Apple 23" cinema display - pink?

Posted by: Top Cat on 08 February 2005

Hi folks.

Not posting round here much anymore, so apologies if this has been covered before, but I understand at least a few of us have the Apple displays. I'm looking at buying a PowerMac G5 DP* plus a display later in the year (once Tiger arrives, roar!) and I'm weighing up the options.

I know Garyi has a 23" Apple LCD, and I know it's been troublesome for a great many people - the dreaded 'pink tint'. I was just curious to see if it was affecting Gary's monitor, and/or anyone else's.

The 20" is too small for what I want to do (I love a high resolution) and the 23" would be ideal but for the risk of 'pink'. I'm starting to think about the 30", but it's one heck of a lot of pennies and if I went down this route it would have to wait until next year.

So, anyone suffering the 'pink' problem? I know that our local John Lewis has a VERY pink 23" whilst our Applecentre has one which appears OK. It's this lottery that concerns me - will it be OK or won't it?

Ta,

John

PS. ANyone have the 30" display? Just curious as to whether you regret the extra expense or would buy it again?
Posted on: 08 February 2005 by Joe Petrik
John,

No pink tint here, and all 2.3 million pixels work (not a dead or dying one in the bunch), which I can't say for my otherwise nice Dell LCD monitor at work.

My display was one of the first off the boat, so to speak, my having ordered it just a day after Apple had launched their new Cinema Display line. I don't know if the pink tint has always been a problem or if it affects only certain batches, but no problems so far.

[finds piece of wood to knock on]

I am pleased with the monitor, but in hindsight I should have bought the 20-inch display since the next one up isn't that much bigger but it is a helluva lot pricer. Actually, in hingsight, I should have waited a month and bought the new 20-inch iMac... most of the power, half of the price.

Joe

P.S. If you get the 30-inch display don't forget the cost of the fu**-off video card needed to run it.
Posted on: 08 February 2005 by Top Cat
Hi Joe,

What Mac do you actually have, then? I am planning on a G5 dual PowerMac, but the 20" iMac is a very tempting package as (a) I could buy it today, and (b) it'd be easy to convince Mrs C. Most of my Mac-work isn't so CPU intensive, except Photoshop, which definitely is. However, I could have a 2Gb, 20" iMac for around £2000 or less, and there's a lot to be said for that option...

John
Posted on: 08 February 2005 by Tim Danaher
TC --

The 'pink tint' may just be the result of a custom colour temperature setting. I've seen lots of CRTs with this as well -- it was something to do with a setting for more-accurate colour matching on print-based projects. Apparently, you don't notice the pink tint within a minute or two of sitting in front of the monitor, but when comparing the screen to another with a 'cooler' colour temp. side-by-side the difference appears more marked.

HTH,
Posted on: 08 February 2005 by Top Cat
Hi Tim,

From what I've read, the tint may or may not be related to c-temp settings - but many of the complaints come from Serious Graphics Pros which makes me wonder whether it's something more fundamentally wrong. I've also read that on some of the affected LCDs, there's nothing that can really be done to get a pure white - everything is pink.

John
Posted on: 08 February 2005 by JonR
Top Cat,

I recall garyi saying a few months back that he had some kind of problem with his 23" screen but I can't remember whether it was 'pink tint' related.

The iMacs look great and I'm tempted myself. I think the biggest problem with the standard package is it doesn't come with enough on-board memory, which I think can have a significant effect on processing speed, so if you go the iMac route, get as much memory on it as you can.

On a side-issue, regarding this whole thing about a 'lottery', I've been tempted in particular by the iMac with inbuilt Bluetooth module plus wirelss keyboard and mouse, but a colleague at work who's just bought one has found it that his iMac can't "see" his Mouse and now Apple have had to send him a new one. He hasn't even tried the keyboard yet!

Cheers,

JR
Posted on: 08 February 2005 by garyi
I think I was suffering placebo with mine, I read a few problems on the mac forums regarding the screens displying a pink tinge. Indeed mine did appear to compared to my father in laws 20 inch. However a little bit of fiddling in the preference pane and I found the setting was for a CRT, this appeared to clear it up.

