[michael180]

My 30 Cinema display quit. Now I would like to find a 24 - 30 display to replace it.

Any suggestions?

[mduell]

Dell's new U3011... pretty much the same as the 30" ACD but brigher, with more input options, a 3 year warranty, and $1500.

Or Dell's 27", again very similar to Apple's 27".

[angelmb]

Since we don't know which purpose should the display serve, these listed below are top-notch.

Eizo product finder, comes in handy.

NEC pro series.

[olePigeon]

I just got an HP ZR24W. It's 1920x1200, 8-bit, S-IPS display. No color shifting and no backlight bleed. Has VGA, DVI, and Display Port (plus a couple USB ports.)

I got mine for $350 on sale with free shipping and no tax on an eBay store. I'm very happy with it, especially for the price.

[Waragainstsleep]

Whats wrong with the Apple one?

[michael180]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Whats wrong with the Apple one?

Noting. I just don't know about the glossy screen. While I'm not a professional, I do work with Photoshop, for my digital photography. I just wanted to hear about other options.

[reader50]

It's possible Waragainstsleep was asking what was wrong with your existing Apple 30". It may be economical to fix it, especially for monitors in this size / quality range. Cable, power supply, backlight. All those can be changed.

Now if you put a fist through the screen and motherboard, that would be different. And we'd love to see a picture of it.

[Veltliner]

NEC and Eizo.

LaCie used to be top, too, but haven't heard much of them lately.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by michael180 

I just don't know about the glossy screen. While I'm not a professional, I do work with Photoshop, for my digital photography.

Exactly. Glossy is fine for email, office, web, movies, games, but for dealing with images it just is not good to have the display add contrast and saturation.

Look at Eizo and NEC.

-Allen

[Googer-Giger]

I am actually checking out the Eizo displays too, but I am a beginner when it comes to displays. What is the difference between the IPS and VA panels? I am guessing the IPS in the ColorEdge is better? I do graphic design and a lot of aperture, so I can't stand glossy either.

[OreoCookie]

I can whole-heartedly recommend Eizo: I have a 22" Eizo LCD and I love it! It's very sturdily built, I could get one in black (yay, no gray!) and the panel is first-rate.

With regards to glossy screens, it's a misnomer that they `add' contrast and saturation: the panel technology is the same, they are just missing a few compensator foils in between which make the screen matte, but also absorb some of the light. This is what makes matte screens less contrasty and saturated. In any case, my external matte Eizo monitor is more saturated and contrasty than my glossy 15" ProBook HD screen (I have a 15" Core i5 model from 2010).

I'm an avid amateur photographer and while I wouldn't trust any notebook screen (no matter if it is matte or glossy) in color accuracy, the (glossy) ProBook screen is great for a notebook screen. In 95 % of the cases, I don't mind it's glassy.

[Waragainstsleep]

I was actually referring to the 27", though repairing the 30" might be a good idea. As long as the panel isn't cracked, it could very well be worthwhile looking to fix it.

As for the glossy panels, I heard this argument alot. Unless you are producing images for books or magazines or printed posters, I personally think the colour/contrast arguments are a bit of a non-issue. Especially if the screen is situated where it can be properly lit.

[olePigeon]

All the panels are made by LG, what's the main difference between Eizo and LaCie if they use the same panel as an HP or Apple?

[P]

Originally Posted by Googer-Giger 

I am actually checking out the Eizo displays too, but I am a beginner when it comes to displays. What is the difference between the IPS and VA panels? I am guessing the IPS in the ColorEdge is better? I do graphic design and a lot of aperture, so I can't stand glossy either.

VA is a decent replacement for IPS. It has worse refresh rates and higher color shifting when you move your head, but it's still a massive step up from TN. I wouldn't recommend them for photo work or gaming, but if budget is tight they might be an option.

[Googer-Giger]

You mean no VA? Or no Eizo altogether?

[P]

I mean no VA. The brand on the bezel has zero consequence to me - I don't know enough about current trends in who is on top to pick a panel based on that.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by P 

I mean no VA. The brand on the bezel has zero consequence to me - I don't know enough about current trends in who is on top to pick a panel based on that.

How would you research the panels and who's best?

