Because theres loads of cheap crappy TN panels in displays 24" and under, which i'd never even consider buying. Most old cheap CRT monitors would have better colours.
When you move to 27" and especially 30" you start getting some quality IPS panels. You dont just get a larger display with more pixels, you get a vastly better image too.
True, but they were saying even the IPS panels for the 24" were $539 and up. Says so on the first page. A near doubling in price for an extra 3 inches isn't very compelling. Though, I don't know if the two 27" monitors they talk about are the cheapest for 27" monitors.
Partly to do with who they are aimed at i guess. A lot of the folk opting for these high end 30" displays as opposed to just whacking an LCD tv on their desk, are using it for high end audio, graphic design etc, professional use you might say, so can be expected to spend the premium.
I'd suggest there is a category between high end 30" and mainstream 24". There is something wrong with the market when 24" TN is <$250 and 30" IPS is >$1000 and there is nothing in-between.
These people also forgot to mention the HUGE difference being the resolution.... Try to find a 24" that has the same resolution as the $1000+ 27"-30". How was this not mentioned in this argument?
It has to do with yields and the production costs. It is far easier to make a PERFECT four inch display than an eight inch display, just because there is a smaller chance of dead or stuck pixels. As the size of the screen goes up, it just becomes that much harder to make a display without any problems.
As time has gone on, with the older technologies, it has gotten easier to make larger panels that don't have problems, but now we are seeing newer technologies that raise the difficulty again.
When you got that 28 inch display, was that a 1080p or 1080i, or 720p? These days, the LED technologies are where a lot of the focus is. Then you have the move from 60Hz to 120Hz to 240Hz. 3D is also creeping in as something that will push costs up.
Two years ago, the cost of a 23 inch panel was MUCH higher than it is today, and you are seeing displays that could not do 1080p going away. So, now that 1080p is the norm for flat panel displays, the question is when better displays will become the norm on the desktop.
We also have a problem with what integrated video can handle. The Radeon 3300 integrated video for example will handle 1280x1024 decently, but starts to have a bit of a problem at 1920x1080 when it comes to basic games and such. So, before the mainstream consumer can make decent use of higher resolution displays, the base level for GPUs needs to go up by a bit more to make the experience properly "smooth".
Remember, prices come down when the manufacturers can expect high enough sales volumes to allow the drop in price to still provide a good profit. So, how many 1920x1200 displays would sell at $300 compared to 1920x1080 displays selling at $210? How about going up from there, would the general public pay for a higher quality display if their computer couldn't push the pixels well enough at the higher resolutions? Even on the gamer front, would you be willing to pay $400 for a 23 inch display with a higher resolution since the higher resolution means lower framerates?
The low-end 27" iMac starts at $1699, featuring core i3 530, 4GB DDR3, Slim DVD, 1TB HDD, Radeon 5670 mounted on a notebook LGA1156 mobo.
This hardware costs more than $470 on newegg, and the miniDP on the iMac can receive external video sources ( not to mention a possible hack to directly mount the iMac display externally).
It would solve the main problem showed on the review: the self fulfilling prophecy that this display will only be used with Macs.
The ideal Imac for hacking is the $1999 i5 + Radeon 5750. For another $1000 you get the very same display coupled with a valid mid range hardware all-in-one.
Nice assumption but I doubt if it really is the case.
What I recall is that when this S.Korean company introduced one of their IPS monitors in U.S a few years ago, they increased price about $300 (compared to S.Korean price) and people went crazy for it as it was considered very cheap compared to what was availbe in the market.
Being interested in that, I did a breif research on IPS monitor market in S. Korea. What I found out is that a. there are so many feature packed IPS monitors b. they are much cheaper.
Of course, LG - the IPS pannel maker - is a S. Korean coporation and that should explain the difference in market situation. However, what's interesting is that all other products that came from S. Korea - Samsung, LG, and even Hyundai automobiles- are cheaper in U.S than in S. Korea.
After all, I couldn't figure out why IPS monitors are so much more expensive in U.S, not to mention lacking availability.
P.S: After writing this, I did a simple search of IPS monitors on S. Korean electronics site. Keep it mind below are only a very small representation of hundereds of monitors in the S. Korean market. Last time when I did throughout research, it took me days and days.
27" 2560 x 1440 IPS for $420 (sales tax included), 26" 1920 x 1200 IPS for $500 (built-in HDTV tuner, speaker, PIP, D-SUB, HDMI, Component, DVI, RF Antenna, Tilt Swivel) 30" 2560x1600 IPS for $620.
I'm more annoyed that they are going for 16:9 in even the highest-resolution computer displays. There is no reason for it, you're only losing desktop space.
Seeing how most applications have their palettes and settings in a column (either to the left or to the right of the main working space), I don't see how a wide ratio is a problem? Also, the ratio has nothing to do with the amount of pixels you can show—if you want higher pixel count, you want higher pixel count. If you want a ratio that's more of a square, you want that. If you just want a taller screen at the same width, go with one of the 30" ones.
I'll base my response on the fact that I am a computer gamer.
For that kind of stuff, perhaps a LCD like this might be overkill... and considering the very slow response time of 12ms, might not be good at all, as you can find many TN panels around with a quarter or less response time (GTG) compared to that.
Anyways, the vertical loss of pixels is an issue for several games, specially ones with customizable UIs, where you can move around windows and whatnot. MMOs come to mind. Those missing pixels, in this case, do make a big difference in your viewing area.
Customizable UIs generally have the ability to put menus on the side, but true "gamers" would rely on a better keyboard than the onscreen interface.
As xype has said, it's pixel count that you want. 27w" is the diagonal width, which would have the same vertical pixels as a 20-21" monitor at 4:3.
BTW, if height is what you're after, you can rotate your monitor to 9:16 instead, it's only a matter of switching a setting in video preferences, but wider field of view is actually more important for gaming, especially in FPS, but also in MMORPGs.
"but wider field of view is actually more important for gaming, especially in FPS" That is if you play "flat" FPS where everyone is at the same level, if you play FPS where players can be on top of buildings and what not the height becomes a very important factor, 16:10 is for me the best ratio available... also a 16:9 doesn't necessarily have a wider field of view than a 4:3, both could have the same horizontal resolution while the 4:3 would have a higher vertical one. I really don't get how the 16:9 is becoming the norm when its not a progress for gamers on the contrary...
Just in case, I'm talking as opposed to 16:10 ratio. That's wide enough. The 2560x1600 resolution stays barely alive with the 30" screens as you say, but the 1920x1200 and especially the 1680x1050 resolutions are all but dead already.
If I wanted another laptop like the one I have with a 1680x1050 res on a 15" or so screen, can I get that anymore? The closest I've seen is 1600x900 which already seems too low.
27" is 81% of 30", when comparing areas, you need to square the ratio.
A pixel pitch of 0.25 for 2560x1600 @ 30" is already tiny, with 0.23 for 2560x1440 @ 27" I'll probably have to use bigger fonts everywhere and still have problems with some applications.
16:9 is really the worst aspect ratio I have used on a computer screen. Although the difference does not seem much on paper when you actually use one you can see what a backwards step it is. I think I will stick with my 1920x1200 display for now until the manufacturers see some sense and supply what im after.
Actually, I prefer HP monitors above dell. Dell may have more options but the color on dell aint good. It is common that it's way to dark on the right side when you have a white background.
The game mode is green/ blueish so you are stuck with high input lag in games if you want decent colours.
Agree but it would have been nice to see the review compare the Dell and the Apple more especially since afaik there are no other displays like them.
I for one am certainly loving my U2711. I would have liked split-picture function to be an adjustable Picture-in-picture function and the gaming mode is stupid but other than those small details I have no issues. It's hooked up to a PC, a Mac, a PS3 and a 360 all on the same time - great stuff.
I dream of even more pixels per inch2, but for now the U2711 and the 27" Apple are the best choices bringing even more pixels per inch2 than a 30" panel. When someone makes a "retina" display in 27"+ size it will be a good day :-)
For sure it would cost an impossible amount at first but as with all tech the prices will come down. For example back some 2.5+ decades ago or so my dad paid something $8,000 for a phone the size of a small suitcase and now...
Or to stay with computers. The first one I bought back when I was a kid cost $500, it had 1 KB memory total and for display I used an old TV and storage was a audio tapedeck. In other words some day... :-)
yeah, one day!! And we'll be here reminiscing how a an base 8 core Mac Pro cost $3000 whilst talking about the new faster than light optical processors....
Well that depends really on use. I would like a 27" screen with as few as cables as possible to use in a fairly limited space. So a monitor with built in speakers and a charger for my laptop seems like a reasonable choice.
If ultimate colour quality etc is the goal though, surely you wouldn't even go for the 2711?
I must admit to not knowing enough about colours to truly judge my U2711 but it is the first LCD that I have seen come close to my trusted old Sony GDM-F520 (a 21" CRT and perhaps the best CRT ever made).
Most likely you can get better colour control with a high end EIZO or something like that but these new 27" panels offer finer pixels so it depends on what you're needs are.
I really disslike 16:9, a 16:9 27" is just like a 24" 16:10. The loss of height in the 16:9 aspect is huge and very annoying.
I also do not like the reflection that can occur to easily and distract me on the apple screens. It may look good at first but it's really annoying when using it.
Does the system fonts on this appear too small like the iMac 27 inch? I have the Apple 24 inch LED now and love it since I can see the font. I want to get the new 27 inch but if it's like the iMac 27 inch, I will pass.
I guess the Apple premium (perhaps excepting accessories) has really gone away over the years. Now all the major manufacturers have the same business model - a little distinctive design then outsource to Asia - so prices come back a wash. I remember when Apple wanted $1-2k more for their 30" monitor than anyone else. Now this comes in cheaper than the Dell U2711.
