Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

rtdunham · Mar 7, 2002, 01:10 PM

I've been waiting to buy a cinema display and finally put thru the sell order on some apple stock, to finance that purchase. Then two days ago the Wall Street Journal runs an article on how to choose the right LCD monitor. The cinema display falls short on a number of the standards in the article. For example:
Brightness: "The best choice is 250 nits or higher." The cinema display is rated at 180.
Contrast: "Look for screens with at least a 350:1 ratio." The cinema display is rated at 300.
I couldn't find info on the cinema display's pixel pitch or response time, but i remember something about Adaptec's new 17.4" being much faster. I'll be using the monitor to edit video, among other tasks.
So my question is whether the cinema display is overrated. How good is it, really, compared to apple's 17" or Adaptec's or Samsung's, which are also of some interest to me.
I've heard so much raving about it, and it looks great to my eye, in the store, at macworld expos, etc. But I hate to ignore objective data. Is this all one more distored reality field?
I'd really appreciate the opinions of those more knowledgeable and more experienced.
thanks.
Terry

mitchell_pgh · Mar 7, 2002, 01:51 PM

I consider the 22" LCD a wonderful piece of engineering. I have yet to see a mass produced LCD like it. On the other side, I would NEVER buy one. Consider me old fashioned, but I could buy 3 21" CRT screens and an extra video card for that amount of money... For video editing, I have heard that the hues can be an issue. The LCD is better on the eyes, and they look damn cool, but not for the +300% price tag...

Moderator · Mar 7, 2002, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
 The LCD is better on the eyes, and they look damn cool, but not for the +300% price tag...

Then add the Apple premium to that...

jeffs7364 · Mar 7, 2002, 02:25 PM

Okay, okay they're pricey BUT......they are the *best* LCD i've ever used and I came from the 17" studio which IMHO is a great screen. Once you use a 22 incher you'll get dizzy, your wallet will become blurry and you'll remove vast amounts of cash to get one. Seriously though, with the additional real estate the 22" affords me I can really sort through all the palettes/windows I'm using and my eyes can get really comfortable while working for long stretches.

Mack · Mar 7, 2002, 04:36 PM

Of all the computer gear I've bought over the past fifteen years, the Cinema Display is the best investment of all. The wide screen real estate really spoils you - plenty of room for Photoshop or Final Cut Pro, or a Word document and your web browser. And the screen image is fantastic. Some of the newer LCDs may have better specs, but none beats the Cinema Display for overall quality.

PeteWK · Mar 7, 2002, 05:50 PM

I don't own a 22inch display. But I've read that the larger displays tend to have less impressive specs than most of the smaller ones. I think it has to do with physics and or engineering. Any engineers like to comment?

PeteWK

XPBlows · Mar 7, 2002, 06:47 PM

I don't believe it is. I love the thing... lots of space... if I could afford it...I'd get 2.

infowarrior · Mar 7, 2002, 08:54 PM

I got a Cinema Display in December 2001 and quickly forgot about my 21" Sony display. Not only is the desktop real estate cleaner, but the LCD is WONDERFULLY EASY on the eyes, crystal clear, and when doing work, 4 people can sit in front of it - the oblique viewing angle of the Cinema Display is the most clear I've seen - eg, if you're 120 degrees off-center, it's still a damn nice picture!

I just wish I could have multiple boxes hooked up to the cinema - it's a pain to keep plugging and unpluging between my machines if I need to do work on other boxen beside my main desktop.

KidRed · Mar 7, 2002, 09:07 PM

I never saw it to be overrated over even rated at that. But, you couldn't pry mine from my dead body, it's fricking huge and fricking gorgeous.

My only complaint is the contrast ratio could higher higher at 350:1 like the 17'.

OwlBoy · Mar 8, 2002, 07:21 AM

they are AWSOME!

-Owl

joe · Mar 8, 2002, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by rtdunham:
I couldn't find info on the cinema display's pixel pitch or response time, but i remember something about Adaptec's new 17.4" being much faster. I'll be using the monitor to edit video, among other tasks.
So my question is whether the cinema display is overrated. How good is it, really, compared to apple's 17" or Adaptec's or Samsung's, which are also of some interest to me.
I've heard so much raving about it, and it looks great to my eye, in the store, at macworld expos, etc. But I hate to ignore objective data. Is this all one more distored reality field?
I'd really appreciate the opinions of those more knowledgeable and more experienced.

I think you mean Formac's 17.4" Gallery 1740 with MVA tech. I've never seen one in person, but it sounds excellent. I use to own the 22" ACD and it was absolutely stunning in person. It really is better than any LCD I've seen or used at work in terms of image quality. Color accuracy seemed excellent on my 22" ACD and Quake3 kicked butt in wide screen mode (500MHz Radeon Cube). I'd like to try out the Formac Gallery though. From the specs, it sounds like the next step in LCD design......joe

NeoMac · Mar 8, 2002, 10:11 PM

If you had ever seen a 22" Apple Cinema Display in person, you'd never ask such a question.

jcadam · Mar 8, 2002, 10:52 PM

You could TWO 17" ACD's AND one DVI-ator for less than the price of one 22-incher.