My next computer is still some time away but, you know, shopping around is almost like buying.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

Exactly. Glossy is fine for email, office, web, movies, games, but for dealing with images it just is not good to have the display add contrast and saturation.

This makes absolutely no sense to me.

The displays ARE ABLE to display deeper contrast and saturation. If they're properly calibrated, there's no reason to expect they should ADD anything beyond what's there.

They're precisely NOT like an Ektachrome or Velvia film in this regard.

There's good reasons against glossy displays, but the greater contrast and saturation equate to greater RANGE, which is a good thing.

In my understanding, matte displays are fine for print work, as paper has much lower contrast and saturation than modern screens, anyway.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

This makes absolutely no sense to me.

The displays ARE ABLE to display deeper contrast and saturation. If they're properly calibrated, there's no reason to expect they should ADD anything beyond what's there.

They're precisely NOT like an Ektachrome or Velvia film in this regard.

There's good reasons against glossy displays, but the greater contrast and saturation equate to greater RANGE, which is a good thing.

In my understanding, matte displays are fine for print work, as paper has much lower contrast and saturation than modern screens, anyway.

It's not that glossy displays have a greater range of contrast.

They just increase the contrast on anything you look at on them.

Like sunglasses do not increase the contrast your eyes can perceive - they only make things look more contrasty.

[Spheric Harlot]

You can't calibrate your eyes.

You CAN calibrate a glossy display.

Are you saying that the top-notch display calibration devices are LYING when they claim accuracy?
That they are unable to compensate for the higher contrast and saturation?

That's the part that makes absolutely no sense.

People keep repeating a mantra about oversaturation, and it hasn't been true for at least three years - since calibration devices were adapted to glossy surfaces.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

It's not that glossy displays have a greater range of contrast.

They actually do have more contrast and a larger gamut if you compare them to the matte counterpart (i. e. a matte screen with the same panel). But that's usually not considered to be a bad thing, especially after you calibrate the screen it turns into an advantage.

The glossy ≠ professional sounds like the argument some 10 years ago that only CRTs could be used and trusted for serious graphics work.

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

They just increase the contrast on anything you look at on them.

Then how come my glossy screen is less contrasty and saturated than my matte external screen?

[P]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

How would you research the panels and who's best?

My next computer is still some time away but, you know, shopping around is almost like buying.

I usually just Google for impressions. I'm not picky about these things, and it's only in the last few years that I've started to bother at all. Hey, I thought my 17" G5 iMac looked great for a long time (the backlight is kinda going now), and that's a 6 bit TN panel

[SierraDragon]

Granted I have not personally tried A-B calibrating glossy vs. matte on the latest displays, because I do not own glossy. So maybe the latest and greatest glossy displays actually are different. But I doubt it, because it is not about easily measurable parameters, it is about eyeball preferences; meaning yes most consumers can prefer glossy while most image pros can prefer matte.

What I observe after comparing matte displays visually against iMac displays multiple times in different store venues, as well as using other folks glossy displays that were presumably properly calibrated, is that the feel of contrast, saturation and gloss/reflection on the iMac is grossly unacceptable to me. I have not yet done the comparing on the new glossy ACDs.

The same photo viewed on the iMac to me looks more closely to what it will look like printed on Epson Premium Photo Glossy, whereas on the matte display that photo looks more closely to what it will look like printed on Epson Premium Lustre. Personally I generally dislike glossy photo prints as too garish. That same feel while using a glossy display for images work absolutely grates on my brain. Obviously most of the marketplace does not feel that same discomfort from glossy - but many other image pros also do. I simply suggest that everyone do their own prepurchase A-B visual comparisons.

-Allen

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

They're precisely NOT like an Ektachrome or Velvia film in this regard...
In my understanding, matte displays are fine for print work...

In professional images work print is indeed what we measure to, and why I prefer matte. Computer display (i.e. web) is decidely the low end, almost always consumed at lowered resolution lossy JPEG on all manner of uncalibrated displays and weird viewing conditions.

When I am preparing an image I want my eyes and my clients' eyes to be generally receiving a representative soft proof impression from the display, with the error (and there is always error) on the less "pop" side of things. Especially for non-professional clients I do not want the client to whine "Why does the print not have as much "pop" as the screen proof we approved?"

