I'm sorry if the info is here--I've been searching for days, but I can't find exactly what I am looking for.
I am buying a new Macpro and I'm about to get the refurbished 23" cinema display. Is there another model out there that is a LOT better for the same $750?
I'm not tied to 24", so is there an incredible 20" one out there? Every little bit helps since I'll need to get some extra ram and aperture as well.
Bottom line, nothing is a lot better than the Apple at the price (I don't even think anything is even slightly better at that price).
24" vs 20"...your call. The new NEC displays are getting rave reviews for their color accuracy and are in that range and are better than a 23" Apple. However I like the size of the larger lcds when using aperture. If you don't need the best in color accuracy (ie not sending files to big corporate clients) then the Apple will do quite well and the larger size will be very useful.
PS...Ram from www.transintl.com and Aperture 2.0 is out and only $200. So don't buy an off the shelf copy of 1.5 for $300!!
I have found the monitor reviews at www.prad.de very helpful. I have a NEC LCD2690WUXi (plus NEC Spectraview II software and an Eye-One Pro) and can recommend this monitor in the performance category one step up from those on your list.
The aforementioned NEC is very nice. I personally have a Samsung 245T, it's a hair cheaper than the NEC. Both are a step up from the Cinema display in every way but aesthetics.
UCSB: If you find those reviews happy, I take it you read German.
Am I missing some great source, or is the NEC LCD2690WUXi considerably more expensive than the Apple Cinema, and nearly twice the Samsung 245T?
Also, the NEC unit is listed as 26" on what I saw, and is still 1920x1200. For me, I like the finest pixel geometry I can get for image viewing. I won't buy an 18" or 19" because they have the same resolution as a 17", I won't buy a 21" because it has the same resolution as a 20", etc. I'm not going to spend >$1K on a display with fat pixels.
CTYankee: WTF? "Color Accuracy" in a monitor? Beyond calibrating with a competent package, and I would argue that the GM package with a photospectrometer is about as good as it gets, what is "color accuracy." If your Delta E is near ZIP, that's as accurate as it gets. "Color Accuracy" in my experience, even for corporate work with a color weenie wannabe in the loop is all about actual printed media and viewing in lightboxes.
christo™ wrote:
UCSB: If you find those reviews happy, I take it you read German.
Click on the English icon, then monitors and finally reviews. All of the reviews can be found in English. I like Prad because in many of the reviews have a link to their detailed actual calibration results. Very detailed.
Am I missing some great source, or is the NEC LCD2690WUXi considerably more expensive than the Apple Cinema, and nearly twice the Samsung 245T?
The NEC 90 series is a professional level monitor. Up until a price reduction in late 2007 it was $1,600+. I paid $1,200 for mine. Plus $100 for NEC Spectraview II software. Plus $1,400 for my EyeOne Photo SG. It is really not a budget monitor. It has capabilities (12-bit hardware LUT's that are directly calibrated, hardware to assure uniform screen brightness, calibration software support, etc.) that just don't exist on the 245T or Apple Cinema.
Also, the NEC unit is listed as 26" on what I saw, and is still 1920x1200. For me, I like the finest pixel geometry I can get for image viewing. I won't buy an 18" or 19" because they have the same resolution as a 17", I won't buy a 21" because it has the same resolution as a 20", etc. I'm not going to spend >$1K on a display with fat pixels.
It looks pretty nice ... the resolution is a nice match for the monitor size. You don't sit that close to a 26" monitor. Pixels are not evident.
CTYankee: WTF? "Color Accuracy" in a monitor? Beyond calibrating with a competent package, and I would argue that the GM package with a photospectrometer is about as good as it gets, what is "color accuracy." If your Delta E is near ZIP, that's as accurate as it gets. "Color Accuracy" in my experience, even for corporate work with a color weenie wannabe in the loop is all about actual printed media and viewing in lightboxes.
Dell LCD's uses the EXACT same panels as the ACD, at nearly the same price for a *New* one.
The ACD is an older panel, and the new 24" LCD's use much better ones.
Save the cash, and go with a dell!
So tell me how the 24" dell can use the same exact panel as the 23" Apple? They don't.