I don't understand why the manufacturers are pushing for such high density displays - for me, 1920 x 1200 at 27 inches is the ideal resolution. Mostly because of font sizes and such, 2560 x 1440 just makes things seem too dang small.
I don't known if it's a factor of getting old, but most people I work with seem to think the same.
It's because things just look better at a higher DPI. If the fonts are too small, change the font size. Windows 7 has great support for this. My old 17" CRT (I'm too picky to use a TN panel LCD, and too cheap to spend $1000 on a nice IPS LCD) is 130dpi and things just look so much clearer when I run Windows at 125% font size. The number of apps that don't recognize the setting is much smaller than it used to be. Pretty much all apps that were released in the past 5 years support high DPI.
I can actually see large differences at 12pt between fonts like Arial, Cambria, and Verdana, where on 96dpi they were very slightly different.
I have a high-dpi display, and can't use any desktops, because they all have crap DPI.
<link removed because the damn comment system thinks this comment is spam> Anyway, it was "rant-hdtv-has-ruined-the-lcd-display-market-or-i-want-my-pixels-and-dpi-now"
See my comment near the bottom.
"This comment is apparently spam and we do not allow spam comments."
What the hell, Anandtech? What sort of garbage do I have to put in my post to get it to not count as "spam"? How about more random words? Damnit...
I wish someone would make a 30 inch 2560 x 1600 TN so I could actually afford one. Im surprised Asus or Alienware or one of those doesn't get with some OEM and make a $500 30 inch TN for us gamers who don't need all the perfect viewing angles/colors etc......
I am ready for more rez (currently on 19x12) but just can't stomach the 10 benjamins to get to 25x16
Your display is just as important as what video card you have driving it, simply because if you're in dark corridors, and the viewing angle makes more of a difference than the video card, then the rendered picture is worthless. Likewise, vibrant colors tend to get a faster response from the brain than colors that are washed out and leave the image ambiguous without looking at it for a few seconds.
I've got two solutions: 1) Go with a projector. Variable screen size, plus a low resolution to keep frames high. 2) Stick with the stuff in your price range.
It's this kind of demand that gets us huge, high resolution screens, with images worse than current solutions.
I'm disappointed with this offering from Apple, because it really is all-glitz and not much substance. As a consumer, I expect to pay a price and get a superior product. And I acknowledge that the price is ridiculous, but at least I don't have to play the "mixed bag" game. I am not wow'ed by the ability to pay a lower price and get something "like good". That's not Apple-like at all.
Second it. The price of 30" has been frozen at ~$1200 level for what, 3 years already? Those who claim that the cost of IPS panel is high, should look no further than LCD TVs, which prices steadily declined in all size categories. Today one can buy two good-enough 46" TVs (they are IPS!) for a price of one 30" monitor.
It's harder to make more pixels perfect so some of the cost is found there but it's also a question of to little a market so that mass production effects are limited.
To many people are simply content with what they got and the majority looks at screen size vs. prices and then get the terrible TN panels. It's like in the old days with CRT's where most people ran them at 60 Hz because that was Windows default not knowing good screens could do so much better.
Disagree. TN technology starts to really hit limitations at around 24", when you get bigger than that you start to lose uniformity and the sweet spot for viewing gets that much harder to find. A 30" TN panel would look awful.
Wide color gamut is, for most non-professional users, a horrible drawback. Operating systems, web browsers and sites, images from my SLR camera, games, movies -- content is created for traditional color gamut!
At the recommendation of of tech sites like this one, I bought two WCG Dell monitors, a 2408 and a 2410. They exhibit garish red push, and distorted colors in general. ATI drivers can use EDID to adjust the color temperature, reducing red push to a manageable level. But when I "upgraded" to an NVIDA 460, I lost that option.
Anand, do you actually look at the monitors with your eyes? Can you see how bad WCG looks? Forget the tables full of misleading numbers from professional image editing software, please.
I think your problem is that most people spending this chunk of change on an LCD also have them properly calibrated. As mentioned in this exact review the uncalibrated picture was quite bad. This LCD might have even been cherry-picked for the review unit (don't know if this was sent by Apple for review or Anand purchased it for personal use). So WYSIWYG doesn't apply when calibration is performed.
WCG monitors are NOT capable of displaying a greater number of colors than a traditional monitor. They display the same 24 bit color, but it's spread over a greater range of wavelengths.
ALL mainstream content is designed to use only the 73% gamut. There is no way to "calibrate" a monitor to make mainstream content look good. Either the monitor displays the content within the correct, limited gamut -- thereby using less than 24bit color to render the image and throwing out visual information -- or it spreads it out over the wide gamut, causing inaccurate colors.
Finally someone who knows what they're talking about!
I've finally registered here to say the exact same thing as you, but instead I'll give you my full support.
People just don't seem to understand that wide gamut is probably the second worst thing that happened to computer displays, right after TN monitors. It's bad - it's seriously bad.
Things might change a very long time from now, in a distant future, *IF* we get graphics cards with more bits per channel and monitors capable of understanding that (along with proper software support), but right now it's just something that is being pushed by marketing. Even tech review sites like Anandtech managed to fall for that crap, misleading monitor buyers into thinking that bigger gamut equals a better picture. In fact, it's exactly the opposite.
To go into a serious theoretical hyperbole for those who do not understand the implications of a stretched wide gamut with 8BPC output, a monitor with a 1000000000% gamut would only be capable of displaying one single shade of red, green or blue. Everything at 0 would be black, and everything from 1..255 would be eye-scorchingly red, green or blue. (Actually, the shades would technically differ, but the human eye would not be able to discern them.)
Your options with wide gamut are as follows:
1) Display utterly inaccurate colours
2) Emulate sRGB and throw out colour information, lowering the dynamic range and picture quality
That's it. Nothing else. Wide gamut, as it stands right now, DESTROYS the displayed image.
If you like wide gamut, that's fine - there are people who like miss Justine Bieber, too, but that doesn't make her good.
I don't understand sRGB emulation. But probably on the input of the monitor you have 8 bits per color and through processing they cange it to 10 bits to drive the panel? This way you may not lose dynamic range. Well the color information will be less than 10 bits per color but you dont have this color in the input to begin with. Tell me if I'm wrong.
Pure red (255,0,0) on a wide gamut monitor is more intense than pure red on a normal gamut monitor (which content is created for, thus ends up looking incorrect on WG).
That means (255,0,0) should actually be internally transformed by the monitor to something like (220,0,0) if you want the displayed colour to match that of the normal monitor and show the picture accurately. It also means that when the graphics card gives the monitor (240,0,0), the monitor would need to transform it to (210,0,0) for proper display - as you can see, it has condensed 15 shades of red (240-255) into only 10 (210-220).
To put it differently, if you display a gradient on a wide gamut monitor performing sRGB emulation, you get banding, or the monitor cheats and does dithering, which introduces visible artifacts.
Higher-bit processing is basically used only because the gamut does not stretch linearly. A medium grey (128,128,128) would technically be measured as something like (131, 130, 129) on the WG monitor, so there's all kinds of fancy transformations going on in order to not make such things apparently visible.
Like I said, if we ever get more bits in the entire display path, this whole point becomes moot, but for now it isn't.
If you have your monitor properly calibrated, it's not a problem. You don't have to "spread" sRGB's "73%" (of what? I assume you mean Adobe RGB). You create your own content in its own color gamut. A wider gamut monitor can ensure that the colors in it overlap other devices like printers, thus proofing becomes more accurate.
Wide gamut are great for fairly specialized calibrated systems, but I agree they're not for movie watching or game use.
Grrrrrr for it being a glossy panel. I *WAS* thinking about getting this monitor, but since I sit at my desk with my back to a large window, glossy doesn't cut it. That and the fact that I HATE glossy monitors, period.
I haven't used it myself, but a close friend did and said it works great - he has two monitors hooked up to his 24" iMac. I have, however, ordered stuff from OWC before (I get all my Apple RAM there since it's a lot cheaper than the Apple Store and it's all Apple-rated RAM) and they are awesome. http://www.articlesbase.com/authors/andrew-razor/6...
but this is a cinema display review so response time is of prime concern. with 12 ms response time i am sure it is having a lot of blurr. is this the reason you have skipped the response time/ blurr/ ghost tests ?
does anybody know if there is some kind of after market screen coating available to make glass screens a bit anti-glare? you know, something that actually works...
i love the idea of the LED backlighting because they look closer to the brightness of an old CRT to me, and i never felt "shocked" by that amount of brightness. (i find most LCDs to be extremely dim) so what i'm saying is, i know that there are matte finished alternatives out there (like the 27' Dell that looks nice), but if i want LED backlighting, it doesn't seem like there are any options.
While this review is generally up to the usual high standards I've come to expect from AnandTech, what's up with the lack of a comaprison to the competition in the conclusion? There is a burgeoning market in the 27" high-res monitor space, and from this article it appears that customers would be better served choosing a non-Apple product...?
Looks like the U2711 looks like the better value here. Same IPS 27in goodness, but without the glossy screen, limited input options, and unadjustable stand... and roughly the same price.
Seems like this deserves mention in the conclusion?
the u2711 costs 10% more, has no webcam, no ambient light sensor, and uses a ccfl backlight which means the display uses almost twice the energy for a given brightness, it's a no brainer to buy the apple.
don't forget that you lose control over the monitor without bootcamp, so it only really works on macs. at least that's what i undstood from this article.
