Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Dell Ultrasharp 24" 2408 vs. Apple LED Cinema Display
- Thread starter Amethyst
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The Apple display is not cut-and-dry "superior", as much as people would like it to be. It depends what you're doing with it.
Precisely. For all you know, Apple used its brand image and snuck a shoddy panel in there, hoping the fanboys won't notice.
To my previous post however, I don't know if the Dell 2408 uses LED backlighting. So on the ground of LED backlighting, the Apple panel "may" be deemed superior.
what makes you think that it isnt superior???
good point - depends what area your in i guess.
or the fact that nothing else indicates that it isnt???
ill research when i get home and report back
I have the Apple 30" and 23" and two of the Dell 2408WFPs. The Dells sounded great on paper, but in practice they are awful. The colours are absurdly vivid and totally unnatural. I calibrate all my monitors with a Spyder 3 Elite, but the Dells are a moving target - in the short time it takes to calibrate one of the Dells, the other one will have shifted very obviously. There is no way I could trust them for anything professional and I just use them on my email/web/games PC. Windows ClearType looks especially ugly on the Dells, with very obvious fringing around text.
Lesson learned - you get what you pay for. I wouldn't hesitate to get another Apple monitor, but hell will freeze over before I touch another Dell.
Lesson learned - you get what you pay for. I wouldn't hesitate to get another Apple monitor, but hell will freeze over before I touch another Dell.
ACD monitors are spendy, that's for sure. The glossy display isn't what I'd pick, and the black values look a little artificially enhanced.
I've been using two Samsungs, though their contrast ratio is a little less than what's current. BUT, these are 2004 monitors, and no dead spots, color is accurate enough for me. Look at the Samsung lineup, they seem to be a VERY good value, but seeing one in person is believing, I guess.
Also, I use an HP 24" (2465) at work, very accurate colors, high contrast ratio, and it's not fatiguing on the eye. Worth checking them out as well, and seem to have good pricing as well.
I've been using two Samsungs, though their contrast ratio is a little less than what's current. BUT, these are 2004 monitors, and no dead spots, color is accurate enough for me. Look at the Samsung lineup, they seem to be a VERY good value, but seeing one in person is believing, I guess.
Also, I use an HP 24" (2465) at work, very accurate colors, high contrast ratio, and it's not fatiguing on the eye. Worth checking them out as well, and seem to have good pricing as well.
Its a fact of the technology just google and try to read about CCFL technology.
I've done a long and hard comparisons and read about CCFL backlighting for 3 years when I was contemplating and did own the 20", 23", 30" ACD for the past 3 years.
For example first time I had the 23" ACD I used it at 1 notch brightness out of the full brightness since it was very bright in the beginning.
6 months later I had to use it at 3 notches to match the original 1 notch of brightness, even then I had to wait 3-5 minutes for the 23" ACD to reach its full brightness of that 3 notches and while it was warming up it looked blurry.
I've owned the 23" ACD 2 times in the past 3 years. 20" ACD and 30" ACD.
Same goes with all my other lcd displays with ccfl backlighting.
Now with the LED I just turn it on and wala instant 100% brightness no fuzzy/blurriness until its fully warmed up or anything.
I used spyder3 with the 24" LED ACD and its the most vivid/accurate in color monitor I've ever used. Something about the LED backlighting brings the clarity of the display (not only brighter) of course. Also the H-IPS panel doesnt have that sparkly look the previous cinema display had + viewing angle even in extreme looks excellent. I wouldnt buy anything except LED backlit monitors as of now especially when the 24" LED ACDs guarantees you an H-IPS panel.
Try to look for this type of display for this price anywhere, you wont find it for another year or so. I know samsung are the only ones that had the 24" LED and 30" but they cost $2500 for the 24" and its not even an H-IPS panel I believe it was an S-PVA, while the 30" I believe on the hardforums people concluded it was an S-IPS panel but then it still cost $4400.
I just use it at 100% brightness and night time I Just lower it down a 4-5 notches down since its so bright and I had my 24" since December and hasnt dimmed whatsoever.
"Wala" is not a word. You mean voilà
In any case, yes, LED backlit IPS panels are a special thing and they're great.
However, it could give me pizza and back massages, but I'm still not going to buy a glossy display, ESPECIALLY one without DVI input.
Someone else will join the party and release a better (for my purposes) display soon, and I'll be happy to buy that. Especially if it doesn't have a bunch of crap I don't need like second-rate speakers and a second-rate video camera.
