fall 2005.) Together with a 20" or 23" ACD the 12-inch G5 will be an even better "best of both worlds." Personally, however, I will likely wait for Rev.B of the 12-inch PowerBook G5 at the very least. Maybe in 2006? I just hope that Apple re-introduces a Duo-style Dock long before then.

Escher

[EDS66]

Well, I finally saw the displays. The Apple Store at Tysons Corner just got them. They had both the 20 and 23-inch ones. I was very impressed.

The color is uniform, no hotspots, and the viewing angle is excellent -- perhaps a tad worse than my 20-inch Cinema, but excellent nonetheless. I dragged some windows around to check pixel refresh (window boarders usually betray slow pixel refresh by ghosting all over the place) and saw virtually no ghosting. Very nice! I wish Apple loaded some first shooter game to test the alleged 16-millisecond pixel response.

The white point is decent: better that the 23-inch cinema, but not quite as good as my 20. Color saturation, vibrancy was good; again the older 20-inch cinema display looks a little better to me, but the current crop is still superior to anything else I've seen.

Brightness and contrast seemed very good, especially brightness.

One final thing of note is that there does not seem to be any difference between the displays in terms of quality/color/white point. The new 20 and 23 seem to be made of the same components, only one is bigger than the other. This was not the case with the 20 and 23 plastic cinema displays: the 20 was noticeably better than the 23.

The only thing that I did not like all that much was the feel of the plastics used for the display. The bezel looks very nice; it's thin and matches the G5s perfectly. But when touched, the bezel feels sort of dinky.

These are my impressions.

[NosferaDrew]

Originally Posted by EDS66 I wish Apple loaded some first shooter game to test the alleged 16-millisecond pixel response.

UT2004 plays beautifully on my 23".
I've played on older, smaller flat panels and compared to this one, it's night and day.

[EDS66]

Originally Posted by NosferaDrew UT2004 plays beautifully on my 23". I've played on older, smaller flat panels and compared to this one, it's night and day.

Very nice!

[Moogs]

That is seriously impressive looking.

Note: EDS, the new 23" display is 20 cd/m2 brighter than the 20" model, though I don't know how that translates when viewed under the brigh flourescent lights of retail land... either way, by definition the 23" and 30" models should have a slightly larger gamut than the 20" model.

[psmith2.0]

In all seriousness, what is realistically the limit or shortcomings I'm going to experience with 64MB graphics, trying to drive a 20" or 23" new Cinema Display?

Would closing the PowerBook make a difference?

What about using it open, in spanning mode?

I don't imagine a problem with the 20", but I've heard talk about the other. Can 64MB comfortably drive a 15" PowerBook AND a 23" Cinema Display, with no noticeable loss of performance or response?

I'm guessing no, but I really don't know...

Would LIKE to know, as I'm coming up on a tidy little sum from some side work...

[EDS66]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 In all seriousness, what is realistically the limit or shortcomings I'm going to experience with 64MB graphics, trying to drive a 20" or 23" new Cinema Display? Would closing the PowerBook make a difference? What about using it open, in spanning mode? I don't imagine a problem with the 20", but I've heard talk about the other. Can 64MB comfortably drive a 15" PowerBook AND a 23" Cinema Display, with no noticeable loss of performance or response? I'm guessing no, but I really don't know... Would LIKE to know, as I'm coming up on a tidy little sum from some side work...

None in terms of speed/work flow. Perhaps some slow-down when using expose with lots of windows.

My opinion.

[EDS66]

Originally Posted by Moogs That is seriously impressive looking. Note: EDS, the new 23" display is 20 cd/m2 brighter than the 20" model, though I don't know how that translates when viewed under the brigh flourescent lights of retail land... either way, by definition the 23" and 30" models should have a slightly larger gamut than the 20" model.

May very well be.

But my 20 has sharper colors and more natural white point than the new Apple displays.

This is uncontestable.

PS: Moogs which 20 are you talking about? I did not see any difference (subjectively) in brightness between the new 20 and 23.