I don't generally hop on the "Anand is an Apple fanboi" bandwagon, but articles like this make me wonder. If you look at the data so painstakingly ignored throughout the article, it's obvious that this Apple monitor gets thoroughly trounced by the competition. It doesn't excel at anything (except it's about the third brightest and has the ability to reach brightness levels so low they'd only be usable in the middle of a deep cave) and it gets beat handily in most of the color/contrast ratio measurements. It doesn't even impress much with power consumption -- yes it's the third brightest, but it also uses a lot of power compared to the competition, and the min brightness power consumption doesn't even matter, because how are you going to get an extension cable all the way into the middle of a cave? Of course, if this was a normal PC based product, Anand would give us the relative power consumption at a certain brightness compared to the competition, but then I'm sure doing so wouldn't impress as much as showing how little power this thing draws when it's so dim and shiny that birds would be flying into it if you left the window open.
What else have we learned? Well now that Apple has done 16x9, it's cool! Anand actually praised the loss in vertical pixels, with a comment of how he probably didn't use those pixels anyway. See how efficient Apple is! They know exactly what we don't need better than we do. What else don't we need? The ability to use a $1000 monitor with 95% of the computers in the world and be able to adjust the brightness. Not only can't you use this monitor with a Windows computer, but it doesn't work with older Macs unless you get a special adapter. I'm surprised that adapter isn't sold by Apple.
What is there to make up for all these issues? A BUILT IN CHARGER FOR YOUR MACBOOK! OMG!!! Think of all the desk space I save with this 27" monitor now that I don't have to use a separate charger for my macbook. It even gives me 10" to spare, so I don't actually have to physically solder the macbook to the monitor for it to charge. Thank you Apple! It's also convenient that the monitor has no vertical height adjustment, so I don't have to worry about pulling my 10" charger cord off my macbook. Now as long as I don't want to set my macbook on the other side of the monitor...
The proof of the bias in this article is how warm and fuzzy it makes you feel about this product despite the obvious shortcomings. I subconsciously want to buy this monitor now. Anand has done this to me. I logically read and comprehended the data that told me why I shouldn't buy this (especially since I don't have a Mac), but because any direct comparisons to the superior competition were avoided, and the few unique Apple nuances were played up throughout the bulk of the article, I now just have this feeling that this Apple monitor is a great buy. And so do most of the people responding to this article. Thank you Anand. Now I'll probably have to go buy this monitor and hook it up to my PC and be forced to painfully watch my own reflection during Diehard as the monitor sears my eyeballs with its unadjustable atomic blast level brightness. Then I might as well buy a Mac and an Ipad to go along with a brand new Iphone so I can facetime with people I don't even like.
this is the cheapest display on the market with a resolution above 2048 x 1152
this is the cheapest LED IPS display on the market of any size. (other than the defunct apple LED 24")
being LED it uses in the neighborhood of half the power at the same brightness as its closest competitor (the dell u2711).
frankly on these notes alone it'd only have to be somewhat competitive in display quality to be highly recommended... the apple design and webcam/light-sensor/charger is just a bonus.
Lol - erm, how about if you don't like the monitor don't buy one?? There are plenty of alternatives.
I didn't get the same warm and fuzzy feeling you did from the article and they certainly didn't give this monitor the Editors Choice award that they gave the Dell U2711...
I think the thing to bear in mind is the target market for this monitor. It is after all called a 'Cinema' display (so it's 16:9) and it is squarely aimed at typical Mac owners (boo hoo, brightness doesn't work on non macs under windows). If you look at the stats it might not beat all the competition but it still a good all rounder and certainly has Delta Es below 4 which the human can't detect.
Lets be honest - all technology is a compromise between cost and performance. If you want the ultimate quality expect to pay the ultimate price.
PRAISE the voice of DISSENT! Finally... am I not the only person in here that doesn't get caught up by all the covert/deceptive/manipulative MARKETING that goes on at Anand? Don't get me wrong; I'm here EVERYDAY checking out the continually great, in-depth articles, BUT... Rumors and whispers of "Apple-fanboyism," continue to resurface, even after apparently being shouted down to Davy Jone's Locker... And here we have another one resurfacing, covered in fanboy barnacles! __It's almost like a Fox(entertainment)News hit piece of sorts; the lack of true comparisons, no pro & contrast, baseless facts and figures, but compared to WHAT? There's no real "review" going on here, it's merely meant to look like it; and who are these types of hit-pieces custom tailored to---why Apple’s own teeny-tiny cabal of “elite” consumers and their sponsors (tbh). For the rest of “us” out here, with logical as our guiding light; we can CLEARLY see right through all the smoke & mirror, fog and light shows being put on in this “review…”
16:9 for $1000? Short cables for $1000? Here… let me explain; this is merely someone in Apple’s R&D dept who came up with the clever COST-CUTTING idea like, “hey boss, heh, heh…. If we cutesy up the cables with cheap silicone and monotone colors, this will visually and mentally confused the owners into thinking that anymore cable length is simply a waste, inefficient, and you know ‘bad’ for the environment; am I right? Heheh, heh, heh…” Yes you are---sniveling subordinate, said the bossman!
Anyhow I completely agree; this monitor is nothing but a bone tossed to the ever expectant, shrude Apple fanboy. In reality, this monitor suits NEITHER the avid/enthusiast consumer, nor the PROFESSIONAL at all… What a wonderful example of market-saturation. This monitor literally serves NO PURPOSE other than to bait & switch idiots from their legal-tender… Anand, we love ya bossman, but come on, you’ve got to find better ways of giving your Apple fans (I own 2 Apple machines btw) the “elitism” fix they so desire, while also keeping Apple’s number in your little black-profit-book… Until then, those of use with sense and a SPINE, will continue to point it out for ya and the “elite,” until you remember that we’re ALWAYS watchin ;-)
Ciao Anandtech staff! Lol
_Funny, this piece got me thinking about just how did the “bite out of Apple’s-Apple” get started? My take; it all starts with a great idea… At 1st people show up to “Apple” with a big fat, WHOLE, juicy apple as their head… The boss, already a few bites into being at apple, sees these new fat-heads and thinks, “hrmm I’ve gotta put a stop to all this new ‘idea’ crap right now!” So he takes a “bite” outta yer Apple, and claims it for himself, BUT he too has a boss, who has a boss; they ALL want a bite of the Apple to claim as their own. Eventually up the line the biting goes until you reach THE BOSS; Jobbo-the-Hut! Being that he’s the last big Apple head and there’s nobody to take a bite from his Apple, he comes up with the brilliant idea of cutting a “bite” like shape out of his own Apple. Seeing this mysterious bite out of the head hancho’s head makes everyone feel that missing some chunks here and there is actually “cool,” and “better” since even the big-guy is missing some crucial cells as well… And thus the cycle of “elite, but lacking” becomes the status-Quo at “Apple.” THE END…*poof* (Copyrighted!)
As someone with fairly sensitive eyes, I've encountered many monitors that were too bright for me, especially when trying to use one in a less well lit environment. I had to give away a Dell monitor (to my father) because it was painful for me to use it with the room lights turned down. 200nits is uncomfortable to me in normal room lighting during the day, anything over 100 is uncomfortable at night. Many of the monitors on your list would be painful for me to use.
Not a good offering from Apple, I expected a lot better. The only thing positive about this monitor is the pixel size. Thanks for the article, now we know.
I've been using a 1st generation Apple Cinema 30" display for several years now on my Windows gaming PC. Using a 3rd party app called ACD (Apple Cinema Display) I can control the brightness and everything else.
p.s. 16:9 is for movies. I would not want to go from 1600 vertical to 1440. It really is a huge factor in serious gaming.
Glossy only is a joke. At least give people the choice. DP port only is cutting corners IMO, and I have a 2010 MBP. Non adjustable stand on a £900 monitor is an insult. Maybe Apple will start selling adjustable desks soon. Cables a good idea but too short. The magsafe wouldnt look half as attractive if Apple didn't try to rob £70 each for them on their own. Tech specs clearly nowhere near a match for the u2711 and that has so much more built into it to justify its cost.
Despite all this, if it was £600 or £700 I'd be tempted. But not at £900, forget it.
Add this to the fact that Apple have now discontinued the 30" - their only other matte display and you can only drive that with the awfully flawed (and again, overpriced) Mini DP to dual dpi piece of junk from a MBP.
Looks like Dell or NEC will be getting a large portion of my cash soon.
Apple - start listening to your customers or you will lose them. I don't know what % of graphics people prefer matte displays but I'm willing to bet it is at least 50%. Get over the shiny stuff and leave that for the iPads and iPhones. GIVE PEOPLE THE CHOICE. Pros know what they want and no amount of your marketing glitter will convince them otherwise - they will simply just walk away from you.
I really don't understand why all the so-called professionally keep bashing glossy screens. I mistakenly bought a matte screen after reading such reviews and it is horrible. Because the black level is not great, and because the coating is not smooth, reading text is painful. I have to make the font size much larger than normal to be able to read clearly and smoothly, which essentially doesn't take advantage of the high resolution much. As a result I am returning it. If you go to the review section on Amazon about Dell U2711 you'll see similar complains. After this experience, I decide to go with the market choice instead of listening to any of the so-called professionals and I would never touch a matte screen again, althought I will not necessarily buy the Apple LED. Professionals would like to think that because they learned such and such, they can somehow tell people what looks better. However, in reality that is totally rubbish and it is still up to the consumers to decide what looks better and what products will succeed. Professionals also would like to think they are smart and people are idiots easily swayed by marketing strategies, and they are so enthusiastic to convince people something like "what looks better in your eyes". I would say marketing clearly playes a role but in the end most people are not idiots and they know what they are seeing and can compare the effects using their eyes.
Glossy is not a joke. It has clear advantage of black and white levels, more vibrant colors, and there are even comparisons online of glossy and matte screens under sunlight, with the glossy screen reflective but still visible and vibrant, but the matte screen totally washed out. It is more of a debate and personal preference. If you google "glossy vs matte" you'll find that it is not so one-sided. There are many people who don't know what glossy is and what matte is and they just believe in their eyes, and there is nothing wrong with it and they are not idiots. At the end of the day it is what matters, right? How can you win people's eyes. Those numbers of color, constrast, etc. are meaningless to most people. A picture is worth a thousand words. People can use their own eyes to make a choice. Don't be too self-confident in telling people what to do. It is really not Apple who doesn't listen to its customers because Apple is a product, and needs to win customers and it is doing pretty well so far. It is the so-called professionals who simply don't like to change and they don't, and simply have no need to listen to Apple's customers because they don't make any products and they just like to do stuff the good old ways.