To my eyes/brain after shooting many thousands of frames of both types, and decades Photoshopping images, the visual difference glossy/matte is very similar to the visual difference chrome/Portra. The eyes/brain of any other individual may of course perceive differently.

-Allen

[Spheric Harlot]

That makes sense and explains your preference, thank you.

My impression is that for a lot of people, matte is simply what they're used to. Most workspaces have controlled lighting and will be set up for optimum working conditions - it's rare that direct lighting can't be adjusted, or that your only option is with your back to a window.

Also, I've found that "traditional" graphics guys - the ones still involved in high-quality print stuff - are among the most utterly reactionary people in the world. They'll go nuts if their favorite 2B pencil manufacturer changes the color of the coating, or if somebody puts three ten-pixel colored gumdrops in the upper left of their screen.

[Spheric Harlot]

Oh, and:

LaCie intros very color-accurate 24-inch LCD with IPS | Electronista

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

What I observe after comparing matte displays visually against iMac displays multiple times in different store venues, as well as using other folks glossy displays that were presumably properly calibrated, is that the feel of contrast, saturation and gloss/reflection on the iMac is grossly unacceptable to me. I have not yet done the comparing on the new glossy ACDs.

Again, my matte display is superior to my glossy display in every respect -- except for the deepness of blacks (which increases contrast). It's more contrasty and has a larger gamut which makes things appear more saturated than on my MacBook Pro's built-in screen.

There is a lot of false statements floating around the web on glossy displays -- among them `cannot be calibrated' and `adds contrast and saturation.' The former is wrong, because people have successfully calibrated their glossy screens (including myself). Sometimes people would complain they would not get consistent results, but in most cases, that was due to incident light. Glossy displays are indeed more prone to glare and the light in the room can perhaps confuse the sensor of the colorimeter. However, according to the manual of at least my Color Spyder (and I don't think other hardware calibration tools are any different in that respect), direct light on the screen should be avoided regardless of whether your screen has a matte or glossy finish. I for my part, have seen no difference calibrating a glossy screen compared to calibrating a matte screen.

The points about saturation and contrast I've tried to address.

I can understand people very, very well who prefer matte displays because they don't want to live with reflections. This is particularly true for graphics pros where the color of your shirt may have an effect on the image you edit. Depending on what kind of work, this may be a serious limitation. I have two friends who couldn't live with their glossy displays and ordered the matte MacBook Pro screen in their next machine. On the other hand, I ordered a glassy display on purpose so I could judge whether or not I like it. (One of the main reasons is that I have always hated how dust collected in the corners of the frame. The glassy screen is much easier to clean.)

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

The same photo viewed on the iMac to me looks more closely to what it will look like printed on Epson Premium Photo Glossy, whereas on the matte display that photo looks more closely to what it will look like printed on Epson Premium Lustre.

… and you choose paper type according to personal preference and the image you would like to have printed. But there is no right or wrong here. (I personally prefer matte paper as well, my favorite being canvas actually )

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

When I am preparing an image I want my eyes and my clients' eyes to be generally receiving a representative soft proof impression from the display, with the error (and there is always error) on the less "pop" side of things. Especially for non-professional clients I do not want the client to whine "Why does the print not have as much "pop" as the screen proof we approved?"

But isn't that always true, regardless of whether the monitor's surface is glossy or matte? Modern (decent) monitors have a far larger gamut than printers so wouldn't they always appear more saturated on screen? That's why you can apply the printer's color profile to judge what the final result will look like, no?

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

...Modern (decent) monitors have a far larger gamut than printers so wouldn't they always appear more saturated on screen? That's why you can apply the printer's color profile to judge what the final result will look like, no?

Ideally yes; in actual practice, no, in my experience. However I am ignorant as to the very latest displays, and it is a field that has been improving rapidly. I gotta get out more...

-Allen

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

They actually do have more contrast and a larger gamut if you compare them to the matte counterpart (i. e. a matte screen with the same panel). But that's usually not considered to be a bad thing, especially after you calibrate the screen it turns into an advantage.

