Apple 27" LED Cinema Display

It looks like the three displays for which Apple invested $3.9 billion in January 2011 were for the just released 27" Apple Thunderbolt Display, the 1080p display for the iPhone 5, and the 2048x1536 display for the iPad 3.

Since the first Thunderbolt Display was 27", it may be awhile before we see a different size. Is the ability to daisychain displays the only reason for all that bandwidth, or does Apple intend to also make larger displays? With Apple's predeliction for high resolutions, I do wonder if their next Thunderbolt Display will be 3840x2160 or 4096x2304.
 
evilsofa said:
With Apple's predeliction for high resolutions, I do wonder if their next Thunderbolt Display will be 3840x2160 or 4096x2304.
Click to expand...

Well, at SID 2011, LG's promotional material seems to suggest they DO have a 27" 3840x2160 panel in their pipeline. http://flatpanelshd.com/pictures/lgsid2011-1l.jpg

And considering Apple now has Thunderbolt in the ACD27", and Lion is moving towards resolution independence with HiDPI, I wouldn't be too surprised if we saw 3840x2160 in the next year or two.
 
Ashok0 said:
And considering Apple now has Thunderbolt in the ACD27", and Lion is moving towards resolution independence with HiDPI, I wouldn't be too surprised if we saw 3840x2160 in the next year or two.
Click to expand...

I came to exactly the same conclusion yesterday without even seeing that LG was showing such a Panel. My guess was within 2 years we will see a 27" 3840x2160 imac.

Seeing that LG is already talking about the panel, maybe it is more like 1 year.
 
perhaps I should sit tight with my single 27" ACD for now then, and skip eyefinity. Gaming on the single with a few 19" in portrait for apps suits me pretty well already anyway. If things are changing that much within a year or two I'm better off waiting and seeing what the outlook~timeframe/pricing looks like.
 
Last edited:
Just want to say what a gorgeous display! Works perfectly with XFX 6950.

Got a question now. How do you turn off the display? ;-)
 
Happy Hopping said:
How do you convert PPI (pixel per inch) to ?? x ?? pixels? Because if you look at the 27", if it's in fact 166 ppi, then 166 x 27 =4482

but you guys are saying 2560
Click to expand...

27" is the diagonal length.

27^2 = width^2 + height^2
width / height = 16 / 10

Two equations, two unknowns: substitute and solve.
 
Happy Hopping said:
What's the res. of the LG at LED 42"? Although that may be too big to use as a computer screen? What do you guys think?

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1306222443

How do you convert PPI (pixel per inch) to ?? x ?? pixels? Because if you look at the 27", if it's in fact 166 ppi, then 166 x 27 =4482

but you guys are saying 2560
Click to expand...

Hi, the forumula for PPI is: PPI = (SQRT((width resolution in pixels)^2 + (height resolution in pixels)^2 )) /(diagonal size in inches).

Current 27" panels by LG are 2560x1440 which can be calculated to 108ppi. Their future 27" panels which are not yet available will be 3840x2160 which calculates to 163ppi (no idea why the ad shows 166ppi, seems like a misprint?). And your graphic shows both the 84" and 42" panels as 52ppi, which seems very bizarre. Either the 42" is 1920x1080 (which seems unlikely) or this is another simple misprint and the 42" is actually 104ppi.
 
Last edited:
Ashok0 said:
will be 3840x2160 which calculates to 163ppi (no idea why the ad shows 166ppi, seems like a misprint?).
Click to expand...

LG often sells screens where there is round up.

The old 26" IPS screens were actually 25.5" for instance.

A 26.5" 3840x2160 screen is 166 dpi by my calculation.
 