Hmmmm..............

yukon · Mar 9, 2002, 10:34 AM

If it's old technology, then why doesn't apple update it? Thats one hell of a lot of cash for "outdated" tech.

aehaas · Mar 9, 2002, 07:23 PM

My MarkLevenson stereo amplifier has something as 0.1 percent distortion while several Radio Shack ones have less than 0.01 percent distortion and cost $6,000 less. The ML sounds far better.

I had a 21" CRT then went to a 22" Cinema. I have now several other small LCD's too. All the smaller, non-Apple ones have much better specs on paper but do not look as good while using them. One of my screens was advertised as a 400:1 contrast ratio and in use has the least contrast.

Conclusion: Get other peoples opinions, look at them side by side, do not rely on manufactures specs. They are basically meaningless most of the time.

ali

Mac Zealot · Mar 10, 2002, 01:36 AM

i've used a lot of LCD's now, of course not as many as some people, but no matter what, the cinema display is perfect. Not too bright, not too sharp, not too small a resolution, etc.

It's beautiful, and because it's a wide angle, looks really impressive.

I enjoy my setup, besides, the -wow- effect is waaay stronger on a cinema display than 2 17" monitors for some reason....

There's another advantage! You have one menu bar for the whole viewing area!

It's amazing how something so big and beautiful can be only under 2" thick and hardly weigh 22lbs. I have mine on a glass desk and it looks futuristic at night when I have the lights on in here, the light bouncing off the table and shining up through the monitor.

If you look at the back of one at night, and take a good look, you'll notice that the light flows through the plastic enough to see the apple logo's edges lit up

It wants you, and your $2500!!!

mathew_m · Mar 10, 2002, 03:51 PM

I agree that those who have never set eyes on the Cinema Display do not know what they are talking about. Yes it is expensive but so are those 40" flat panel plasma displays for $10,000. You pay a price for convience. Quit complaining. If you spend ample amounts of time in front of your computer and do photoshop or video work then there really is no other option. If you want 100% color accuracy you can always hook up an external CRT or NTSC monitor. All professional production companies do this anyway. The one thing holding me back is the thought recieving one with dead pixels. Now that would irk me.

tyoda · Mar 10, 2002, 04:12 PM

Not sure about those "nit" specs that are claiming to be ideal in an LCD monitor. I have the 17" Apple LCD, which does have slightly better contrast ratio & brighter, but honestly, unless you're working in a very bright sunlit room or office, I end up running this display at about half brightness in the monitor control panel. Full brightness is just way too harsh, but nice to know it can go there if needed.

danbrew · Mar 10, 2002, 04:44 PM

The 22" ACD is the best display I've ever seen - much less used...

It's easy on the eyes, has a fantastic viewing angle, and is a huge space-saver. Frankly you'll forget that you paid $2500 for it a few days after you do so -- and if you time it right, you can get it for $2000 with the Apple rebate.

My only complaint is that there are no elegant KVM switches out that support the ACD - sure you can a bunch of converters and the switch from Dr. Bott (or Geffen?), but the net is that solution only supports two machines and is just a mess. I'm waiting with baited breath for the KVM switch that will allow me to use mutiple macs *and* PCs with the ACD - that would be too cool.

lavar78 · Mar 10, 2002, 10:28 PM

I just visited the Apple Store in Columbus. As I was staring in awe at the 22" Cinema Display, I was trying to calculate how many days I had to eat Ramen noodles so I could afford to one. I think it has a stronger RDF than Jobs himself!

BigMark · Mar 11, 2002, 03:34 AM

Originally posted by lavar78:
I just visited the Apple Store in Columbus. As I was staring in awe at the 22" Cinema Display, I was trying to calculate how many days I had to eat Ramen noodles so I could afford to one. I think it has a stronger RDF than Jobs himself!

Heh heh- that made me chuckle. Reminded me of my student days. Oh, hold on.....I'm still poor.
D'oh.

Brit Ben · Mar 11, 2002, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by mathew_m:
I agree that those who have never set eyes on the Cinema Display do not know what they are talking about. Yes it is expensive but so are those 40" flat panel plasma displays for $10,000.

Oh you mean like the Sony 42" plasma display that now has a street price of $5999. How about one of those hanging on a wall of your home office ?

Shame that the res is only 1024 x 768.

Ben.

Stoopid · Mar 11, 2002, 10:27 AM

I'm sure apple will be reducing the price of the 22" ACD... right after you buy yours

jtc · Mar 11, 2002, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by rtdunham:
Brightness: "The best choice is 250 nits or higher." The cinema display is rated at 180.
Contrast: "Look for screens with at least a 350:1 ratio." The cinema display is rated at 300.

Is there a local compusa where you can check one out? If I were shelling out $2500 for a display, I would definitely go to see it in person before buying.

As for the nit scale, remember that this is a logarithmic scale - so a display would have to be rated 1,800 to look twice as bright as the ACD. IOW, there isn't a big difference between 180 and 250.