When working with both, the Apple is better for color critical work most of the time. Sure some of the Dell's are very good, but some are also very bad. Apple's are calibrated to higher standards and thus have earned SWOP certification. Dells are not.
christo™ wrote:
CTYankee: WTF? "Color Accuracy" in a monitor? Beyond calibrating with a competent package, and I would argue that the GM package with a photospectrometer is about as good as it gets, what is "color accuracy." If your Delta E is near ZIP, that's as accurate as it gets. "Color Accuracy" in my experience, even for corporate work with a color weenie wannabe in the loop is all about actual printed media and viewing in lightboxes.
The Apple can get very low Delta E values. However the NEC can do better. What really sets the NEC apart is that the native white point can be changed whereas the Apple displays don't do as well when you change the white point. Delta E goes up and you lose tonal range.
All that to say the NEC is probably the best, but the Apple is plenty good for most people.
UCSB: Thanks, I missed the English link. Always nice to have another good research link, particularly for monitors -- those change so dramatically so fast it's hard to keep up. I've always been an NEC fan. Dumped about $20K into them in the CRT days (along with on hernia.)
A 12 bit directly programmable hardware LUT is a real key item. The unit was built to be calibrated.
I agree that a 26" monitor is really for group display at a bit of a distance, and if you back off a few feet, the fatter pixels don't matter. However, I sit up-close and personal on my image editing workstations, and I really want the finest pixel geometry I can get for that. I love my pro Sharp display except that it's 18", and I notice the fatter pixels relative to my 17 and 20 inch displays. So, I guess what you are saying is the NEC is ideal for a "show off" display.
CTYankee: I see what you're saying now that UCSB discussed the LUT issue. I'm a bit rusty with LCD's. I studied up a few years ago when I went nuts and moved all my computers to LCD. At that time the 11 bit LUT's in the Sharps were about the best one could get (and the two Sharps I have from that time are still gorgeous.)
Since you guys are so up to speed on the NEC displays, do they have a smaller display with the 1920x1200 resolution? As you may have noticed on another thread, I'm currently in the market for another display in that class. I wasn't thinking of spending so much, but if the NEC is that good, I'll wait a bit and go for it. I admit I'm a display junkie. As I always tell people when advising them on computers: don't bother buying the latest fastest processor, and you don't need to spend $500 on a video card (even $300 these days.) The one thing that is most worth forking over extra money for is the nicest, highest resolution display you can afford, even if it means cheaping out a bit on the computer right now because the display is by far the highest bandwidth interface between the human and the machine, by orders of magnitude, quality displays typically will last through at least two or three computer generations, and having a great display just plain makes the whole computer experience better.
christo™ wrote:
UCSB: Thanks, I missed the English link. Always nice to have another good research link, particularly for monitors -- those change so dramatically so fast it's hard to keep up. I've always been an NEC fan. Dumped about $20K into them in the CRT days (along with on hernia.)
A 12 bit directly programmable hardware LUT is a real key item. The unit was built to be calibrated.
I agree that a 26" monitor is really for group display at a bit of a distance, and if you back off a few feet, the fatter pixels don't matter. However, I sit up-close and personal on my image editing workstations, and I really want the finest pixel geometry I can get for that. I love my pro Sharp display except that it's 18", and I notice the fatter pixels relative to my 17 and 20 inch displays. So, I guess what you are saying is the NEC is ideal for a "show off" display.
CTYankee: I see what you're saying now that UCSB discussed the LUT issue. I'm a bit rusty with LCD's. I studied up a few years ago when I went nuts and moved all my computers to LCD. At that time the 11 bit LUT's in the Sharps were about the best one could get (and the two Sharps I have from that time are still gorgeous.)
Since you guys are so up to speed on the NEC displays, do they have a smaller display with the 1920x1200 resolution? As you may have noticed on another thread, I'm currently in the market for another display in that class. I wasn't thinking of spending so much, but if the NEC is that good, I'll wait a bit and go for it. I admit I'm a display junkie. As I always tell people when advising them on computers: don't bother buying the latest fastest processor, and you don't need to spend $500 on a video card (even $300 these days.) The one thing that is most worth forking over extra money for is the nicest, highest resolution display you can afford, even if it means cheaping out a bit on the computer right now because the display is by far the highest bandwidth interface between the human and the machine, by orders of magnitude, quality displays typically will last through at least two or three computer generations, and having a great display just plain makes the whole computer experience better....Show more →
1900x1200 resolution comes in two flavors mostly...23" (Apple) and 24". To get that resolution AND the quality of the NEC/Eizo series with the built in LUT you are going to pay for it. I've seen some people getting them for $850 (not sure where) so the $1200 list price is certainly not set in stone.