I heard they promoted that mockup at CES so thats where there rumor is coming from, and the idea that they could come out sooner than expected. I'm not sure why the ppi is wacky on the larger ones.
..
... imo 37" is way too big for at a desk, let alone 42". I had a 37" westinghouse at my desk for awhile and eventually had to move it back 4' or so on a wooden pillar before I sold it. Perspective wise its silly having a huge monitor at desk distances at any resolution, and if you move it back further, it might as well be a smaller monitor closer perspective wise. Anything much over 27" to 30" at 2.5' - 3' or so will cause your viewing angle to be extreme. The entire band of the circumference of the monitor and especially the corners get pushed further into your periphery, so that you have to dart your eyes around much more than normal (in some cases even slight tilts of the head instinctively). That gets old quick once it really settles in, and you become more realistic/mature about what is really an appropriate setups vs a sitting position at desk distances. The "wow" this is a huge monitor things wears off after awhile lol. And thats in a best case scenario where you can set the monitor up so you are staring at the middle of it. In many cases the desk would cause the monitor to tower higher and looking straight ahead would be the lower part of the monitor.
..
...Eyefinity and nvidia surround on the other hand have the side monitors in the periphery by design, for a greater feeling of immersion. They are not supposed to be in your main focal gaze. Only the center monitor will contain any HUDs, chat windows, notifications, etc, A giant monitor in front of your face would be annoying for most games (other than perhaps a racing game) and desktop/app use due to the viewing angles. Maybe if you ran the game at a lower resolution 1:1 in a centered window on a larger Quad HD screen it would work. I wouldn't go back to a single oversized monitor at a desk personally unless it was a very high resolution long one for eyefinity gaming like width, and I could somehow delineate virtual monitor spaces when I wished (like three across with invisible/transparent separators).
..
.. A single 42" ultra hd would only be two 1080p across so would not be a suitable replacement for even a 1080p eyefinity gaming setup, let alone a x1440 or x1600 one. It would bascially be like stacking four 21" 1080p panels into a square in front of you , without bezels. If that were true, it would still be the same ppi as a 21" 1080p which is ~ 104 ppi. That ppi would obviously be a lot less than the 27" Quad HD panel at that distance, and still less than a 27" 1440p. A 21.5" 1920 x 1080 is 102.5 ppi, 0.2479 mm (I couldn't find a real 21" 1080p lcd to compare)..... A 42" ultra hd ~> block of four 21" 1080p (~ 104ppi) would still be less than 1440p (108.8 ppi), and a lot less than a 27" quad hd (163 ~ "166" ppi).
 
Last edited:
"Quad full HD" IPS panels in the next year (or two).. 3840x2160 27" 16:9 option eventually that could swallow current resolutions whole 16:10 or not...
.
http://flatpanelshd.com/pictures/lgsid2011-1l.jpg
..
.. 1920 vs 2560x
..
.. 1920 vs 2560 ~> +320 left, +320 right (+640 wider)
...1200 vs 1440 ~> +120 top, +120 bottom (+240 taller)
...1200 vs 1600 ~> +200 top, +200 bottom (+400 taller)
...1080 vs 1440 ~> +180 top, +180 bottom (+360 taller)
...1080 vs 1600 ~> +260 top, +260 bottom (+520 taller)


.. "block of four 1080p resolutions ~ Quad Full HD 3840x2160"

.. 1920 vs 3840 ~> +960 left, +960 right (+1920 wider)
.. 1200 vs 2160 ~> +480 top, + 480 bottom(+960 taller)
...1080 vs 2160 ~> +540 top, +540 bottom (+1080 taller)

.. 2560 vs 3840 ~> +640 px left , +640px right.. (+1280 wider)
...1600 vs 2160 ~> +280 px top, +280px bottom (+560 taller)
...1440 vs 2160 ~> +360 px top , +360px bottom (+720 taller)
..

Pixel densities

27"......3840 x 2160......166 ppi ...... ????? mm... <---- Yummy
27"......2560 x 1440......108.8 ppi......0.2335 mm
30"......2560 x 1600......100.6 ppi......0.2524 mm
21.5"...1920 x 1080......102.5 ppi......0.2479 mm
22"......1920 x 1080.....100.1 ppi......0.2537 mm
24"......1920 x 1200.......94.3 ppi......0.2692 mm
24"......1920 x 1080.......91.8 ppi......0.2767 mm
..
 
Last edited:
Hey, not to change the topic from the panel nerdgasms, but I was curious. I just bought a GTX 560 Ti that has 2 DVI and 1 Mini-HDMI. Can I use some sort of adapter and hook it up to the new Thunderbolt display?

It's looking more and more like Thunderbolt is the closest thing Apple's ever going to give us to a docking station, so I figure if I'm going to buy a new display it might as well be the one that works with the MacBook I'll inevitably purchase.
 
