HD Studio Displays not too impressing?

I was glancing over the specs of the 20", 23" and 30" studio displays and I'm sure their great displays, but for the price I have a 42" 1080p LCD HDTV in my living room that makes these things look silly.

They have better resolution, but:
700:1 contrast ratio
16ms response time

I'm not saying you should use an HDTV for a monitor, but these things are priced way too high for their specs.

Or am I just missing something?

You are paying for the aluminum enclosure, thats not cheap. You think Apple HD displays are expensive? Go check out that new Dell that is over a grand for a 22in.

edit: Link to the Dell - I would really like to have one but it would need to come down a lot in price.

i think the ACDs have not been updated for about 1.5 years

*Moved thread to appropriate forum - Other Hardware -> Not just anything goes in Anything Goes*

A TV is designed to display moving images. Computer monitors are not designed that way. ACD's are not designed for gaming but for graphics work so the slower refresh rate is needed to achieve more neutral, uniform colors. Super high contrast ratios aren't good for graphics work either.
You're comparing two completely different displays here.

Sorry MacHeadCase, I'll read the rules from now on.

bryphotoguy said:

A TV is designed to display moving images. Computer monitors are not designed that way. ACD's are not designed for gaming but for graphics work so the slower refresh rate is needed to achieve more neutral, uniform colors. Super high contrast ratios aren't good for graphics work either.
You're comparing two completely different displays here.

Click to expand...

I guess that makes sense for graphic design and web. The reason I looked into the specs is because I was doing some video editing on a friends 20" display and on playback, ghosting was painfully noticable. The contrast on the other hand looked fine.

It looks as though the 30" display retails for $1800, which is $500 more than my LCD TV, 12" smaller and the specs aren't near as good. That's a ridiculous price no matter how you look at it.

Mike S said:

Sorry MacHeadCase, I'll read the rules from now on.



I guess that makes sense for graphic design and web. The reason I looked into the specs is because I was doing some video editing on a friends 20" display and on playback, ghosting was painfully noticable. The contrast on the other hand looked fine.

It looks as though the 30" display retails for $1800, which is $500 more than my LCD TV, 12" smaller and the specs aren't near as good. That's a ridiculous price no matter how you look at it.

Click to expand...

They are prosumer displays. Anything that falls under that class is going to be a good bit more expensive than your average el-cheapo display as seen at Best Buy or Circuit City.

The 30" monitor has a much higher resolution than a 1080p TV. The 20" model has the closest resolution to your TV. You have a 42" TV? It has a resolution of 1920x1080. The 20" has a resolution of 1680x1050 and the 30" has a resolution of 2560x1600. The dot pitch is far smaller than your TV and this is an iimportant factor.
Also, the ACD's have a 14ms refresh rate. Apple uses a different color, I think gray, when determining the refresh rate. Most manufacturers use the fastest color to boost their #'s.

Maybe if I get to spend more time in front of one of them, I'll appreciate them a little more. I pulled those prices right from apple.com.

i would recommend doing much more research before you make such an ignorant comment op.

Yea, I would go to the Apple store and play with one. I think my local Best Buy even has one on display if a Apple isn't near by. Maybe your friend has a weak video card, weak connection, or an LCD that's going bad.
ACD's are expensive because they're good. They're far better than $200 and $300 monitors.

Who is pretending to be Steve Jobs btw?