[Moogs]

Was talking about the new 20 having slightly lower maximum brightness / white point. BTW White point is an arbitrary thing; there is no "natural" or "unnatural" unless you're considering anything in the range of 5000 - 6500K as "natural" and everything else "unnatural". As for colors, do you mean they're more saturated? Are the monitors you compared both calibrated in the same way and sitting inthe same ambient light? There are lots of factors that might lead me to believe such claims can be contested....

I would be surprised if in a neutral room with 5000K ambient light, the new displays didn't perform a little better color-wise. Not a lot. I mean the specs are pretty close except for response time, but LCDs have gotten better over the last two years, and presumeably they're using the same or equally good suppliers.

[EDS66]

Originally Posted by Moogs Have you viewed them in teh same environment / multiple environments? Sometimes retail outlets do a crappy job of calibrating monitors for their overhead lights, etc. I would be surprised if in a neutral room with 5000K ambient light, the new displays didn't perform a little better color-wise. Not a lot. I mean the specs are pretty close except for response time, but LCDs have gotten better over the last two years, and presumeably they're using the same or equally good suppliers.

I am telling you the old 20 is better. Not because I have it but because it's just better. But it's also slow and has a big bezel. Alas.

i am going to buy the new 23 regardless simply because of the aesthetics.

[Moogs]

OK. You can tell me that all you like (and be very confident in your assertion) but I have studied a lot of color theory and color management techniques, and I'm telling you: your eyes can play tricks on you if the displays being compared aren't in the same room at the same time, under the same ambient light, with hardware calibrated profiles.

Seriously, the old 20 is an excellent display by all accounts. I have no doubt. However, you cannot judge the color purity or brightness charcteristics of an LCD in a retail store. You just can't. They are rarely calibrated, always in crappy lighting conditions and there can be power supply issues too with lots of monitors drawing from one outlet, etc.

[EDS66]

Originally Posted by Moogs OK. You can tell me that all you like (and be very confident in your assertion) but I have studied a lot of color theory and color management techniques, and I'm telling you: your eyes can play tricks on you if the displays being compared aren't in the same room at the same time, under the same ambient light, with hardware calibrated profiles. Seriously, the old 20 is an excellent display by all accounts. I have no doubt. However, you cannot judge the color purity or brightness charcteristics of an LCD in a retail store. You just can't. They are rarely calibrated, always in crappy lighting conditions and there can be power supply issues too with lots of monitors drawing from one outlet, etc.

Could be.

But I tell you the white point on the old 20 is colder and more natural than on the new 20. The old white point leans towads the blue -- which is how I like it -- the new, towards the red. I don't like that.

As far as manipulating the color profile...I don't know. I don't think there is much you can do with a TFT. My opionion.

All that said, I feel that the new displays are very good; the 23-inch unit especially.

[curiousuburb]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 In all seriousness, what is realistically the limit or shortcomings I'm going to experience with 64MB graphics, trying to drive a 20" or 23" new Cinema Display? Would closing the PowerBook make a difference? What about using it open, in spanning mode? I don't imagine a problem with the 20", but I've heard talk about the other. Can 64MB comfortably drive a 15" PowerBook AND a 23" Cinema Display, with no noticeable loss of performance or response? I'm guessing no, but I really don't know... Would LIKE to know, as I'm coming up on a tidy little sum from some side work...

Barefeats compares the upgraded 15Al with 128MB VRAM and 5400rpm drive vs identical 'stock' 64MB 15 with 4200rpm drive (both driving a 23")

YMMV.

[tood]

Originally Posted by EDS66 Could be. But I tell you the white point on the old 20 is colder and more natural than on the new 20. The old white point leans towads the blue -- which is how I like it -- the new, towards the red. I don't like that. As far as manipulating the color profile...I don't know. I don't think there is much you can do with a TFT. My opionion. All that said, I feel that the new displays are very good; the 23-inch unit especially.

moogs is right wrt casual visual perception being unreliable. the white point is easily set by the user in system prefs > displays > color tab > calibrate... > expert mode. you are correct that out of the box they seem to be reddish. that was my experience at the emeryville apple store, but i re-calibrated their 23" display while i was standing there and it's now a gorgeous 6500° neutral white. if they could not be recalibrated this way, they would be worthless, imo.

i'm not sure why you're of the opinion that tfts are not color adjustable - it's a digital interface, so all the system needs to do is adjust the rgb output values to the display based on the curves generated in the calibration procedure. it's true that you can't adjust under/overscan, position, rotation, barrel/pincushion distortion and rgb alignment as you can on a crt, but all of those characteristics are always perfect on an lcd.