The only signifcant problem otherwise for some users of first gen was a pink hue on the left and right sides of the screen which I believe was to do with the metal surround pinching to tight on the screen and was resolved (Although apple did their usual trick of denying everything)

The 23inch is a beast of a monitor, and Joe how can you say its not much bigger than a 20 inch, its bloddy massive side by side (I want a 30 inch for no particular reason though)

It is expensive, but not so heavily so, I see sony have one out now, which I think was about 100 quid cheaper, but it dosn't have the fire wire ports on it, and it seemd a lot duller even with the brightness to max.

And yes I am get 10.4 as soon as it hits the streets.

Bahh.
Posted on: 08 February 2005 by JonR
Hmm....perhaps I will wait till Tiger comes out and get an iMac then.

Anyone have any idea of a release date yet?
Posted on: 08 February 2005 by Top Cat
Tiger looks grrrrreat!

Winker

I'm trying to justify the 30". There's no way I really need it, in much the same way nobody needs a 52 or 552. But... but... but...

Plan is probably to get the G5 dual this summer (when Tiger is out) and probably get the LCD in the new year, using a pair of 15" Philips LCDs I have lying about.

John
Posted on: 08 February 2005 by Joe Petrik
John,
quote:
What Mac do you actually have, then?

Dual 1.8 GHz G5.



Gary,
quote:
Joe how can you say its not much bigger than a 20 inch,

Easy, because the 23-inch monitor isn't that much bigger.

The 23-inch panel measures ~19x12 inches, so the area is 228 square inches.

The 20-inch panel measures ~17x10 inches, so the area is 170 square inches.

Same deal with total resolution -- ~2.3 million pixels for the 23-incher vs ~1.8 million pixels for the 20-incher. You get only about 25% more area and pixels with the 23-incher, but pay nearly double the price.

The 30-inch monitor, on the other hand, is that much bigger, with its 4.1 million pixels and 410 square inches. That's almost twice the number of pixels and area as the 23-incher but it doesn't cost twice as much.

If I've confused you with my fancy math ;-) then let this pic do the explaining.

Joe
Posted on: 08 February 2005 by garyi
Oh I know the math Joe!

But seriously the 23incher is much nicer to use than the 20incher, and by that maths the 30incher would be like a donkey cock.
Posted on: 08 February 2005 by Joe Petrik
Gary,
quote:
But seriously the 23incher is much nicer to use than the 20incher, and by that maths the 30incher would be like a donkey cock.


I think you're missed my point. Of course bigger is, well, bigger. What I'm saying is that the 23-inch monitor isn't appreciably bigger than the 20-inch one (assessed by screen area and total pixels). All you're getting for nearly double the price ($1800 vs $1000) is about 25% more screen area and pixels.

Put another way...

* 20 incher -- 1680x1050 or 1.76 million pixels for $1000 or 1764 pixels per dollar
* 23 incher -- 1920x1200 or 2.30 million pixels for $1800 or 1280 pixels per dollar
* 30 incher -- 2560x1600 or 4.10 million pixels for $3000 or 1365 pixels per dollar

What you consider when choosing a monitor includes many more things than just pixel per dollar/pound calculations, but given the size and high cost of the 23-incher I don't think a convincing argument can be made for buying it unless you really want one.

Joe... who really wanted one, but now thinks it was a bit foolish to spend that much on a monitor
Posted on: 08 February 2005 by garyi
Jo it was only foolish to spend the money if you doi not like the product.

Do you like the product?

That is all the maths that is required, I can hear music on an Alba stereo.
Posted on: 08 February 2005 by Joe Petrik
Gary,

You keep missing my point.

I like the 23-incher. It's a very nice monitor. It's also a very expensive monitor.

The 20-incher is also a very nice monitor and it's almost as big as the 23-incher, but its price is much more reasonable. In hindsight, it would have been smarter to get the 20-incher and keep the difference in my savings account. That's what I'm trying to get across.

Think of it this way: Would you pay twice as much for a preamp that was only a little better than an already very good one?

Joe

P.S. Your Alba stereo analogy doesn't hold since the 20-incher isn't crap. (In fact, the 20-inchers might be even better than some 23-inchers because the 20s aren't showing any pink tint problems.)
Posted on: 08 February 2005 by garyi
Jo I am as you Americans put it 'Yanking your chain'

I understand what you are saying and you are of course right. But a 23 inch monitor of this quality costs about as much from most manufacturers, now assuming you want a bigger than 20 inch model then you have to pay the money.

Many people would argue that the 102 is not twice as good as a 72 but its price was getting on for double Winker