LG W2420R looks like a potential winner:
Display: 24″ S-IPS TFT LCD with RGB LED Backlight
Aspect Ratio: 16:10
Pixel Format: 1920 x 1200
Color Gamut: 135% NTSC
Response Time: 6ms (GTG)
Contrast Ratio: 1000:1
Brightness: 250 cd/m2
Viewing Angles: 178/178
Connectivity:
Other: LGE Calibrator (software & hardware color calibration tool), Light Protection Hood, 12-bit Lookup Table
EDIT: Holy crapbagels, €1,630. OUuuuuucccch.
Display: 24″ S-IPS TFT LCD with RGB LED Backlight
Aspect Ratio: 16:10
Pixel Format: 1920 x 1200
Color Gamut: 135% NTSC
Response Time: 6ms (GTG)
Contrast Ratio: 1000:1
Brightness: 250 cd/m2
Viewing Angles: 178/178
Connectivity:
Other: LGE Calibrator (software & hardware color calibration tool), Light Protection Hood, 12-bit Lookup Table
EDIT: Holy crapbagels, €1,630. OUuuuuucccch.
"Wala" is not a word. You mean voilà
In any case, yes, LED backlit IPS panels are a special thing and they're great.
However, it could give me pizza and back massages, but I'm still not going to buy a glossy display, ESPECIALLY one without DVI input.
Someone else will join the party and release a better (for my purposes) display soon, and I'll be happy to buy that. Especially if it doesn't have a bunch of crap I don't need like second-rate speakers and a second-rate video camera.
Lol, of course hehe. I was just typing like a mad man didnt realize I spelled it that way!
I swear to GOD though that 99.999% of the time I forget that this 24" LED ACD is a glossy display. I'm a matte lover and for the love of GOD this 24" LED ACD seems like a matte to me. I owned the 15" Unibody macbook pro and now THAT is a glossy display, lol.
Here is one interesting quote I found:
"To comment on the brightness discussion (and to dig up what I can remember from physiology/psychology classes), claims of 50% CCFL brightness loss may not be as far fetched as common sense suggests. The human visual system is highly complex, and the final perceived experience of imagery is far from the actual physical makeup and proportions of that which is being viewed. In short, our brain is doing a lot of "post processing".
One of the things that happens in our eyes/brain is compression of relative brightness over the entire range of low-to-high levels of input. This helps us see clearly between night and day, where the intensity levels differ by thousands of times. Subjective brightness is a logarithmic function of the light intensity - you must multiply the source output by a factor of roughly 10 to perceive a doubling of brightness.
This means that while an LCD display may lose 50% of it's actual output over a year, we would perceive a drop in brightness of much less. The LCD would have to lose 90% of it's output for our experience to be "half as bright".
This is also why photographing high contrast material is a technological hurdle - what we see as only a minor difference between sun & shade is actually an order of magnitude in the tens, hundreds, or thousands of times."
I was JUST about to ask how much it is, LOL. Also H-IPS>S-IPS.
I'm telling you give the 24" LED ACD a try, I have it set infront of my windows and no glare whatsoever since the display is brighter than the sun.
Everytime someone mentions, damn its glossy.. I just think to myself, poor sap is missing out!! Same responses when other people hate the iphone without giving it a try.
I know when I saw this display at the apple store, I wasnt too impressed. BUT when you turn this display on from home wow its a night and day difference. Especially when you get it properly calibrated.
I was JUST about to ask how much it is, LOL. Also H-IPS>S-IPS.
I'm telling you give the 24" LED ACD a try, I have it set infront of my windows and no glare whatsoever since the display is brighter than the sun.
Everytime someone mentions, damn its glossy.. I just think to myself, poor sap is missing out!! Same responses when other people hate the iphone without giving it a try.
I know when I saw this display at the apple store, I wasnt too impressed. BUT when you turn this display on from home wow its a night and day difference. Especially when you get it properly calibrated.
H-IPS is better than S-IPS for people who need it. I don't, S-IPS is fine for me.
I've used the 24" ACD plenty, every day in fact. I would never, ever buy one. You may not notice the glare, but I most definitely do. The glare isn't the only issue, I'm also not about to buy a ripoff video card to use the stupid mini displayport BS (COMPLETELY unnecessary for a 24" display)
Only difference that I see from S-IPS vs. H-IPS is that S-IPS panel has that sparkly look that I hate. If you see the whites and look close it looks like crushed ice.
As for me I LOVE the mini displayport as it has a much higher bandwidth as to the older DVI technology. I can drive my 52" Sony Bravia now and it has no more of the lag that it once had when I used DVI even if it was just a few miliseconds, I've tested it and compared.
Not to mention DVI is so damn big and clunky and gets in the ways of small areas, no more problems with the small mini displayport plug.