[Moogs]

Welcome to the forums, tood.

Thinking of making a purchase by chance? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts if you did get one, in terms of how they perform once calibrated, in a variety of environments. Particularly color-critical environments like graphic design. The more opinions we can get from users the better, as it will help everyone make the best buying decision.

[psmith2.0]

Well, I'm getting one. No prob, really, on the 20". Anyone care to convince me to get a 23"? Or to not? What's everyone's opinion on the whole thing, 20" vs. 23" (and factoring in price, how I'll be driving it, etc.).

1.25GHz PowerBook G4 with 64MB ATi something-or-other...although for any future PowerBook purchase, I'll be springing for the 128MB VRAM option (if it's not already the default configuration).

Going to 23" worth the extra $700 in anyone's opinion? Worth it for "future-proofing" reasons, maybe? A couple of years from now, a 23" will still be seen as a big-ass, usable display? Or is the 20" - and it's $1299 price - the agreed-upon sweet spot of the bunch?

I could go either way, to be honest...especially after spending some time with that 23" last weekend.

Could get the 20" tomorrow, if I wanted. But do I do another freelance gig or two and spring for the 23"?

What would you do, if money for the 20" were no object...and money for the 23" is gotten fairly easily (within a month, maybe).

[Moogs]

Think Photoshop Palettes. With a 23" display you can actually afford to have a row of them open at all times and still have large image magnification settings active. Not to mention multi-spread space for print work.

Common admit it; you know you're trying to talk yourself into it. Get the 23... the 23... it's calling your name.

[MacUsers]

Im debating on the same thing right now... but I'm probably going to go for the 20" and get a good printer or something for the rest. $700 is so much money and it's not that big of a difference I guess. I think I'm convincing myself to get the 20" now.. but I'm still not sure myself. Choices choices.

[tood]

Originally Posted by Moogs Welcome to the forums, tood. Thinking of making a purchase by chance? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts if you did get one, in terms of how they perform once calibrated, in a variety of environments. Particularly color-critical environments like graphic design. The more opinions we can get from users the better, as it will help everyone make the best buying decision.

i am going in for the 23". i would have tried to stretch to the 30" if it could be driven by my 1GHz Ti PB. the radeon mobility 9000 in it maxes out at 2048 x 1536, but there's really not much out there in lcd at that resolution. there's the totoku ccl316, but it's not the prettiest, it's not too easy to go see one in person, i don't like buying displays sight unseen, and the pixels are packed especially tight @ 20.8". so, i'll settle for 1920 x 1200. the 17" eizo tx-c7s crt on my desk has deteriorated to the point of noticeable phosphor burnout - i really stretched it beyond its useful life in holding out for apple's display revision. i'm glad i did now that the nightmare of adc has officially past...

the studio it will be in has 12 windows, so i will be able to use it in a variety of lighting conditions throught the day without moving it, and i'm a designer by trade, so i should be able to give you reasonable info when i have it. of course, by the time i receive it, it may be old news. the order won't be placed until next week.

[tood]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 Well, I'm getting one. No prob, really, on the 20". Anyone care to convince me to get a 23"? Or to not? What's everyone's opinion on the whole thing, 20" vs. 23" (and factoring in price, how I'll be driving it, etc.).

pscates, i've seen your work. you are 23" worthy. you do pay a premium for it in the near term (it's 30% larger in pixels, but about 50% larger in dollars), but it's a purchase that will last over several machines. if you look at it as a 5 year purchase, the difference in dollars is only about 12 bucks a month, but the difference in pleasure between the two is going to be worth much more than that. to me anyway, there's never enough room. the display is the computer.