Your comments regarding matt vs glossy screens ignore a critical spec--dot pitch. The Dell U2711, which I've been using for a year now, has what I believe to be the smallest dot pitch available on the market today, 0.233. Most other screens have 0.250-0.300-- in other words, coarser. If you take a given rez and spread it over more real estate, then the dot pitch has to increase.
People who "believe in their eyes" also tend to gravitate to screens with overly vivid (or lurid) colours. This can easily be seen when comparing low-end HDTVs to high-end ones. Similarly, glossy screens are more impressive at first glance, but over time they wear out their welcome.
I really don't understand why all the so-called professionally keep bashing glossy screens. I mistakenly bought a matte screen after reading such reviews and it is horrible. Because the black level is not great, and because the coating is not smooth, reading text is painful. I have to make the font size much larger than normal to be able to read clearly and smoothly, which essentially doesn't take advantage of the high resolution much. As a result I am returning it. If you go to the review section on Amazon about Dell U2711 you'll see similar complains. After this experience, I decide to go with the market choice instead of listening to any of the so-called professionals and I would never touch a matte screen again, althought I will not necessarily buy the Apple LED. Professionals would like to think that because they learned such and such, they can somehow tell people what looks better. However, in reality that is totally rubbish and it is still up to the consumers to decide what looks better and what products will succeed. Professionals also would like to think they are smart and people are idiots easily swayed by marketing strategies, and they are so enthusiastic to convince people something like "what looks better in your eyes". I would say marketing clearly playes a role but in the end most people are not idiots and they know what they are seeing and can compare the effects using their eyes.
Glossy is not a joke. It has clear advantage of black and white levels, more vibrant colors, and there are even comparisons online of glossy and matte screens under sunlight, with the glossy screen reflective but still visible and vibrant, but the matte screen totally washed out. It is more of a debate and personal preference. If you google "glossy vs matte" you'll find that it is not so one-sided. There are many people who don't know what glossy is and what matte is and they just believe in their eyes, and there is nothing wrong with it and they are not idiots. At the end of the day it is what matters, right? How can you win people's eyes. Those numbers of color, constrast, etc. are meaningless to most people. A picture is worth a thousand words. People can use their own eyes to make a choice. Don't be too self-confident in telling people what to do. It is really not Apple who doesn't listen to its customers because Apple is a product, and needs to win customers and it is doing pretty well so far. It is the so-called professionals who simply don't like to change and they don't, and simply have no need to listen to Apple's customers because they don't make any products and they just like to do stuff the good old ways.
These comments are not for the author of this review. I think the author did a good jobs and provided little opinion of his own, which is a good thing. These comments are mainly for the previous comments.
My suggestion: if you care reading text online, etc. a lot, double check the Dell U2711 or any other matte screens before buying, though I know that is difficult as DELL doesn't have physical stores like Apple. From my personal experience, reading text is a lot easier on a glossy screen and that is very important to me, much more important than being a little reflective or 16:9 and such and such.
I'm not calling myself a professional nor am I one to jump on the bandwagon, while I don't despise glossy screens as some do I prefer matt screens and can see why reviewers prefer matt screens as well.
There's no doubt a glossy screen has a 'wow' factor that a matt screen doesn't which in turn is no doubt responsible for the popularity of glossy screens. However I find that works against it for image or video work as the image looks a bit 'fake', it's not unlike a P&S camera with boosted contrast and saturation. Again it makes the DSLR netural image look flat but the DSLR image is more accurate and better to work with.
For text I don't have any problems reading a matt screen, I find the opposite as there's no worrying about getting the angles right to ensure there's no distracting light reflecting off the screen and getting in the way.
I do have the Dell U2711 and think it's a superb monitor, it's always my first choice to work with when possible. I also have the Studio XPS 16 with the RGB backlit monitor which is also extremely good but it's difficult to ignore the irritating reflections from it's side to side glossy panel.
No. Matte is not more accurate. It is only slightly more accurate to a photographer's taste because it somewhat mimics the uneven and un-smooth surface of a printed picture. For the majority of people who don't even print out their pictures that often and just watch them on a monitor, share them online, etc., Matte==FAIL! It just looks worse.
And you enjoy reading the DELL text only because you didn't put it side by side with the Apple 27 inch LED with the same resolution. I bet anyone can tell it is less smooth than this Apple display.
First of all: thanks for your test – it is by far the best I could find!
I have the first version of the 30" Cinema Display and would like to buy a new display. I am using my 30" primarily for image and video processing, and photo printing (with an Epson Stylus Photo R3000).
My question is: Do you think that the 27" is better, worse or equal to the 30" (first version) for photography and image processing? (I am not talking about the glare/nonglare-discussion but only about colour accuracy for image editing and photo printing)
From what I´ve seen from your test the 27" seems to have a better colour space: 83.16% vs 72.96% for the 30". (By the way, is there a way to measure the actual color space of my display? I have a DTP94 colorimeter and use iColorDisplay and basiCColor, but I could not find an option to measure the colour space in percentage of Adobe RGB)
At a setting of 100cd/m2 (for photo printing) the 27" has a deltaE of 2.2. But in this diagram there is no comparable value of the 30" display.
Is 2.2 good enough for professional photo printing? I do know that there are better displays but what I do not know is: how big is the difference, eg. compared to a deltaE of 1.1 really – in terms of human perception?
There are several things wrong with this monitor. First, of course, the price. Other monitors, such as the Dell UltraSharp 27, appear to use the same screen, and have a street price of nearly half of this one. Although the aluminum case is lovely, it seems impossible to justify the price differential. Second, its height is not adjustable. This is a serious drawback if, for example, you want to use it as an external monitor with an iMac. Third, a good monitor needs its own color controls, featuring RGB sliders. The only way to adjust colors on a Mac monitor is by that exceedingly lame Colors section of the Displays control panel. It's high time Apple gives us something better.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
93 Comments
Back to Article
Razorjackman - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
Why are all the displays from 24" and below relatively inexpensive, while the +27" seem to be disproportionately expensive?I'm still using a HannsG 28" from 2 years ago for $400.00. I expected to get larger or denser for less by now.
Does Moores Law apply to monitors?
B3an - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
Because theres loads of cheap crappy TN panels in displays 24" and under, which i'd never even consider buying. Most old cheap CRT monitors would have better colours.When you move to 27" and especially 30" you start getting some quality IPS panels.
You dont just get a larger display with more pixels, you get a vastly better image too.
B3an - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
... You also get better viewing angles as well.Alexstarfire - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
True, but they were saying even the IPS panels for the 24" were $539 and up. Says so on the first page. A near doubling in price for an extra 3 inches isn't very compelling. Though, I don't know if the two 27" monitors they talk about are the cheapest for 27" monitors.hughlle - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
Partly to do with who they are aimed at i guess. A lot of the folk opting for these high end 30" displays as opposed to just whacking an LCD tv on their desk, are using it for high end audio, graphic design etc, professional use you might say, so can be expected to spend the premium.TegiriNenashi - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
I'd suggest there is a category between high end 30" and mainstream 24". There is something wrong with the market when 24" TN is <$250 and 30" IPS is >$1000 and there is nothing in-between.juncture - Tuesday, December 14, 2010 - link
These people also forgot to mention the HUGE difference being the resolution.... Try to find a 24" that has the same resolution as the $1000+ 27"-30". How was this not mentioned in this argument?plonk420 - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
seconded .. it's either crap dirt cheap TNs for me ... or IPS (but preferrably oLED). i hope i never spend more than $140 on a TN again...(posting from a dying CRT ... with TN+Dell *VA as secondary)
plonk420 - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
seconded @B3anTargon - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
It has to do with yields and the production costs. It is far easier to make a PERFECT four inch display than an eight inch display, just because there is a smaller chance of dead or stuck pixels. As the size of the screen goes up, it just becomes that much harder to make a display without any problems.As time has gone on, with the older technologies, it has gotten easier to make larger panels that don't have problems, but now we are seeing newer technologies that raise the difficulty again.
When you got that 28 inch display, was that a 1080p or 1080i, or 720p? These days, the LED technologies are where a lot of the focus is. Then you have the move from 60Hz to 120Hz to 240Hz. 3D is also creeping in as something that will push costs up.
Two years ago, the cost of a 23 inch panel was MUCH higher than it is today, and you are seeing displays that could not do 1080p going away. So, now that 1080p is the norm for flat panel displays, the question is when better displays will become the norm on the desktop.
We also have a problem with what integrated video can handle. The Radeon 3300 integrated video for example will handle 1280x1024 decently, but starts to have a bit of a problem at 1920x1080 when it comes to basic games and such. So, before the mainstream consumer can make decent use of higher resolution displays, the base level for GPUs needs to go up by a bit more to make the experience properly "smooth".
Remember, prices come down when the manufacturers can expect high enough sales volumes to allow the drop in price to still provide a good profit. So, how many 1920x1200 displays would sell at $300 compared to 1920x1080 displays selling at $210? How about going up from there, would the general public pay for a higher quality display if their computer couldn't push the pixels well enough at the higher resolutions? Even on the gamer front, would you be willing to pay $400 for a 23 inch display with a higher resolution since the higher resolution means lower framerates?
ijhammo - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
nicely put Targongeok1ng - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
At $999 this display is a bit overpriced.The low-end 27" iMac starts at $1699, featuring core i3 530, 4GB DDR3, Slim DVD, 1TB HDD, Radeon 5670 mounted on a notebook LGA1156 mobo.