If you have lag issues with the display, it has nothing to do with the Mini Displayport being better, it's going to be something else.
As for the connector size I run a workstation. It's not like I give a damn about the size of a connector. I plug it in once, and never touch it again unless I move the computer.
I have a 2407 and it's the best monitor I've used or seen.
One factor that I love about it is the pivot function into portrait mode. My 24" is my secondary monitor (to an older Dell 30") and having it in long-skinny portrait mode is absolutely awesome. 1920 vertical pixels for browser windows, documents etc. I wouldn't probably do this for my only monitor (esp. for video) but I'd never want to go back to 16:10 aspect ratio only.
One factor that I love about it is the pivot function into portrait mode. My 24" is my secondary monitor (to an older Dell 30") and having it in long-skinny portrait mode is absolutely awesome. 1920 vertical pixels for browser windows, documents etc. I wouldn't probably do this for my only monitor (esp. for video) but I'd never want to go back to 16:10 aspect ratio only.
It has a much higher bandwidth and I do notice the difference in real world usages. Just look up the technology under displayport.
Either way the port is MUCH smaller and so much more efficient. DVI is ancient now.
So you're saying that your TV lags less when you use a mini displayport output? I'm saying that it might lag less, but it's sure as hell not due to Mini Displayport.
If you care about small ports, great. That's the kind of customer Apple wants. Personally, I think they should have used regular DisplayPort on the new machines (Which isn't exactly a external SCSI connector when it comes to size) and continued to have DVI compatibility on their displays, but that'd make sense, and thus wouldn't be Apple-like.
As for DVI being ancient? No, it's not the "Hey look at me I'm cool because I have a new type of connector" crap, but if you honestly think that people need displayport for a 1920x1200 display, you're delusional.
firstly, i wouldn't underestimate S-IPS, last year everyone was hailing it as the dogs nether parts, so just because there is something new around the corner doesn't mean that the just eclipsed is rubbish.
My 23" ACD is marvelous, but i wouldn't have bought it on the advice from here alone. Think about it, most of us here spend more time starring at these screens than is probably healthy, so you should really go see them in person before making a decision.
For me, I like the design of the new 24 ACD, but could simply not put up with the gloss screen, it gives me a headache. I'll stick with my matt 23" ACD then, although i'll add that i haven't noticed any significant drop in brightness (IMO it could do with more lower end brightness, as its like starring at a torch sometimes).
just trying to add a little extra reason to things, as in the end there are lots of options for displays, but while on MR you can get an excellent idea for the tech used in various models, no-one can tell you with any certainty what would be better for you to look at.
And as for this cable debate, it just reminds me of how combining power and display signal in one cable was a great idea, but how in the end what is important is compatability.
You'd think apple would learn
My 23" ACD is marvelous, but i wouldn't have bought it on the advice from here alone. Think about it, most of us here spend more time starring at these screens than is probably healthy, so you should really go see them in person before making a decision.
For me, I like the design of the new 24 ACD, but could simply not put up with the gloss screen, it gives me a headache. I'll stick with my matt 23" ACD then, although i'll add that i haven't noticed any significant drop in brightness (IMO it could do with more lower end brightness, as its like starring at a torch sometimes).
just trying to add a little extra reason to things, as in the end there are lots of options for displays, but while on MR you can get an excellent idea for the tech used in various models, no-one can tell you with any certainty what would be better for you to look at.
And as for this cable debate, it just reminds me of how combining power and display signal in one cable was a great idea, but how in the end what is important is compatability.
You'd think apple would learn
The person in question doesn't listen to reason.. see this, for example:
1920x1080 (1080p) = 2073600 pixels.
While I'm not sure what Bravia he has, the KDL-52W4500 is one of very few using 10bpp (most others are 8bpp), but we'll go ahead and assume "the worst".
At 10bpp (note: that's per channel), we're talking 30*2073600, or 62208000 bits of information: roughly 59.32 megabit. At 8bpp, that's 47.46 megabit.
Of course, the picture updates more than once a second, and in the case of the KDL-52W4500, that number is 100, so we're talking roughly 5932 Mbps (5.79Gbps).
Single link DVI would have problems with this, as it's limited to 3.96Gbps.
Dual link DVI, however, can handle 7.92Gbps, and so Dual Link DVI has absolutely no problems carrying a 1080p signal.
Now watch him argue
There is also AS-IPS, apparently... well that is what I guess I have and the brightness is turned all the way down to 80cdm so don't believe the hype about brightness and contrast unless you don't care so much for color accuracy; there is *no* color shift at all either