InorganicMatter said:
Hey, not to change the topic from the panel nerdgasms, but I was curious. I just bought a GTX 560 Ti that has 2 DVI and 1 Mini-HDMI. Can I use some sort of adapter and hook it up to the new Thunderbolt display?

It's looking more and more like Thunderbolt is the closest thing Apple's ever going to give us to a docking station, so I figure if I'm going to buy a new display it might as well be the one that works with the MacBook I'll inevitably purchase.
Click to expand...

So far, no adaptor exists. They work to make thunderbolt outputs work with DP inputs, but not the other way around, yet (not to mention, you need another 150USD TDMS-->DP adaptor, since your card doesn't have displayport).
 
outerspace said:
Just want to say what a gorgeous display! Works perfectly with XFX 6950.

Got a question now. How do you turn off the display? ;-)
Click to expand...

You don't! Or at least, Apple doesn't give you the option. The monitor will go to sleep with the computer or when you disconnect the displayport cable.
 
InorganicMatter said:
Hey, not to change the topic from the panel nerdgasms, but I was curious. I just bought a GTX 560 Ti that has 2 DVI and 1 Mini-HDMI. Can I use some sort of adapter and hook it up to the new Thunderbolt display?

It's looking more and more like Thunderbolt is the closest thing Apple's ever going to give us to a docking station, so I figure if I'm going to buy a new display it might as well be the one that works with the MacBook I'll inevitably purchase.
Click to expand...

Kanex claims they are working on a DisplayPort to Thunderbolt adapter, but there is no ETA. Also, if you are really serious about using your video card with Apple products, it's best to have a video card with DisplayPort. If you can RMA your current card, the Zotac GTX 560 Ti has 2 DVI, 1 HDMI, and 1 DP.
 
I am using 2560x1600 at 30". If you try to sell me the idea of 27" at 3840 x 2160, that would be too small and hard for the eyes

I am looking for another 30" or larger, if it's larger, it would has to be higher res.
 
Happy Hopping said:
I am using 2560x1600 at 30". If you try to sell me the idea of 27" at 3840 x 2160, that would be too small and hard for the eyes
Click to expand...


Agreed. But Apple is only going to do a 3840 monitor in conjunction with a pixle doubling mode like they did on the iPhone. So things really won't be any smaller.
 
Yeah if you read up on higher pixel densities more, you would see that it adds more clarity on things. They don't have to be per-pixel anymore, and don't have to resort to tricks like cleartype and anti-aliasing.
..
..I'm not trying to sell you anything. I think 27" is perfect size perspective wise at a desk personally, so I'm happy that the quad HD panels are looking like they will have a 27" model. I've had bigger screens before, and they make me angle my direct gaze too much since their edges and especially corners are pushed into the periphery at normal viewing distances. 30" would prob be ok set back slightly, but anything larger is silly to me. I had a 37" for awhile, and though that is an extreme example, was ridiculous at a desk after the "wow this is huge" factor wore off and I began to look at it maturely/realistically for actual use on a computer at a desk.
..
...I'm all for options though, so the more options the better so people can get what they want for themselves. Don't forget that distance to your eyes changes the size and pixel densities to your perspective as well though. A 27" at 1.5' away would look bigger and a 30" at 3' would look a little smaller for example, and the pixel sizes all get "larger" the closer a monitor is to your eyes. My 10.3" tablet is 1280x800 which is around 147ppi.. but when its attached to the keyboard at my lunchcounter its prob not much more than a foot to my eyeballs so the distance perspective really makes a big difference.
 
.
Thats 4096x2160 vs 3840x2160 of quadHD.. only 256 more horizontal pixels, or +128 pixels more per 1920p wide (quad hd is like two 1920horiz across and two 1080vertical height). So if correct its slightly wider which breaks out of the 16:9 aspect ratio - and the size at almost 37" is silly for normal desk distances in my opinion. I had a 37" westinghouse and regardless of the resolution, it is too big perspective wise for desktop monitor distances. You end up having to dart your eyes to the perimeter of the monitor much more than normal, and unless you can mount the monitor so that your eyes are centered on the middle of the monitor, this effects is worsened as the top of the monitor and the top corners will be an even steeper viewing angle. I moved my 37" back around 4' (essentially shrinking it to my perspective) on a nice wooden microwave stand for awhile before I finally sold it. In addition to that, the 4k pixel density is good but the 27" quadHD is higher.
..
$35,000 it had better be oled or some other 'future tech' with insane blacklevels and detail-in-blacks, response times, and refresh rate too (and I still wouldn't buy a monitor for much more than $2k ~ new tv tech prices ever anyway) :p
.
 
the 36.4 is in fact white LED. I use 2 x 30", the only problem I have is the fact that I can't find the mouse pointer sometimes. The 30" is 1.5 ft. from me.