This hardware costs more than $470 on newegg, and the miniDP on the iMac can receive external video sources ( not to mention a possible hack to directly mount the iMac display externally).
It would solve the main problem showed on the review: the self fulfilling prophecy that this display will only be used with Macs.
The ideal Imac for hacking is the $1999 i5 + Radeon 5750. For another $1000 you get the very same display coupled with a valid mid range hardware all-in-one.
Cattykit - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
Nice assumption but I doubt if it really is the case.What I recall is that when this S.Korean company introduced one of their IPS monitors in U.S a few years ago, they increased price about $300 (compared to S.Korean price) and people went crazy for it as it was considered very cheap compared to what was availbe in the market.
Being interested in that, I did a breif research on IPS monitor market in S. Korea. What I found out is that a. there are so many feature packed IPS monitors b. they are much cheaper.
Of course, LG - the IPS pannel maker - is a S. Korean coporation and that should explain the difference in market situation. However, what's interesting is that all other products that came from S. Korea - Samsung, LG, and even Hyundai automobiles- are cheaper in U.S than in S. Korea.
After all, I couldn't figure out why IPS monitors are so much more expensive in U.S, not to mention lacking availability.
P.S: After writing this, I did a simple search of IPS monitors on S. Korean electronics site. Keep it mind below are only a very small representation of hundereds of monitors in the S. Korean market. Last time when I did throughout research, it took me days and days.
27" 2560 x 1440 IPS for $420 (sales tax included),
26" 1920 x 1200 IPS for $500 (built-in HDTV tuner, speaker, PIP, D-SUB, HDMI, Component, DVI, RF Antenna, Tilt Swivel)
30" 2560x1600 IPS for $620.
numberoneoppa - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
Because this is a high-density IPS panel. It's really not too outrageous a price.andy o - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
I'm more annoyed that they are going for 16:9 in even the highest-resolution computer displays. There is no reason for it, you're only losing desktop space.xype - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
Seeing how most applications have their palettes and settings in a column (either to the left or to the right of the main working space), I don't see how a wide ratio is a problem? Also, the ratio has nothing to do with the amount of pixels you can show—if you want higher pixel count, you want higher pixel count. If you want a ratio that's more of a square, you want that. If you just want a taller screen at the same width, go with one of the 30" ones.LordanSS - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
I'll base my response on the fact that I am a computer gamer.For that kind of stuff, perhaps a LCD like this might be overkill... and considering the very slow response time of 12ms, might not be good at all, as you can find many TN panels around with a quarter or less response time (GTG) compared to that.
Anyways, the vertical loss of pixels is an issue for several games, specially ones with customizable UIs, where you can move around windows and whatnot. MMOs come to mind. Those missing pixels, in this case, do make a big difference in your viewing area.
vol7ron - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
Customizable UIs generally have the ability to put menus on the side, but true "gamers" would rely on a better keyboard than the onscreen interface.As xype has said, it's pixel count that you want. 27w" is the diagonal width, which would have the same vertical pixels as a 20-21" monitor at 4:3.
BTW, if height is what you're after, you can rotate your monitor to 9:16 instead, it's only a matter of switching a setting in video preferences, but wider field of view is actually more important for gaming, especially in FPS, but also in MMORPGs.
Strunf - Thursday, September 30, 2010 - link
"but wider field of view is actually more important for gaming, especially in FPS"That is if you play "flat" FPS where everyone is at the same level, if you play FPS where players can be on top of buildings and what not the height becomes a very important factor, 16:10 is for me the best ratio available... also a 16:9 doesn't necessarily have a wider field of view than a 4:3, both could have the same horizontal resolution while the 4:3 would have a higher vertical one.
I really don't get how the 16:9 is becoming the norm when its not a progress for gamers on the contrary...
crimson117 - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
MS Word 2007 has the menu at the top of the screen, not to the side.andy o - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
Just in case, I'm talking as opposed to 16:10 ratio. That's wide enough. The 2560x1600 resolution stays barely alive with the 30" screens as you say, but the 1920x1200 and especially the 1680x1050 resolutions are all but dead already.If I wanted another laptop like the one I have with a 1680x1050 res on a 15" or so screen, can I get that anymore? The closest I've seen is 1600x900 which already seems too low.
fabarati - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
Anand was getting jigyy with it!Also, not only is the resolutiion 90% of 2560x1600, the size is also 90% of the 30".
ytoledano1 - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
27" is 81% of 30", when comparing areas, you need to square the ratio.A pixel pitch of 0.25 for 2560x1600 @ 30" is already tiny, with 0.23 for 2560x1440 @ 27" I'll probably have to use bigger fonts everywhere and still have problems with some applications.
ijhammo - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
erm 27" is referring to diagonal length, so the 27" screen diagonal is 90% of the 30" screen diagonal. Also, pixel count is 90% too.chris1317 - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
16:9 is really the worst aspect ratio I have used on a computer screen. Although the difference does not seem much on paper when you actually use one you can see what a backwards step it is. I think I will stick with my 1920x1200 display for now until the manufacturers see some sense and supply what im after.piroroadkill - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
Dell already does the perfect monitors, you just have to be able to afford them.Way better than this Apple offering..
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Displa...
IceDread - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
Actually, I prefer HP monitors above dell. Dell may have more options but the color on dell aint good. It is common that it's way to dark on the right side when you have a white background.The game mode is green/ blueish so you are stuck with high input lag in games if you want decent colours.
So I actually prefer HP in this case.
YouGotServed - Friday, October 1, 2010 - link
You sir, are speaking out of your butt. Please get facts straight before speaking.http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Displa...
This is the pinnacle of Dell monitors. If you can find a comparable HP display, I will be impressed.
IceDread - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
I agree. A 27" 16:9 is like a 24" 16:10. The loss of height is very annoying.I think it's a sales trick. They write 27" and think they can charge you more for it.
jasperjones - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
Seems the U2711, which received an Gold Editor's choice award from AT, is still the way to go for anyone except hardcore Apple fanbois.piroroadkill - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
Also, the new Dell OSD controls are awesome. Proximity sensor with glowing controls? Bitching.BZDTemp - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
Agree but it would have been nice to see the review compare the Dell and the Apple more especially since afaik there are no other displays like them.I for one am certainly loving my U2711. I would have liked split-picture function to be an adjustable Picture-in-picture function and the gaming mode is stupid but other than those small details I have no issues. It's hooked up to a PC, a Mac, a PS3 and a 360 all on the same time - great stuff.
I dream of even more pixels per inch2, but for now the U2711 and the 27" Apple are the best choices bringing even more pixels per inch2 than a 30" panel. When someone makes a "retina" display in 27"+ size it will be a good day :-)
ijhammo - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
he he, can you imagine the cost of a 27" retina display!!!!BZDTemp - Thursday, September 30, 2010 - link
For sure it would cost an impossible amount at first but as with all tech the prices will come down. For example back some 2.5+ decades ago or so my dad paid something $8,000 for a phone the size of a small suitcase and now...Or to stay with computers. The first one I bought back when I was a kid cost $500, it had 1 KB memory total and for display I used an old TV and storage was a audio tapedeck. In other words some day... :-)
ijhammo - Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - link
yeah, one day!! And we'll be here reminiscing how a an base 8 core Mac Pro cost $3000 whilst talking about the new faster than light optical processors....Gotta love technology :-)
ijhammo - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
Well that depends really on use. I would like a 27" screen with as few as cables as possible to use in a fairly limited space. So a monitor with built in speakers and a charger for my laptop seems like a reasonable choice.If ultimate colour quality etc is the goal though, surely you wouldn't even go for the 2711?
BZDTemp - Thursday, September 30, 2010 - link
I must admit to not knowing enough about colours to truly judge my U2711 but it is the first LCD that I have seen come close to my trusted old Sony GDM-F520 (a 21" CRT and perhaps the best CRT ever made).Most likely you can get better colour control with a high end EIZO or something like that but these new 27" panels offer finer pixels so it depends on what you're needs are.
IceDread - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
I really disslike 16:9, a 16:9 27" is just like a 24" 16:10. The loss of height in the 16:9 aspect is huge and very annoying.I also do not like the reflection that can occur to easily and distract me on the apple screens. It may look good at first but it's really annoying when using it.
BZDTemp - Thursday, September 30, 2010 - link
You forget that while the physical size is not as a 30" the 27" still offers a lot more pixels than a 24" 16:10 and the pixels are smaller as well.Check out the Dell U2711 to avoid the reflection hell (and gain a lot of nice features)
AstroGuardian - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
"For some reason color tracking in the lower left of the screen was measurably worse than anywhere else."Guess what...
Hln98 - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
Does the system fonts on this appear too small like the iMac 27 inch? I have the Apple 24 inch LED now and love it since I can see the font. I want to get the new 27 inch but if it's like the iMac 27 inch, I will pass.Please confirm.
Ogopogo - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
I guess the Apple premium (perhaps excepting accessories) has really gone away over the years. Now all the major manufacturers have the same business model - a little distinctive design then outsource to Asia - so prices come back a wash. I remember when Apple wanted $1-2k more for their 30" monitor than anyone else. Now this comes in cheaper than the Dell U2711.Juddog - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
I don't understand why the manufacturers are pushing for such high density displays - for me, 1920 x 1200 at 27 inches is the ideal resolution. Mostly because of font sizes and such, 2560 x 1440 just makes things seem too dang small.I don't known if it's a factor of getting old, but most people I work with seem to think the same.