[Moogs]

That's a good way to rationalize the extra expense I'd say. And it's true: the monitor is probably the single biggest element of computer usability for many workflows. And truthfully, I think the 30" might be overkill in the sense that most people - at common viewing distances - will have to swivel their head slightly to see the tools / items that reside near either edge of the screen.

I've worked on the old 23" ACD a fair amount, and the 22" also. I think the 23" is just about the perfect blend of "big screen real estate" and not having to move anything but your eyes. The ideal would be about 24 or 25" IMO. I'm actually kind of surprised Apple jumped up that high (30") from 23.

Sounds like you've got a pretty slick work environment. Look forward to hearing your thoughts once you receive the display....

[psmith2.0]

Originally Posted by tood pscates, i've seen your work. you are 23" worthy.

Well hell, that's better than being "sponge worthy"!

[Mac+]

I dunno 'scatesy - if Elaine Benes had given me the nod I'd have taken that as a higher compliment!

[moazam]

I'm going to be deciding between the 23" LCD and the 30" LCD soon and have a question about the "HD" designation. Please don't flame as I know *nothing* about HDTV/HD other then it's a very nice digital signal TV or something.

So my question is, can I use these displays as HDTV displays? i.e., Can I use them standalone to watch fancy TV? What do I need, some sort of receiver? Where does the TV cable plug into the monitors (I dont recall seeing any TV looking ports on these LCDs)?

Or, does this "HD" designation on these LCDs have nothing to do with HDTV?

Thanks

-M

[Barracuda]

I took a look at the new displays at an Apple store today, and while I like the design quite a bit, I wasn't impressed with the viewing quality of the screens. For instance, the browser windows in Safari looked all washed out, ie: the metal imprinted name of the webpage on top of the browser window was really pale and not very bold. I adjusted the display brightness and it had a spotlight effect leaving the corners of the screens not adjusting as much as the middle...I thought that was TERRIBLE!!! Maybe I'm just used to my old La Cie CRT...it's crystal clear and has much more definition!!! As an artist who notices these kinds of things, I'm just wondering if this is my artist's eye, or maybe the lighting itself is too bright in the Apple store? Can anyone tell me if they have noticed this when they got there display home and in a working environment? The funny thing is, I didn't notice this on the old model flat panel displays in the Apple Store as much. In fact, the 20" iMac display quality was gorgeous, as well as the old 20' Flat panel display! But I think the displays in general would look much better in the Apple Stores, with different kinds of lighting. I also think the notebooks should be closer to eye level instead of hunkering down over the table to look at them.

[Moogs]

I'm pretty sure Apple stores use some type of Halogen or Flourescent lighting. Very bright, and much more a blueish cast on their products than a yellow one. This would probably have the effect of making any LCD look slightly flat (because the lights are so intense and everything around you is white).

Another possibility: poorly calibrated or just defective. That said, no LCD is going to compare to a Sony Artisan or other expensive CRT. It should be pretty comparable to LaCie's stuff or Mitsubishi though (which is what I have).

[Satchmo]

I don't want to put a damper on things here, but I'm wondering how these new displays hold up against those from Sony w/X-brite technology.

Also, given some comments on the heat generated, why didn't Apple add some tiny perforated holes on the top rear portion of the display (like the previous 20")?

That said, if I had the money, I'd buy one in a heartbeat.

[Moogs]

What?! No speed holes??

That's it... I'm not buying one now.


Side Note: NEC will be releasing a high definition LCD for graphic designers which will encompass 100% of the Adobe RGB98 color space and then some. This screen might be preferable to Apple's newest models for designers, however it's likely to use 4:3 format and to have a poor response time (20ms+) relative to other new screens. Should be out around the end of the year.

[nguyenhm16]

Originally Posted by moazam Or, does this "HD" designation on these LCDs have nothing to do with HDTV?

It just means that it can display HD video at full resolution (e.g. 1920x1080 pixels is one of the official HDTV resolutions) or better.

On a related note, lots of HDTV tuners, DVD players, etc. have DVI output. However, it's questionable if they work w/ Cinema Displays (or other computer displays) since many of those devices encrypt the DVI output with HDCP copy protection, at the behest of the MPAA, of course.