If you are an LCD junkie then I would wait for an LED display at that size. There are now 30" LED displays (or due soon). LED backlights are much better. Flourescent backlights are not as white, use much more power and contain mercury (environmentally bad, no effect on performance). Once they combine the quality of the NEC hardware with the LED backlight it will be another step in performance. Then getting the entire pipeline of data from 8 bit to 10 bit will be the next big step (lets go software developers!!).
Yeah, the LED's are cool, but still way pricey. Since the flourescent backlight is what wears out on an LCD, I believe this would hugely extend the life, right?
Actually, if you have the right video card, the 10 bit pipeline is already there. Not like it's built into the OS though -- how about if you call Microsoft -- they seem to mostly ignore me and I darn near tithe to them. I'm not sure any of the calibration packages other than maybe the ones from NEC and Eizo for their displays calibrate things to the 10 bit level though. While I like the GM stuff, real technical data on it is sparse.
christo™ wrote:
Yeah, the LED's are cool, but still way pricey. Since the flourescent backlight is what wears out on an LCD, I believe this would hugely extend the life, right?
Actually, if you have the right video card, the 10 bit pipeline is already there. Not like it's built into the OS though -- how about if you call Microsoft -- they seem to mostly ignore me and I darn near tithe to them. I'm not sure any of the calibration packages other than maybe the ones from NEC and Eizo for their displays calibrate things to the 10 bit level though. While I like the GM stuff, real technical data on it is sparse....Show more →
Yeah, the hardware is ready, but Microsoft, Adobe and Apple are still using 8 bit color in their software. One day.....
Given my price constraints, I guess that I've narrowed it down to the Samsung 245T at $650, the refurb Apple 23" at $809 w/tax or the newly released Dell 2408WFP for what I've heard $809 w/ tax. If the NEC LCD2490WUXI ever comes down to $860 again, I guess that that will be the winner. But of the 3 choices are the Apple and the Dell CLEARLY superior given the added cost over the Samsung. If they are, is the Apple or the Dell better?
For me it would be between the Samsung and the Apple. I've had lots of experience with Dells and its been very mixed. Apple is very consistent in contrast. The Samsung looks like it could compete, but the Apple has an IPS panel vs the Samsung's PVA so that does it for me. Apple.
So in terms of the Apple, why is the 23" referred to as HD while the 20" is not. The specs sure seem the same. What am I missing? Other than the size, is the 23" better in terms of IQ, color etc?
The apple display is not the same panel as the Dell. I can't speak for the 2408 but the 2407WFP - HC represents very well compared to similar "higher" quality panels (BenQ, Samsung's own, HP etc.
You can see head to head comparisons from reviews HERE just select the panels you want to review and click the category you want to see. Color after calibration, quality of greys and gamut would be the ones useful. Below you will a description of the panel.
The Dell seems very good for that low end range of "good" panels and if you can spring it then get the NEC. Although I have started to see some of the Samsung X panel's showing up at retailers the cost at the moment are in the high end range (Eizo +) I still think the NEC is probably the best all round value. I say that with nothing to go on except gut.
chefboyarlee wrote:
Given my price constraints, I guess that I've narrowed it down to the Samsung 245T at $650, the refurb Apple 23" at $809 w/tax or the newly released Dell 2408WFP for what I've heard $809 w/ tax. If the NEC LCD2490WUXI ever comes down to $860 again, I guess that that will be the winner. But of the 3 choices are the Apple and the Dell CLEARLY superior given the added cost over the Samsung. If they are, is the Apple or the Dell better?
Is the Spyder 3 the calibrator to buy?
Thanks again everyone.
I'm gonna say the Samsung would be preferable to either of the others. Those three were all in my choice list. You're paying for style with the Apple, I'm not up to speed on the new Dell, is that wide gamut? I'm not a fan of the way they look (the monitors housing).
chefboyarlee wrote:
So in terms of the Apple, why is the 23" referred to as HD while the 20" is not. The specs sure seem the same. What am I missing? Other than the size, is the 23" better in terms of IQ, color etc?
Marketing? They are both IPS panels and SWOP certified (color standards people).