Spivonious - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
It's because things just look better at a higher DPI. If the fonts are too small, change the font size. Windows 7 has great support for this. My old 17" CRT (I'm too picky to use a TN panel LCD, and too cheap to spend $1000 on a nice IPS LCD) is 130dpi and things just look so much clearer when I run Windows at 125% font size. The number of apps that don't recognize the setting is much smaller than it used to be. Pretty much all apps that were released in the past 5 years support high DPI.I can actually see large differences at 12pt between fonts like Arial, Cambria, and Verdana, where on 96dpi they were very slightly different.
DanaG - Wednesday, September 29, 2010 - link
I have a high-dpi display, and can't use any desktops, because they all have crap DPI.<link removed because the damn comment system thinks this comment is spam>
Anyway, it was "rant-hdtv-has-ruined-the-lcd-display-market-or-i-want-my-pixels-and-dpi-now"
See my comment near the bottom.
"This comment is apparently spam and we do not allow spam comments."
What the hell, Anandtech? What sort of garbage do I have to put in my post to get it to not count as "spam"? How about more random words? Damnit...
n0x1ous - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
I wish someone would make a 30 inch 2560 x 1600 TN so I could actually afford one. Im surprised Asus or Alienware or one of those doesn't get with some OEM and make a $500 30 inch TN for us gamers who don't need all the perfect viewing angles/colors etc......I am ready for more rez (currently on 19x12) but just can't stomach the 10 benjamins to get to 25x16
Tros - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
I disagree, strongly.Your display is just as important as what video card you have driving it, simply because if you're in dark corridors, and the viewing angle makes more of a difference than the video card, then the rendered picture is worthless. Likewise, vibrant colors tend to get a faster response from the brain than colors that are washed out and leave the image ambiguous without looking at it for a few seconds.
I've got two solutions:
1) Go with a projector. Variable screen size, plus a low resolution to keep frames high.
2) Stick with the stuff in your price range.
It's this kind of demand that gets us huge, high resolution screens, with images worse than current solutions.
I'm disappointed with this offering from Apple, because it really is all-glitz and not much substance. As a consumer, I expect to pay a price and get a superior product. And I acknowledge that the price is ridiculous, but at least I don't have to play the "mixed bag" game. I am not wow'ed by the ability to pay a lower price and get something "like good". That's not Apple-like at all.
TegiriNenashi - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
Second it. The price of 30" has been frozen at ~$1200 level for what, 3 years already? Those who claim that the cost of IPS panel is high, should look no further than LCD TVs, which prices steadily declined in all size categories. Today one can buy two good-enough 46" TVs (they are IPS!) for a price of one 30" monitor.BZDTemp - Thursday, September 30, 2010 - link
It's harder to make more pixels perfect so some of the cost is found there but it's also a question of to little a market so that mass production effects are limited.To many people are simply content with what they got and the majority looks at screen size vs. prices and then get the terrible TN panels. It's like in the old days with CRT's where most people ran them at 60 Hz because that was Windows default not knowing good screens could do so much better.
Dustin Sklavos - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
Disagree. TN technology starts to really hit limitations at around 24", when you get bigger than that you start to lose uniformity and the sweet spot for viewing gets that much harder to find. A 30" TN panel would look awful.burgerace - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
Wide color gamut is, for most non-professional users, a horrible drawback. Operating systems, web browsers and sites, images from my SLR camera, games, movies -- content is created for traditional color gamut!At the recommendation of of tech sites like this one, I bought two WCG Dell monitors, a 2408 and a 2410. They exhibit garish red push, and distorted colors in general. ATI drivers can use EDID to adjust the color temperature, reducing red push to a manageable level. But when I "upgraded" to an NVIDA 460, I lost that option.
Anand, do you actually look at the monitors with your eyes? Can you see how bad WCG looks? Forget the tables full of misleading numbers from professional image editing software, please.
7Enigma - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
I think your problem is that most people spending this chunk of change on an LCD also have them properly calibrated. As mentioned in this exact review the uncalibrated picture was quite bad. This LCD might have even been cherry-picked for the review unit (don't know if this was sent by Apple for review or Anand purchased it for personal use). So WYSIWYG doesn't apply when calibration is performed.burgerace - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
WCG monitors are NOT capable of displaying a greater number of colors than a traditional monitor. They display the same 24 bit color, but it's spread over a greater range of wavelengths.ALL mainstream content is designed to use only the 73% gamut. There is no way to "calibrate" a monitor to make mainstream content look good. Either the monitor displays the content within the correct, limited gamut -- thereby using less than 24bit color to render the image and throwing out visual information -- or it spreads it out over the wide gamut, causing inaccurate colors.
Pinkynator - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
Finally someone who knows what they're talking about!I've finally registered here to say the exact same thing as you, but instead I'll give you my full support.
People just don't seem to understand that wide gamut is probably the second worst thing that happened to computer displays, right after TN monitors. It's bad - it's seriously bad.
Things might change a very long time from now, in a distant future, *IF* we get graphics cards with more bits per channel and monitors capable of understanding that (along with proper software support), but right now it's just something that is being pushed by marketing. Even tech review sites like Anandtech managed to fall for that crap, misleading monitor buyers into thinking that bigger gamut equals a better picture. In fact, it's exactly the opposite.
To go into a serious theoretical hyperbole for those who do not understand the implications of a stretched wide gamut with 8BPC output, a monitor with a 1000000000% gamut would only be capable of displaying one single shade of red, green or blue. Everything at 0 would be black, and everything from 1..255 would be eye-scorchingly red, green or blue. (Actually, the shades would technically differ, but the human eye would not be able to discern them.)
Your options with wide gamut are as follows:
1) Display utterly inaccurate colours
2) Emulate sRGB and throw out colour information, lowering the dynamic range and picture quality
That's it. Nothing else. Wide gamut, as it stands right now, DESTROYS the displayed image.
If you like wide gamut, that's fine - there are people who like miss Justine Bieber, too, but that doesn't make her good.
vlado08 - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
I don't understand sRGB emulation.But probably on the input of the monitor you have 8 bits per color and through processing they cange it to 10 bits to drive the panel? This way you may not lose dynamic range. Well the color information will be less than 10 bits per color but you dont have this color in the input to begin with. Tell me if I'm wrong.
Pinkynator - Wednesday, September 29, 2010 - link
Example:Pure red (255,0,0) on a wide gamut monitor is more intense than pure red on a normal gamut monitor (which content is created for, thus ends up looking incorrect on WG).
That means (255,0,0) should actually be internally transformed by the monitor to something like (220,0,0) if you want the displayed colour to match that of the normal monitor and show the picture accurately. It also means that when the graphics card gives the monitor (240,0,0), the monitor would need to transform it to (210,0,0) for proper display - as you can see, it has condensed 15 shades of red (240-255) into only 10 (210-220).
To put it differently, if you display a gradient on a wide gamut monitor performing sRGB emulation, you get banding, or the monitor cheats and does dithering, which introduces visible artifacts.
Higher-bit processing is basically used only because the gamut does not stretch linearly. A medium grey (128,128,128) would technically be measured as something like (131, 130, 129) on the WG monitor, so there's all kinds of fancy transformations going on in order to not make such things apparently visible.
Like I said, if we ever get more bits in the entire display path, this whole point becomes moot, but for now it isn't.
andy o - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
If you have your monitor properly calibrated, it's not a problem. You don't have to "spread" sRGB's "73%" (of what? I assume you mean Adobe RGB). You create your own content in its own color gamut. A wider gamut monitor can ensure that the colors in it overlap other devices like printers, thus proofing becomes more accurate.Wide gamut are great for fairly specialized calibrated systems, but I agree they're not for movie watching or game use.
teng029 - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
still not compliant, i'm assuming..theangryintern - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
Grrrrrr for it being a glossy panel. I *WAS* thinking about getting this monitor, but since I sit at my desk with my back to a large window, glossy doesn't cut it. That and the fact that I HATE glossy monitors, period.lukeevanssi - Wednesday, September 29, 2010 - link
I haven't used it myself, but a close friend did and said it works great - he has two monitors hooked up to his 24" iMac. I have, however, ordered stuff from OWC before (I get all my Apple RAM there since it's a lot cheaper than the Apple Store and it's all Apple-rated RAM) and they are awesome.http://www.articlesbase.com/authors/andrew-razor/6...
chukked - Wednesday, September 29, 2010 - link
very impressive review Anand, Thanks.but this is a cinema display review so response time is of prime concern.
with 12 ms response time i am sure it is having a lot of blurr.
is this the reason you have skipped the response time/ blurr/ ghost tests ?
ijhammo - Wednesday, September 29, 2010 - link
unless I imagined it, wasn't there a screenshot of ghosting?ijhammo - Wednesday, September 29, 2010 - link
i cant find confirmation that the 12ms quoted on the Apple website is GtG time - it just says 12ms (typical)softdrinkviking - Wednesday, September 29, 2010 - link
does anybody know if there is some kind of after market screen coating available to make glass screens a bit anti-glare?you know, something that actually works...
i love the idea of the LED backlighting because they look closer to the brightness of an old CRT to me, and i never felt "shocked" by that amount of brightness. (i find most LCDs to be extremely dim)
so what i'm saying is, i know that there are matte finished alternatives out there (like the 27' Dell that looks nice), but if i want LED backlighting, it doesn't seem like there are any options.
svarog - Wednesday, September 29, 2010 - link
While this review is generally up to the usual high standards I've come to expect from AnandTech, what's up with the lack of a comaprison to the competition in the conclusion? There is a burgeoning market in the 27" high-res monitor space, and from this article it appears that customers would be better served choosing a non-Apple product...?Drag0nFire - Wednesday, September 29, 2010 - link
Looks like the U2711 looks like the better value here. Same IPS 27in goodness, but without the glossy screen, limited input options, and unadjustable stand... and roughly the same price.Seems like this deserves mention in the conclusion?
