 |
 |
Brighter Whites on 20" vs. 23"
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status:
Offline
|
|
Just got back from the Apple Store at the Grove in Los Angeles. Looked at a 23" Cinema Display side by side with a new 20". Both I and a number of employees marvelled at how much brighter and crisper the whites were on the new display.
According to specs the typical brightness on the 23" HD is 200 cd/m2 wheras the 20" boasts 230 cd/m2. I don't know what these measurements indicate, but the difference is really apparent.
Wondering if anybody else has noticed this. I was ready to go get a 23" HD. Now it's hard to justify when you know there's something with better image quality out there...
|
 "Pfft. I know a genuine Panaphonics when I see it. And look, there's Magnetbox and Sorny." -HJS
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Status:
Offline
|
|
But HOW much better? If you don't have something right next to it, isn't the 23 still a stunning display?
I guess I'm torn between the two, and want to justify spending all that dough on the big boy.  Seriously, though... Whenever I've seen a 23 I found it to be stunning, super bright, and HUGE. Would you still agree with that description?
Originally posted by ericwass:
Just got back from the Apple Store at the Grove in Los Angeles. Looked at a 23" Cinema Display side by side with a new 20". Both I and a number of employees marvelled at how much brighter and crisper the whites were on the new display.
According to specs the typical brightness on the 23" HD is 200 cd/m2 wheras the 20" boasts 230 cd/m2. I don't know what these measurements indicate, but the difference is really apparent.
Wondering if anybody else has noticed this. I was ready to go get a 23" HD. Now it's hard to justify when you know there's something with better image quality out there...
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status:
Offline
|
|
Therein lies the rub. The 23" HD IS a stunning display and, most likely, on its own you wouldn't notice the slightly dim whites. But it's a cruel psychological burden knowing that you might lay down $2000 for a monitor that isn't as good as something you've already seen. I'm not going to lie to you... it's a noticable difference. However, I think for my money I'd still choose the 23" simply because I already own a 19" CRT and I'm just not getting that much more screen real estate with a 20" even at the higher resolution. If I'm gonna drop down the cash, might as well make a big difference in my work environment. Yet as I write this I'm plagued by the idea of plunking down so much money for second best. Oy! So neurotic!
|
"Pfft. I know a genuine Panaphonics when I see it. And look, there's Magnetbox and Sorny." -HJS
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2002
Status:
Offline
|
|
Im between the 23'' and the 20''. I wondered the same questions as well. The 23'' is Huge!!! I would love to have it as my main display, but the idea of having 2 20'' side by side doesnt come off my mind! it would be wonderfull to have flash on one display and on the other i would have Fireworks or Dreamweaver. Its a Multitasking dream! But, are those 3'' noticable? I didnt had the chance of looking into the 20'', but from your reviews on its brightness im trully marveled with it. Probably the best buy is a 20'' for start, save some more money and then buy the 20'' and the Radeon 9700 Pro to support both displays, since my Quicksilver has this loosy GeForce 4 MX that has ADC and VGA. Can you guys tell more about the 20''? I would like to hear more reviews on it.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top
