Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: apple cinema display  (Read 6545 times)
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« on: February 18, 2009, 06:17:31 AM »
ReplyReply

How are they, how do they compare to Eizo's do they calibrate well, does anyone know anything about the,m?
Logged
ddk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 274


WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 18, 2009, 07:40:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: woof75
How are they, how do they compare to Eizo's do they calibrate well, does anyone know anything about the,m?

Depends what you need it for, I have the Apple 30" Cinema Display side by side with an Eizo CG 241W and its great for everything except critical photo use, then the Eizo is streets ahead in color accuracy, specially with Adobe RGB files.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2009, 07:41:20 AM by ddk » Logged

david
-----------------------
www.pbase.com/ddk
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #2 on: February 18, 2009, 08:11:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ddk
Depends what you need it for, I have the Apple 30" Cinema Display side by side with an Eizo CG 241W and its great for everything except critical photo use, then the Eizo is streets ahead in color accuracy, specially with Adobe RGB files.

Well, I was hoping for super accurate color. I guess I just have to figure out how to pack my Eizo and travel with that.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9226



WWW
« Reply #3 on: February 18, 2009, 08:53:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: woof75
How are they, how do they compare to Eizo's do they calibrate well, does anyone know anything about the,m?

Not even close. Nothing special. Apple left the higher end display business years ago.

Accuracy is kind of a buzz word I try to avoid.

If you're looking for a good reference display, that is, a unit that's got high end internal LUTs and an integrated system for calibration, Eizo or NEC is the direction you should be looking.

I have nothing against Eizo other then the price. I've yet to see what the premium buys over a SpectraView using the NEC software and a good, supported instrument.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #4 on: February 18, 2009, 09:00:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: digitaldog
Not even close. Nothing special. Apple left the higher end display business years ago.

Accuracy is kind of a buzz word I try to avoid.

If you're looking for a good reference display, that is, a unit that's got high end internal LUTs and an integrated system for calibration, Eizo or NEC is the direction you should be looking.

I have nothing against Eizo other then the price. I've yet to see what the premium buys over a SpectraView using the NEC software and a good, supported instrument.

I have an Eizo which I've had for a few years now and I love it but I hate traveling with it as it's so bulky.
Logged
k bennett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1478


WWW
« Reply #5 on: February 18, 2009, 04:23:47 PM »
ReplyReply

All of the above is true.

However, remember that many of your clients -- the art directors, magazine photo editors, graphic designers, etc., -- will be viewing your photos on a 30-inch Apple Cinema Display. So it helps if your perfect images also look good on that.

Finally, I've been using a 30-inch and a 20-inch ACD for several years, and getting very good results in both fine-art prints and offset printing. Part of that is simply an old-school, never-trust-the-monitor, check-the-numbers work flow. Part of it is that they aren't bad monitors.
Logged

Equipment: a camera and some lenses.
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9226



WWW
« Reply #6 on: February 18, 2009, 04:52:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: k bennett
However, remember that many of your clients -- the art directors, magazine photo editors, graphic designers, etc., -- will be viewing your photos on a 30-inch Apple Cinema Display. So it helps if your perfect images also look good on that.


Assuming they are all calibrating their displays to same target (or at all). Every Cinema display, like all displays differ from each other even when the end user doesn't muck around with them.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
ddk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 274


WWW
« Reply #7 on: February 18, 2009, 09:25:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: digitaldog
Not even close. Nothing special. Apple left the higher end display business years ago.

Accuracy is kind of a buzz word I try to avoid.

If you're looking for a good reference display, that is, a unit that's got high end internal LUTs and an integrated system for calibration, Eizo or NEC is the direction you should be looking.

I have nothing against Eizo other then the price. I've yet to see what the premium buys over a SpectraView using the NEC software and a good, supported instrument.