8steve8 - Wednesday, September 29, 2010 - link
the u2711 costs 10% more, has no webcam, no ambient light sensor, and uses a ccfl backlight which means the display uses almost twice the energy for a given brightness, it's a no brainer to buy the apple.softdrinkviking - Wednesday, September 29, 2010 - link
don't forget that you lose control over the monitor without bootcamp, so it only really works on macs. at least that's what i undstood from this article.8steve8 - Wednesday, September 29, 2010 - link
what is desperately needed is a comparison of power consumption at a given brightness....comparing max brightness power is useless since displays don't all have the same max brightness ,,
a graph of all displays' power usage at 200 nits or whatever would be ideal.
just like performance per watt. we want brightness per watt, or maybe brightness per pixel per watt, or brightness per sqr inch per watt....
at the very least, a calibrated brightness comparison would be appreciated.
thanks.
seapeople - Wednesday, September 29, 2010 - link
I don't generally hop on the "Anand is an Apple fanboi" bandwagon, but articles like this make me wonder. If you look at the data so painstakingly ignored throughout the article, it's obvious that this Apple monitor gets thoroughly trounced by the competition. It doesn't excel at anything (except it's about the third brightest and has the ability to reach brightness levels so low they'd only be usable in the middle of a deep cave) and it gets beat handily in most of the color/contrast ratio measurements. It doesn't even impress much with power consumption -- yes it's the third brightest, but it also uses a lot of power compared to the competition, and the min brightness power consumption doesn't even matter, because how are you going to get an extension cable all the way into the middle of a cave? Of course, if this was a normal PC based product, Anand would give us the relative power consumption at a certain brightness compared to the competition, but then I'm sure doing so wouldn't impress as much as showing how little power this thing draws when it's so dim and shiny that birds would be flying into it if you left the window open.What else have we learned? Well now that Apple has done 16x9, it's cool! Anand actually praised the loss in vertical pixels, with a comment of how he probably didn't use those pixels anyway. See how efficient Apple is! They know exactly what we don't need better than we do. What else don't we need? The ability to use a $1000 monitor with 95% of the computers in the world and be able to adjust the brightness. Not only can't you use this monitor with a Windows computer, but it doesn't work with older Macs unless you get a special adapter. I'm surprised that adapter isn't sold by Apple.
What is there to make up for all these issues? A BUILT IN CHARGER FOR YOUR MACBOOK! OMG!!! Think of all the desk space I save with this 27" monitor now that I don't have to use a separate charger for my macbook. It even gives me 10" to spare, so I don't actually have to physically solder the macbook to the monitor for it to charge. Thank you Apple! It's also convenient that the monitor has no vertical height adjustment, so I don't have to worry about pulling my 10" charger cord off my macbook. Now as long as I don't want to set my macbook on the other side of the monitor...
The proof of the bias in this article is how warm and fuzzy it makes you feel about this product despite the obvious shortcomings. I subconsciously want to buy this monitor now. Anand has done this to me. I logically read and comprehended the data that told me why I shouldn't buy this (especially since I don't have a Mac), but because any direct comparisons to the superior competition were avoided, and the few unique Apple nuances were played up throughout the bulk of the article, I now just have this feeling that this Apple monitor is a great buy. And so do most of the people responding to this article. Thank you Anand. Now I'll probably have to go buy this monitor and hook it up to my PC and be forced to painfully watch my own reflection during Diehard as the monitor sears my eyeballs with its unadjustable atomic blast level brightness. Then I might as well buy a Mac and an Ipad to go along with a brand new Iphone so I can facetime with people I don't even like.
8steve8 - Thursday, September 30, 2010 - link
I strongly disagree,this is the cheapest display on the market with a resolution above 2048 x 1152
this is the cheapest LED IPS display on the market of any size. (other than the defunct apple LED 24")
being LED it uses in the neighborhood of half the power at the same brightness as its closest competitor (the dell u2711).
frankly on these notes alone it'd only have to be somewhat competitive in display quality to be highly recommended... the apple design and webcam/light-sensor/charger is just a bonus.
8steve8 - Thursday, September 30, 2010 - link
although yes, 16x9 is a fail for anything pretending to be a professional/workstation display.8steve8 - Thursday, September 30, 2010 - link
(no edit button)... but it's not only apple... everyone is doing 16:9, so can't really fault this display, you can fault the industry...
i mean how many 16:10 LED displays are there? other than the XL30, i can't think of any....
so while it woulda been nice, can't really blame this particular product...
ijhammo - Thursday, September 30, 2010 - link
Lol - erm, how about if you don't like the monitor don't buy one?? There are plenty of alternatives.I didn't get the same warm and fuzzy feeling you did from the article and they certainly didn't give this monitor the Editors Choice award that they gave the Dell U2711...
I think the thing to bear in mind is the target market for this monitor. It is after all called a 'Cinema' display (so it's 16:9) and it is squarely aimed at typical Mac owners (boo hoo, brightness doesn't work on non macs under windows). If you look at the stats it might not beat all the competition but it still a good all rounder and certainly has Delta Es below 4 which the human can't detect.
Lets be honest - all technology is a compromise between cost and performance. If you want the ultimate quality expect to pay the ultimate price.
v12v12 - Monday, October 11, 2010 - link
PRAISE the voice of DISSENT! Finally... am I not the only person in here that doesn't get caught up by all the covert/deceptive/manipulative MARKETING that goes on at Anand? Don't get me wrong; I'm here EVERYDAY checking out the continually great, in-depth articles, BUT... Rumors and whispers of "Apple-fanboyism," continue to resurface, even after apparently being shouted down to Davy Jone's Locker... And here we have another one resurfacing, covered in fanboy barnacles!__It's almost like a Fox(entertainment)News hit piece of sorts; the lack of true comparisons, no pro & contrast, baseless facts and figures, but compared to WHAT? There's no real "review" going on here, it's merely meant to look like it; and who are these types of hit-pieces custom tailored to---why Apple’s own teeny-tiny cabal of “elite” consumers and their sponsors (tbh). For the rest of “us” out here, with logical as our guiding light; we can CLEARLY see right through all the smoke & mirror, fog and light shows being put on in this “review…”
16:9 for $1000? Short cables for $1000? Here… let me explain; this is merely someone in Apple’s R&D dept who came up with the clever COST-CUTTING idea like, “hey boss, heh, heh…. If we cutesy up the cables with cheap silicone and monotone colors, this will visually and mentally confused the owners into thinking that anymore cable length is simply a waste, inefficient, and you know ‘bad’ for the environment; am I right? Heheh, heh, heh…” Yes you are---sniveling subordinate, said the bossman!
Anyhow I completely agree; this monitor is nothing but a bone tossed to the ever expectant, shrude Apple fanboy. In reality, this monitor suits NEITHER the avid/enthusiast consumer, nor the PROFESSIONAL at all… What a wonderful example of market-saturation. This monitor literally serves NO PURPOSE other than to bait & switch idiots from their legal-tender… Anand, we love ya bossman, but come on, you’ve got to find better ways of giving your Apple fans (I own 2 Apple machines btw) the “elitism” fix they so desire, while also keeping Apple’s number in your little black-profit-book… Until then, those of use with sense and a SPINE, will continue to point it out for ya and the “elite,” until you remember that we’re ALWAYS watchin ;-)
Ciao Anandtech staff! Lol
_Funny, this piece got me thinking about just how did the “bite out of Apple’s-Apple” get started? My take; it all starts with a great idea… At 1st people show up to “Apple” with a big fat, WHOLE, juicy apple as their head… The boss, already a few bites into being at apple, sees these new fat-heads and thinks, “hrmm I’ve gotta put a stop to all this new ‘idea’ crap right now!” So he takes a “bite” outta yer Apple, and claims it for himself, BUT he too has a boss, who has a boss; they ALL want a bite of the Apple to claim as their own. Eventually up the line the biting goes until you reach THE BOSS; Jobbo-the-Hut! Being that he’s the last big Apple head and there’s nobody to take a bite from his Apple, he comes up with the brilliant idea of cutting a “bite” like shape out of his own Apple. Seeing this mysterious bite out of the head hancho’s head makes everyone feel that missing some chunks here and there is actually “cool,” and “better” since even the big-guy is missing some crucial cells as well… And thus the cycle of “elite, but lacking” becomes the status-Quo at “Apple.” THE END…*poof* (Copyrighted!)
gstrickler - Thursday, September 30, 2010 - link
As someone with fairly sensitive eyes, I've encountered many monitors that were too bright for me, especially when trying to use one in a less well lit environment. I had to give away a Dell monitor (to my father) because it was painful for me to use it with the room lights turned down. 200nits is uncomfortable to me in normal room lighting during the day, anything over 100 is uncomfortable at night. Many of the monitors on your list would be painful for me to use.Sabresiberian - Thursday, September 30, 2010 - link
Not a good offering from Apple, I expected a lot better. The only thing positive about this monitor is the pixel size. Thanks for the article, now we know.;)
Kidster3001 - Friday, October 1, 2010 - link
I've been using a 1st generation Apple Cinema 30" display for several years now on my Windows gaming PC. Using a 3rd party app called ACD (Apple Cinema Display) I can control the brightness and everything else.p.s. 16:9 is for movies. I would not want to go from 1600 vertical to 1440. It really is a huge factor in serious gaming.
MWG - Friday, October 1, 2010 - link
I'm using a Sapphire Vapor-X HD 5870 with Windows 7 Home Premium.
Key is to use Catalyst Control Center to control the brightness.
'Graphics' > 'Desktops & Displays' > Configure Desktop > 'Properties' > 'Color' tab
Purchased a Startech 6 in displayport to mini displayport adapter for $8.98
Really happy with the monitor.
richardbalboa - Monday, October 4, 2010 - link
Glossy only is a joke. At least give people the choice.DP port only is cutting corners IMO, and I have a 2010 MBP.
Non adjustable stand on a £900 monitor is an insult. Maybe Apple will start selling adjustable desks soon.
Cables a good idea but too short. The magsafe wouldnt look half as attractive if Apple didn't try to rob £70 each for them on their own.
Tech specs clearly nowhere near a match for the u2711 and that has so much more built into it to justify its cost.
Despite all this, if it was £600 or £700 I'd be tempted. But not at £900, forget it.
Add this to the fact that Apple have now discontinued the 30" - their only other matte display and you can only drive that with the awfully flawed (and again, overpriced) Mini DP to dual dpi piece of junk from a MBP.
Looks like Dell or NEC will be getting a large portion of my cash soon.
Apple - start listening to your customers or you will lose them. I don't know what % of graphics people prefer matte displays but I'm willing to bet it is at least 50%. Get over the shiny stuff and leave that for the iPads and iPhones. GIVE PEOPLE THE CHOICE. Pros know what they want and no amount of your marketing glitter will convince them otherwise - they will simply just walk away from you.
Valleyvalley - Wednesday, November 17, 2010 - link
I really don't understand why all the so-called professionally keep bashing glossy screens. I mistakenly bought a matte screen after reading such reviews and it is horrible. Because the black level is not great, and because the coating is not smooth, reading text is painful. I have to make the font size much larger than normal to be able to read clearly and smoothly, which essentially doesn't take advantage of the high resolution much. As a result I am returning it. If you go to the review section on Amazon about Dell U2711 you'll see similar complains. After this experience, I decide to go with the market choice instead of listening to any of the so-called professionals and I would never touch a matte screen again, althought I will not necessarily buy the Apple LED. Professionals would like to think that because they learned such and such, they can somehow tell people what looks better. However, in reality that is totally rubbish and it is still up to the consumers to decide what looks better and what products will succeed. Professionals also would like to think they are smart and people are idiots easily swayed by marketing strategies, and they are so enthusiastic to convince people something like "what looks better in your eyes". I would say marketing clearly playes a role but in the end most people are not idiots and they know what they are seeing and can compare the effects using their eyes.Glossy is not a joke. It has clear advantage of black and white levels, more vibrant colors, and there are even comparisons online of glossy and matte screens under sunlight, with the glossy screen reflective but still visible and vibrant, but the matte screen totally washed out. It is more of a debate and personal preference. If you google "glossy vs matte" you'll find that it is not so one-sided. There are many people who don't know what glossy is and what matte is and they just believe in their eyes, and there is nothing wrong with it and they are not idiots. At the end of the day it is what matters, right? How can you win people's eyes. Those numbers of color, constrast, etc. are meaningless to most people. A picture is worth a thousand words. People can use their own eyes to make a choice. Don't be too self-confident in telling people what to do. It is really not Apple who doesn't listen to its customers because Apple is a product, and needs to win customers and it is doing pretty well so far. It is the so-called professionals who simply don't like to change and they don't, and simply have no need to listen to Apple's customers because they don't make any products and they just like to do stuff the good old ways.
kenpmason - Thursday, May 12, 2011 - link
Your comments regarding matt vs glossy screens ignore a critical spec--dot pitch. The Dell U2711, which I've been using for a year now, has what I believe to be the smallest dot pitch available on the market today, 0.233. Most other screens have 0.250-0.300-- in other words, coarser. If you take a given rez and spread it over more real estate, then the dot pitch has to increase.People who "believe in their eyes" also tend to gravitate to screens with overly vivid (or lurid) colours. This can easily be seen when comparing low-end HDTVs to high-end ones. Similarly, glossy screens are more impressive at first glance, but over time they wear out their welcome.
Please comment!
richardbalboa - Monday, October 4, 2010 - link
In 35 years on this planet I cannot once remember ever going to the cinema to watch a film on a glossy screen.datajerk - Tuesday, November 9, 2010 - link
Any chance you'll post your tuned display profile?Valleyvalley - Wednesday, November 17, 2010 - link
I really don't understand why all the so-called professionally keep bashing glossy screens. I mistakenly bought a matte screen after reading such reviews and it is horrible. Because the black level is not great, and because the coating is not smooth, reading text is painful. I have to make the font size much larger than normal to be able to read clearly and smoothly, which essentially doesn't take advantage of the high resolution much. As a result I am returning it. If you go to the review section on Amazon about Dell U2711 you'll see similar complains. After this experience, I decide to go with the market choice instead of listening to any of the so-called professionals and I would never touch a matte screen again, althought I will not necessarily buy the Apple LED. Professionals would like to think that because they learned such and such, they can somehow tell people what looks better. However, in reality that is totally rubbish and it is still up to the consumers to decide what looks better and what products will succeed. Professionals also would like to think they are smart and people are idiots easily swayed by marketing strategies, and they are so enthusiastic to convince people something like "what looks better in your eyes". I would say marketing clearly playes a role but in the end most people are not idiots and they know what they are seeing and can compare the effects using their eyes.Glossy is not a joke. It has clear advantage of black and white levels, more vibrant colors, and there are even comparisons online of glossy and matte screens under sunlight, with the glossy screen reflective but still visible and vibrant, but the matte screen totally washed out. It is more of a debate and personal preference. If you google "glossy vs matte" you'll find that it is not so one-sided. There are many people who don't know what glossy is and what matte is and they just believe in their eyes, and there is nothing wrong with it and they are not idiots. At the end of the day it is what matters, right? How can you win people's eyes. Those numbers of color, constrast, etc. are meaningless to most people. A picture is worth a thousand words. People can use their own eyes to make a choice. Don't be too self-confident in telling people what to do. It is really not Apple who doesn't listen to its customers because Apple is a product, and needs to win customers and it is doing pretty well so far. It is the so-called professionals who simply don't like to change and they don't, and simply have no need to listen to Apple's customers because they don't make any products and they just like to do stuff the good old ways.
Valleyvalley - Wednesday, November 17, 2010 - link
These comments are not for the author of this review. I think the author did a good jobs and provided little opinion of his own, which is a good thing. These comments are mainly for the previous comments.My suggestion: if you care reading text online, etc. a lot, double check the Dell U2711 or any other matte screens before buying, though I know that is difficult as DELL doesn't have physical stores like Apple. From my personal experience, reading text is a lot easier on a glossy screen and that is very important to me, much more important than being a little reflective or 16:9 and such and such.
Johnmcl7 - Saturday, November 20, 2010 - link
I'm not calling myself a professional nor am I one to jump on the bandwagon, while I don't despise glossy screens as some do I prefer matt screens and can see why reviewers prefer matt screens as well.There's no doubt a glossy screen has a 'wow' factor that a matt screen doesn't which in turn is no doubt responsible for the popularity of glossy screens. However I find that works against it for image or video work as the image looks a bit 'fake', it's not unlike a P&S camera with boosted contrast and saturation. Again it makes the DSLR netural image look flat but the DSLR image is more accurate and better to work with.
For text I don't have any problems reading a matt screen, I find the opposite as there's no worrying about getting the angles right to ensure there's no distracting light reflecting off the screen and getting in the way.
I do have the Dell U2711 and think it's a superb monitor, it's always my first choice to work with when possible. I also have the Studio XPS 16 with the RGB backlit monitor which is also extremely good but it's difficult to ignore the irritating reflections from it's side to side glossy panel.
John
Valleyvalley - Monday, December 6, 2010 - link
No. Matte is not more accurate. It is only slightly more accurate to a photographer's taste because it somewhat mimics the uneven and un-smooth surface of a printed picture. For the majority of people who don't even print out their pictures that often and just watch them on a monitor, share them online, etc., Matte==FAIL! It just looks worse.Valleyvalley - Monday, December 6, 2010 - link
And you enjoy reading the DELL text only because you didn't put it side by side with the Apple 27 inch LED with the same resolution. I bet anyone can tell it is less smooth than this Apple display.smartvmusa - Tuesday, November 30, 2010 - link
Hey, I am lover of Mac product. Its a nice information about 27" LCD Display.Thanks
Smartvm
kukuuu - Tuesday, January 25, 2011 - link
Ive heard that windows doesnt work and thus there might not be gaming from my pc. Also the minidisplay issue means ,im not sure about it at al :(bcron - Tuesday, April 19, 2011 - link
Hello,First of all: thanks for your test – it is by far the best I could find!
I have the first version of the 30" Cinema Display and would like to buy a new display. I am using my 30" primarily for image and video processing, and photo printing (with an Epson Stylus Photo R3000).
My question is: Do you think that the 27" is better, worse or equal to the 30" (first version) for photography and image processing? (I am not talking about the glare/nonglare-discussion but only about colour accuracy for image editing and photo printing)
From what I´ve seen from your test the 27" seems to have a better colour space: 83.16% vs 72.96% for the 30". (By the way, is there a way to measure the actual color space of my display? I have a DTP94 colorimeter and use iColorDisplay and basiCColor, but I could not find an option to measure the colour space in percentage of Adobe RGB)
At a setting of 100cd/m2 (for photo printing) the 27" has a deltaE of 2.2. But in this diagram there is no comparable value of the 30" display.
Is 2.2 good enough for professional photo printing? I do know that there are better displays but what I do not know is: how big is the difference, eg. compared to a deltaE of 1.1 really – in terms of human perception?
Thanks!
B.C.
dffs - Thursday, December 11, 2014 - link
There are several things wrong with this monitor. First, of course, the price. Other monitors, such as the Dell UltraSharp 27, appear to use the same screen, and have a street price of nearly half of this one. Although the aluminum case is lovely, it seems impossible to justify the price differential. Second, its height is not adjustable. This is a serious drawback if, for example, you want to use it as an external monitor with an iMac. Third, a good monitor needs its own color controls, featuring RGB sliders. The only way to adjust colors on a Mac monitor is by that exceedingly lame Colors section of the Displays control panel. It's high time Apple gives us something better.