The glossy ≠ professional sounds like the argument some 10 years ago that only CRTs could be used and trusted for serious graphics work.

Then how come my glossy screen is less contrasty and saturated than my matte external screen?

It took a few years to get good LCD screens you could reliably work on.

From today's POV the CRTs have an awful picture.

Maybe we'll see the glossy display evolve as well.

I'm just judging from what I see from playing around in the Apple store.

I see that my images look better on the new 27" iMac than on my old 24" white iMac.

But what I still have trouble with is that there is something between me and the image.

Well, maybe I'll get the opportunity to try out one of the new, gloss screens for Photoshop work. A photographer friend just bought a 27" iMac. Too bad he's mostly working in black and white, so I can't really ask him.

[Spheric Harlot]

Well, the matte is just a coating between you and the display, as well…

I take it you don't wear glasses? Not taking the piss; just wondering if it's just a personal block, rather than an objectively measurable effect.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

From today's POV the CRTs have an awful picture.

True. And they were small!

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

Maybe we'll see the glossy display evolve as well.

There is no difference between the technology of glossy and matte displays, the panels are the same technology and you can use identical panels to make both, glossy and matte displays. The difference is the amount of compensator films that you put in between. There are even some displays that have both versions available, e. g. Apple's HD display in the 15" ProBook: identical panel, different finish. I also wouldn't be surprised if the panels Apple uses in its iMac and Cinema Displays to be used in other screens with matte finish.

Matte displays have additional compensators in between that scatter incident light in all directions. A light source in your back will appear as an oblique light source and specular reflection is strongly suppressed (specular reflection: incident angle = outgoing angle, like throwing a ball against a wall). Glossy displays are missing some of these additional layers. The advantage is that they have less layers which absorb light and you get more of the `true' performance of the panel. Less compensator films means that less light is scattered from the backlight and thus blacks tend to be `deeper' on glossy displays than on matte displays. If you take two identical panels, the glossy one will have a larger gamut, better contrast and deeper blacks.

If it weren't for the glossy finish, people (including graphics pros, of course) would love to get monitors with a larger gamut, better contrast and deeper blacks.

The lack of these filters means glossy displays do not diffuse incident light sources, but instead of glare on matte displays, you get sharp, pronounced reflections. I think the reason we didn't see glossy displays 5-6 years ago is that displays were too dark. Nowadays they are bright enough to overcome reflections.

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

But what I still have trouble with is that there is something between me and the image.

Technically, there is less between you and the image

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

Well, maybe I'll get the opportunity to try out one of the new, gloss screens for Photoshop work. A photographer friend just bought a 27" iMac. Too bad he's mostly working in black and white, so I can't really ask him.

I'm not trying to convert you, I'm trying to explain you the physics behind the difference of glossy and matte displays so that you can make an informed decision.

[P]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I take it you don't wear glasses? Not taking the piss; just wondering if it's just a personal block, rather than an objectively measurable effect.

Interesting point. I'm not really bothered with glare on my 27" iMac - perhaps it is because I do wear glasses and am used to certain amount of glare?

[Spheric Harlot]

Or it might just be a psychological effect - I don't usually have any glare from my glasses, but the idea of not wanting to work because there is something between my eyes and the display is obviously not an issue.

[OreoCookie]

Actually, the brain is rather quick filtering out a lot of this noise, it's really a miracle. Be it the frame of glasses or glare on one eye

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Well, the matte is just a coating between you and the display, as well…

I take it you don't wear glasses? Not taking the piss; just wondering if it's just a personal block, rather than an objectively measurable effect.

Let me ask my shrink.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

True. And they were small!

There is no difference between the technology of glossy and matte displays, the panels are the same technology and you can use identical panels to make both, glossy and matte displays. The difference is the amount of compensator films that you put in between. There are even some displays that have both versions available, e. g. Apple's HD display in the 15" ProBook: identical panel, different finish. I also wouldn't be surprised if the panels Apple uses in its iMac and Cinema Displays to be used in other screens with matte finish.

Matte displays have additional compensators in between that scatter incident light in all directions. A light source in your back will appear as an oblique light source and specular reflection is strongly suppressed (specular reflection: incident angle = outgoing angle, like throwing a ball against a wall). Glossy displays are missing some of these additional layers. The advantage is that they have less layers which absorb light and you get more of the `true' performance of the panel. Less compensator films means that less light is scattered from the backlight and thus blacks tend to be `deeper' on glossy displays than on matte displays. If you take two identical panels, the glossy one will have a larger gamut, better contrast and deeper blacks.

If it weren't for the glossy finish, people (including graphics pros, of course) would love to get monitors with a larger gamut, better contrast and deeper blacks.

The lack of these filters means glossy displays do not diffuse incident light sources, but instead of glare on matte displays, you get sharp, pronounced reflections. I think the reason we didn't see glossy displays 5-6 years ago is that displays were too dark. Nowadays they are bright enough to overcome reflections.

Technically, there is less between you and the image

I'm not trying to convert you, I'm trying to explain you the physics behind the difference of glossy and matte displays so that you can make an informed decision.

Not taking this as an attempt to convert me.

It's always good to take a fresh look at things.

That comment about glossy displays having less between me and the picture - that might save me two sessions (I feel much better now)

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Actually, the brain is rather quick filtering out a lot of this noise, it's really a miracle. Be it the frame of glasses or glare on one eye

Glasses may not be the right comparison.

I used to wear glasses. The rays of light breaking in a medium just before your eyes and creating a new image is definitely a different experience than seeing the world without glasses.

[Spheric Harlot]

Please Mr Veltliner, come, lie down on zis couch.

Now tell me about your name - vas it important zat it be an Austrian vine?

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Please Mr Veltliner, come, lie down on zis couch.

Now tell me about your name - vas it important zat it be an Austrian vine?

Please don't forget to put your teeth in before you speak.

[SVass]

Originally Posted by michael180 

My 30 Cinema display quit. Now I would like to find a 24 - 30 display to replace it.

Any suggestions?

Benq - Online Store

sam

[olePigeon]

The Benq is a TN display, it's not going to look as nice as his Cinema did.

[michael180]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Whats wrong with the Apple one?

This is what's happening

[reader50]

Is anyone else thinking GPU / VRAM problem?

I suggest plugging a different display in, and test your 30" with a different computer. It might not be the monitor.

[michael180]

Originally Posted by reader50 

Is anyone else thinking GPU / VRAM problem?

I suggest plugging a different display in, and test your 30" with a different computer. It might not be the monitor.

I did that, I tested it on my MBP, and after a while the same thing happened.

[SVass]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

The Benq is a TN display, it's not going to look as nice as his Cinema did.

I currently have a BenQ 24 inch display. The new 27 inch is only $350, has a pair of speakers, and has two HDMI inputs, component, and DVI. It even comes with cables. It would make a great tv set since my current one can display streaming HD video from ESPN3.

The whole thing depends on the intended usage for the display.
sam

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by michael180 

I did that, I tested it on my MBP, and after a while the same thing happened.

Shit.

[michael180]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Shit.

Dittos!

[reader50]

It's probably the board in the 30", or just possibly the cable. A repair might still be worth it, but is much more likely to be expensive. Check with a dealer with a service department, or a Genius Bar.

[AKcrab]

I noticed this in the other thread:

Originally Posted by michael180 

I did that, I tested it on my MBP, and after a while the same thing happened.

I bet it is the board in the display failing after it heats up.

Unfortunately service providers can't order parts for the 30". They are only allowed to facilitate a mail-in to Apple, which is done on a "tiered pricing".

Unless you can find your own parts and do your own work, it's going to end up being quite spendy.

[michael180]

Originally Posted by AKcrab 

I noticed this in the other thread:

I bet it is the board in the display failing after it heats up.

Unfortunately service providers can't order parts for the 30". They are only allowed to facilitate a mail-in to Apple, which is done on a "tiered pricing".

Unless you can find your own parts and do your own work, it's going to end up being quite spendy.

I've sort of accepted that. I would like to get the new Apple 27" display, I just don't know if I can cope with the glossy screen. I'm a serious amateur photography, and I maintain some webpages on classic films. The webpages look great on the glossy screen, but I don't know about the photos.

Thanks so much for your response.