As far as I know NEC only has one Adobe RGB capable Multisync unit which costs more than equivalent CG series monitors, the rest are sRGB space only and they're similarly priced to 2nd tier Eizos with similar specs.
Logged

david
-----------------------
www.pbase.com/ddk
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9226



WWW
« Reply #8 on: February 18, 2009, 10:04:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ddk
As far as I know NEC only has one Adobe RGB capable Multisync unit which costs more than equivalent CG series monitors, the rest are sRGB space only and they're similarly priced to 2nd tier Eizos with similar specs.

They have at least four wide gamut displays I can think of off hand. Three are close to Adobe RGB gamut depending on how you wish gauge this (percentage of Adobe RGB metric is not vague). One exceeds the gamut.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
mcfoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 938


WWW
« Reply #9 on: February 19, 2009, 02:05:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Been working at one of the best retouching houses in Sydney. They use the Apple 30' & preferred it over the Eizo. The reason being that with the newer Eizo if the client is looking at the screen from a 30 degree angle which is most cases the picture looks totally different, very flat. Looks good to the retoucher but not to the client, with the apple it looks the same. We shot a job & had the same problem with the Eizo & used the Apple cinema instead. Looking on an angle as you do when you are shooting & the Apple was better.
Denis
Logged

Denis Montalbetti
Montalbetti+Campbell
www.montalbetticampbell.com
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #10 on: February 19, 2009, 07:12:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: mcfoto
Been working at one of the best retouching houses in Sydney. They use the Apple 30' & preferred it over the Eizo. The reason being that with the newer Eizo if the client is looking at the screen from a 30 degree angle which is most cases the picture looks totally different, very flat. Looks good to the retoucher but not to the client, with the apple it looks the same. We shot a job & had the same problem with the Eizo & used the Apple cinema instead. Looking on an angle as you do when you are shooting & the Apple was better.
Denis

And how about accuracy for the retoucher compared to the Eizo? I'm not super interested in massive gamut displays, a display is just a reference for me, my printers gamut is smaller than rgb too so I'm probably as well missing some gamut on my display.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9226



WWW
« Reply #11 on: February 19, 2009, 08:12:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Accuracy defined how and using what metric?
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #12 on: February 19, 2009, 08:20:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: digitaldog
Accuracy defined how and using what metric?

I'm a photographer and have little interest in the hypotheticals of it (as I guess you are aware).  I need practical advice. The only thing I care about is does my monitor look like my print. I profile my eizo with a gretag eye one and output to an epson and it looks the same, I send a file to the magazine with their profile attached and the magazine page looks like my monitor and my epson. Thats all I need a monitor for and thats all I need to know.

Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9226



WWW
« Reply #13 on: February 19, 2009, 08:37:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: woof75
I'm a photographer and have little interest in the hypotheticals of it (as I guess you are aware).  I need practical advice. The only thing I care about is does my monitor look like my print. I profile my eizo with a gretag eye one and output to an epson and it looks the same, I send a file to the magazine with their profile attached and the magazine page looks like my monitor and my epson. Thats all I need a monitor for and thats all I need to know.


Your monitor will never look exactly like your print, ones emissive, the other reflective. But then your chrome and your print never did either. But you produced a simulation you accepted as a match.

You say you use the above equipment and they look the same. That's the bottom line. Has nothing to do with accuracy since that's a term that expects some kind of metric to say its within some accuracy spec. My ruler is more accurate than yours because we compared both against a reference grade measuring instrument of known specifications. That's an accuracy metric we can agree on.

Any decent display with the proper tools should produce what you ask for. Lesser quality displays might show more banding in smooth gradients at a fixed zoom ratio. Some displays may require calibration more often. Some displays may have better if I can use the term, viewing angles. Some have wider gamuts. None of this has anything to do with accuracy.

More users analogize over the so called accuracy of their displays then concentrate on proper viewing conditions of the print, or fail to properly setup a soft proof. I will say in this context, having a display that provides control over the calibration of a contrast ratio is probably going to produce a more "accurate" (closer visual match) then one that doesn't. Displays have far greater contrast ratio's than prints, having the ability to target this really helps to produce screen to print matching.

