Apple's 27-inch Cinema Display now available

So let me get this straight: Apple, the company that is so devoted to professionals that they sell a 15 inch laptop with 1680x1050 screen and a 17 inch with 1920x1200, is giving their new flagship monitor 409,600 fewer pixels than a monitor from 2004? Really? That's almost half a megapixel difference. And while I was annoyed that the iMac switched to 16:9, they made up for that by adding a 27 inch. After all, they needed a good reason to keep potential Mac Pro customers from switching to the iMac, and that was a good 3 inches and 400,000 pixels. Now they will be cannibalizing their own sales and encouraging customers to buy displays from other manufacturers. Professionals aren't going to care about watching DVDs in 16:9 like a college student who just got a new iMac. They want the screen real estate and aspect ratio that are best for the work that they are doing.

Personally, I think 16:10 is the ideal aspect ratio (And I'm not the only one. It was considered to be the Golden Ratio and the perfect rectangle by the Greeks over 2,000 years ago). 4:3 screens are too tall to work with widescreen projects, and wider screens like 16:9 aren't tall enough. With 16:10 you can fill the screen with a 16:9 project and still have room for some controls at the top and bottom. When working on a program like Final Cut there is an ideal compromise between video size and work area, and with a 16:9 screen you will lose a couple of audio tracks from the bottom of the screen unless you make the video windows themselves smaller.

I can't imagine why Apple would make these mistakes, so my only hope is that they are clearing the way for a 32" display next year with even higher resolution than the old 30". I'm not holding my breath, though, since it looks like Apple stopped making the 24" display, leaving this one as the only screen Apple offers.

Apparently so, Chris K. ---Apparently so.

And apparently Apple "doesn't care" for snarky little jerks like you OR your high-end market. Do they?

But you don't & won't get it.
You'll just continue to make these snarky generalizations because it's ONLY "too bad" for "you".

Bless your "rock solid' Apple 30" display.
I honestly hope it lasts as long as your "high-end" graphics career.

In the meantime, since You have no need for a display, keep chiming in with your "snarky" useless observations, and I'll keep pointing them out.

...or maybe not.

Does anyone have a picture of how this monitor looks adjacent to the 27" iMac?

No HDMI? I would understand Apple's omission of that technology if not for the inclusion of it in the mid 2010 Mac mini...

NO GLOSSY.

Does it display all pixels?
I thought that the max resolution via mini-DisplayPort on late 2009, Mac mini (3,1) server was only 1900x1200 and that you needed dual-link DVI to get 2560x1600?

I hope I am wrong.

Jack

You can buy a 32" HDTV for about $300, plug just about any computer into it (might need a converter for some) and get just as good a picture without the glare and at a third of the price.

I have a late 2009, Mac mini (3,1) server.
Does anyone know if it could run this display? (without extra cords and such)

Jack

I was worried this would happen. Apple's best display is now 3" smaller and glossy. I have a 30" display and there's no way I'd downgrade to that. Sadly, my Apple 30" was the last Apple display I'll ever buy. I just can't do glossy; it kills image quality too much from glare and reflections.

I hope Apple gives up on the glossy screens someday. They make a nice monitor, but glossy screens are totally unsuitable for demanding work in anything but an unlit room.

The 27" iMac is gorgeous to work on, I just don't think I can justify £900 on a 2nd screen right now - as much as I would love to.