Your westinghouse is low res., meant as a TV, totally different than high res. monitor
 
Happy Hopping said:
I use 2 x 30", the only problem I have is the fact that I can't find the mouse pointer sometimes.
Click to expand...

Control Panel, Mouse, Pointer Options, turn on "Show location of pointer when I press the CTRL key". Not sure what to do if you want to use a key other than CTRL.
 
Happy Hopping said:
the 36.4 is in fact white LED. I use 2 x 30", the only problem I have is the fact that I can't find the mouse pointer sometimes. The 30" is 1.5 ft. from me.

Your westinghouse is low res., meant as a TV, totally different than high res. monitor
Click to expand...

I think he meant the panel size is too large, not the resolution.
 
Happy Hopping said:
the 36.4 is in fact white LED. I use 2 x 30", the only problem I have is the fact that I can't find the mouse pointer sometimes. The 30" is 1.5 ft. from me.

Your westinghouse is low res., meant as a TV, totally different than high res. monitor
Click to expand...
------

jeremyshaw said:
I think he meant the panel size is too large, not the resolution.
Click to expand...

.
...Thats correct. People can claim they are blind to it (display pushed into periphery more ~> more extreme/steeper viewing angles) but they are in denial imo. Dual or triple monitors 20" - 27" (30"pushing it imo unless set back slightly) alongside each other are quite different. Being side to side and isolated in their own panel is completely different from having a tall wall of monitor right in front of your face. And in the case of gaming - eyefinity and nvidia surround 3x monitor gaming has the side monitors in your peripheral vision (aka your periphery) by design (while keeping all the important info within your main focal gaze on the central monitor), whereas a giant monitor in front of your face has important data (interfaces/HUDs/notifications/text/chat/toolbars/action/targets) pushed into your periphery more than normal (for gaming, let alone application and desktop/document use!).
..
..Also, in regard to eyerinity/surround gaming since I mentioned it - 36.4" or 27" aside - neither the 4k or quad HD panels would be a replacement for 3x monitor eyeyfinty/nvidia surround singly because they would be the same horizontally as two 1080p across in the case of quad hd, and only 2x1080p+256px for 4k. Thats less than 3x1920 across let a lone three 2560x across.
..
..A quad hd 42" panel is like four 21" 1920x1080 monitors boxed two by two. A 36.4" 4k is like four 1080p height 18.2" panels boxed that have an extra 128px width on each of their two-across 1920widths (so a little wider than 16:9 1080p while still being 2x 1080p high).
.
elvn said:
.
Thats 4096x2160 vs 3840x2160 of quadHD.. only 256 more horizontal pixels, or +128 pixels more per 1920p wide (quad hd is like two 1920horiz across and two 1080vertical height). So if correct its slightly wider which breaks out of the 16:9 aspect ratio - and the size at almost 37" is silly for normal desk distances in my opinion.
** I had a 37" westinghouse and regardless of the resolution, it is too big perspective wise for desktop monitor distances. You end up having to dart your eyes to the perimeter of the monitor much more than normal, and unless you can mount the monitor so that your eyes are centered on the middle of the monitor, this effects is worsened as the top of the monitor and the top corners will be an even steeper viewing angle. **
I moved my 37" back around 4' (essentially shrinking it to my perspective) on a nice wooden microwave stand for awhile before I finally sold it. In addition to that, the 4k pixel density is good but the 27" quadHD is higher.
..
$35,000 it had better be oled or some other 'future tech' with insane blacklevels and detail-in-blacks, response times, and refresh rate too (and I still wouldn't buy a monitor for much more than $2k ~ new tv tech prices ever anyway) :p
.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Happy Hopping said:
The 30" is 1.5 ft. from me.
Click to expand...

Ummm. Congratulations on being a mutant? ;) That is extremely close for a monitor that size.

For ergonomics most people are more comfortable when monitor viewing distance exceeds the diagonal. Multi-monitors tend not to affect things because you move your tend to move your head to look at second/third monitors and the individual monitor fits into the comfort zone.

http://experts.ergoindemand.com/ergonomic-standards-larger-multimonitor-displays-2/

I had a 30" for a short period of time. I really didn't like it as I wanted to sit at least 3feet away for comfort with the monitor size, but I needed to sit closer to be comfortable with the pixel pitch.
 
Just my speculation - but I don't think we'll see a 3840x2160 display until at the very earliest, 2013.

Even if the panel is available in the next 6 months, the panel cost would be huge - assuming it'll be an IPS display. I'm think the resale cost will be easily over $2k.

Apple is a money making machine - they will definitely wait for production cost for such an LCD to mature before they'll add it to their lineup.

Just seeing how 30" 2560x1600 IPS prices have been about the same over the last 5 years, one can expect for a 3840x2160 IPS display to be extremely pricey for quite some time.
 
My speculation is that it could be as early as the next major iMac update, perhaps middle of next year. Next year could be Apples year of Retina where they claim an end to pixels on iPhone/iPad and iMac...

If you look back at nearly all monitor size innovations out of LG it looks like Apple had a hand in them. I think Apple even requested the designs. Like when Apple released the first 30" 2560x1600 screen in 2004. It took until 2006 until anyone sold a similar screen. In 2004 there were not even dual link cards to drive it. Apple worked with NVidia to get a dual link card at the same time as the screen.

Apple doesn't just wait for a screen to be developed, they have been active feeding their parameters to LG for years. My bet is the 27" 2160p screen was another request from Apple and it will be first in an iMac and it will be sooner than you think.

Price premium will like only be something like 20%, especially for Apple who will have a first order of something like 10 Million screens.
 
If what you say is true and they already have the monitor coming - you'll likely see it in a cinema display form way before you see it in an iMac.

Apple isn't going to raise the price drastically year to year - but they do love their profits - and including such a display in an iMac would severely decrease profitability - even at a modest price bump. That is why we never saw a 30" iMac back in the early 2000s.

I agree it's possible we might see an ACD 2160p display middle of next year - but my soft estimate is that the price will be around $2k - similar to the price of the 30" ACD when it came out way back when.

Though we don't know anything about cost just yet - 20% premium seems like a very low estimate over the current panel.

I guess time will tell.
 
The 30" never made it into an iMac despite the falling price. It is simply too large. I would be inclined to think 2160p it will be iMac first. Remember when the first 2560x1440 display showed up. It was in an iMac and it kind of blew people away with how inexpensive that iMac was. People were saying it was almost like paying a fair price for a 2560x1440 display and getting the mac part for free.
 
Last edited:
Ugh - updated my ATi drivers on the 6970 to be greeted with displayport link failure almost every time I switch to the ACD with my KVM. :(
 
I will be buying another 30" in the next few mth., is there anything better than the HP ZR30W? I need at least 2560x1600 on 30". Is there any LED at 30" running at 2560x1600 right now?
 
I can confirm the Asus Matrix GTX580 works perfectly with the 27" ACD. It has native Displayport so all you need is a female Mini-Displayport to male Displayport adapter. BIOS shows up and everything.

IMG_1326.jpg
 
@Liquid_Cooled: That looks sick. And I'm talking about your case, not the ACD27". Those Voodoo cases are IMPOSSIBLE to find these days. :-(
 
I've always felt the ACDs look blown out...I've seen five of them in a non-retail environment, and every time it seems like the brightness is way too high (even after adjusting it). Anyone else?
 
Thanks Ashok0, it took me nearly 2 years checking Ebay, Craiglist daily to track down a good condition Voodoo Rage case. Its definitely a keeper.
 
Liquid_Cooled, that's a great setup. I've been running Cinema Displays on my Windows based PC since the first version came out and I love them.

Would you mind sharing where you got that desk from? It looks like good quality.
 
Could a 2011 macbook air 13" run one of these apple displays without any issues? Would the intel video cause a problem?

Also is it a bad idea to buy a refurbished one from apple for $850?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top