My practical advise based on working with a lot of display technology over the years, and working with those who design them is to look to an integrated solution (display with mated instrument and software designed from the ground up with these accessories). I've seen the best print to screen matching, with proper setup and use from such displays as Barco Reference V, Radius PressView, Sony Artisan and NEC SpectraView, all such integrated solutions. In terms of accuracy, this time measured using known, reference grade devices, such solutions again fall into this camp.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #14 on: February 19, 2009, 09:00:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: digitaldog
Your monitor will never look exactly like your print, ones emissive, the other reflective. But then your chrome and your print never did either. But you produced a simulation you accepted as a match.

You say you use the above equipment and they look the same. That's the bottom line. Has nothing to do with accuracy since that's a term that expects some kind of metric to say its within some accuracy spec. My ruler is more accurate than yours because we compared both against a reference grade measuring instrument of known specifications. That's an accuracy metric we can agree on.

Any decent display with the proper tools should produce what you ask for. Lesser quality displays might show more banding in smooth gradients at a fixed zoom ratio. Some displays may require calibration more often. Some displays may have better if I can use the term, viewing angles. Some have wider gamuts. None of this has anything to do with accuracy.

More users analogize over the so called accuracy of their displays then concentrate on proper viewing conditions of the print, or fail to properly setup a soft proof. I will say in this context, having a display that provides control over the calibration of a contrast ratio is probably going to produce a more "accurate" (closer visual match) then one that doesn't. Displays have far greater contrast ratio's than prints, having the ability to target this really helps to produce screen to print matching.

My practical advise based on working with a lot of display technology over the years, and working with those who design them is to look to an integrated solution (display with mated instrument and software designed from the ground up with these accessories). I've seen the best print to screen matching, with proper setup and use from such displays as Barco Reference V, Radius PressView, Sony Artisan and NEC SpectraView, all such integrated solutions. In terms of accuracy, this time measured using known, reference grade devices, such solutions again fall into this camp.

"Any decent display with the proper tools should produce what you ask for". So an apple display will work well for me?
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9226



WWW
« Reply #15 on: February 19, 2009, 09:12:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: woof75
"Any decent display with the proper tools should produce what you ask for". So an apple display will work well for me?

If the question is, using a good software and hardware tool, can you calibrate it so you get a good screen to print match, the answer is yes.

Would I purchase a different unit within the same price range, yes.

The other thing that drives me nuts about Apple displays is the lack of control over the height.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #16 on: February 19, 2009, 09:25:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Another vote for the Apple Cinema display.  No, it isn't as "good" as an Eizo from a gamut standpoint, but as pointed out above, most (but not all) of your customers are going to be looking at their own Cinema display, and it is less prone to viewing angle issues.  One other point -- I have found that if the image looks good on a Cinema display, it looks good on the Eizo too, but not necessarily true for the other way around...  

Cheers,
Logged

Professional
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 306


« Reply #17 on: February 19, 2009, 09:25:46 AM »
ReplyReply

I was considering to buy Apple CD 30" but seems i have to add Eizo into consideration, i just want to use it for retouching and workflow and not to show or view for clients and so, i had worked on Apple CD 20" in our photog club and the quality and clarity is incredible amazing, so i don't know if there are much better quality monitors than ACD but also not so much expensive then it will be great.
Logged
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #18 on: February 19, 2009, 10:06:57 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't need clients to like my work on there monitors, I want them to like it when it comes out in the magazine. Color, brightness and contrast accuracy is the important thing for me, my lacie is great for that when it's calibrated correctly. BUT, it's awful to travel with as it's so bulky, apple monitors are very slim and have a very small stand which is a great advantage but will i be able to calibrate it to a standard that I'm happy with?
Logged
jjlphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 467


« Reply #19 on: February 19, 2009, 11:21:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Clients wreck the files anyway, so the Apples are good enough for most.
Logged

Thanks, John Luke

Member-ASMP
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad