Your Suggestions on Adding External LCD / LED Monitors to MacBook Pro?

Question

Your Suggestions on Adding External LCD / LED Monitors to MacBook Pro?

My current work station is a PowerPC G4 Dual 867Mhz with dual 19" CRT displays. I use this for design work (Adobe Illustrator); photo restoration (Photoshop); & online sales.

I was down to my last two CRT monitors, and wanted to perhaps start porting some of the graphic intense work to a faster computer so I bought this MacBook Pro:

http://support.apple.com/kb/SP499

I have not actually had a chance to use the MacBook Pro - it and all the accessories are still sealed - I couldn't afford the down time to set it up.

I am wanting to add a external monitor to the MacBook Pro that would be suitable for detailed design work with accurate color, true blacks, and the ability to be correctly calibrated. Since I may be still doing work on the G4 with software that will not run on the MacBook Pro I'd like to perhaps buy 3 matching monitors , 2 to replace my crt units and 1 for the MacBook, so that I can closely match the design output between the G4 and MacBook Pro.

I briefly tried a inexpensive LCD TV with a PC hookup on the G4 to get some idea of how an lcd would look. The LCD TV had a native resolution of 1440 X 960, which is a 3:2 aspect ratio, but that resulted in designs elements being distorted (i.e., squares look like rectangles). In 4:3 mode the TV did not distort the design elements, but the picture was not crisp / sharp and appeared soft. From what I've read this is because the lcd, unlike a crt, can't correctly emulate resolutions other than the native resolution built into the screen (i.e., its software guesswork). I also did not like the fact than in 4:3 mode it left black areas on the right and left edges of the screen.

I typically work in a 4:3 aspect ratio with a resolution of 1024 X 768, but a higher resolution of say 1600 X 1200 would be o.k. So what are your suggestions as to finding a lcd / led monitor that has a 4:3 aspect ratio? So far I've found limited information on what appear to be old monitors - there's one on Dell's site; for example, that says it has 1600 x 1200 native resolution, but a review also says its the same monitor they've been making for 5 years (besides I don't think I'd like the idea of hooking a Dell into my Mac). Found a few references to Lacie and NEC.

I really don't understand the monitor manufacturers, including Apple, that claim their monitors are for design work, when they don't offer native a 4:3 aspect ratio. How exactly am I to complete designs when circles are ovals and squares are rectangles?

Posted on Nov 30, 2010 5:30 PM

Reply

Answer 1

eww

Level 9

53,028 points

Nov 30, 2010 6:34 PM in response to Community User

I really don't understand the monitor manufacturers, including Apple, that claim their monitors are for design work, when they don't offer native a 4:3 aspect ratio. How exactly am I to complete designs when circles are ovals and squares are rectangles?

You're completely misunderstanding the relationship between resolution, aspect ratio and how your artwork is displayed. The aspect ratio of the screen (4:3, 3:2, 16:10 or 16:9) has nothing to do with the apparent shapes of circles or rectangles as they are displayed on it as long as the screen's native resolution is used. It's when you try to use a screen at something other than its native resolution and/or its native aspect ratio that the displayed images are distorted.

Reply

Answer 2

Nov 30, 2010 8:22 PM in response to eww

"You're completely misunderstanding the relationship between resolution, aspect ratio and how your artwork is displayed. The aspect ratio of the screen (4:3, 3:2, 16:10 or 16:9) has nothing to do with the apparent shapes of circles or rectangles as they are displayed on it as long as the screen's native resolution is used. It's when you try to use a screen at something other than its native resolution and/or its native aspect ratio that the displayed images are distorted."

The LCD TV I tried WAS USED at its native aspect ratio of 3:2, yet shapes WERE distorted (i.e., squares appear as rectangles), but when it was set in a 4:3 mode (NOT its native aspect ratio) shapes were NOT distorted (however nothing was as sharp as a crt because the lcd was just emulating 4:3).

If I set my right crt monitor to 4:3 then nothing is distorted. If I then set my left monitor (for a side-by-side comparison) to anything other than 4:3 the image is distorted. This is because monitors set to something other than 4:3 are stretching the image. The CRTs DO NOT have a native resolution so why are they distorting the image, if as you suggest, this occurs only when forcing the monitor to display something other than at its native resolution.

I don't see the logic.

Is not this why many CAD users, designers, and other graphic users prefer to work with 4:3 resolutions? That be said, are there any other 4:3 users with practical knowledge from the field that can help with suggesting monitors?

Message was edited by: AntiFor

Reply

Answer 3

eww

Level 9

53,028 points

Dec 1, 2010 6:47 AM in response to Community User

This is because monitors set to something other than 4:3 are stretching the image.

If you were correct, it would be impossible for me to display a circle on my MacBook Pro's built-in 1440 x 900 screen. You are not correct, and I can do so. In fact, I can correctly display any image on it, without distortion, and I could do the same on any external monitor if it were set correctly. I'm not going to claim that I could do so on any LCD TV set, because I doubt that that's true, and it may be true that there was no way for you to do so on the set you tried. But any LCD computer monitor, regardless of its aspect ratio or native resolution, can display circles as circles rather than ellipses. It doesn't take a 4:3 CRT to do so.

Take a flash drive with some representative PDF files saved from Illustrator to your nearest Apple Store or Apple reseller and ask for a demonstration using one of Apple's beautiful 27" 2560 x 1600 monitors. It would replace both of your 1024 x 768 CRTs with lots of additional desktop real estate to spare.

Reply

Answer 4

Dec 1, 2010 4:24 PM in response to eww

"Take a flash drive with some representative PDF files saved from Illustrator to your nearest Apple Store or Apple reseller and ask for a demonstration using one of Apple's beautiful 27" 2560 x 1600 monitors. It would replace both of your 1024 x 768 CRTs with lots of additional desktop real estate to spare."

1. Well, actually no since I do not have fixed 1024 x 768 crts since crts do not have fixed resolutions. I can easily set each monitor to a variety of other resolutions including 1600 x 1200. Actually the Apple display would be a step down in total working area if I used the largest common resolution of 1792 x 1344 and certainly not worth the extra cost for the space gained if working at 1600 x 1200.

2. Unfortunately the display requires 10.6, which does not work on a G4 Dual 867Mhz. It would not even work on my MacBook Pro that I've not had a chance to use yet as it comes with 10.5. Also, 10.6 drops supports for PowerPC emulation so that means buying hundreds of dollars in new software. I use Apples only, but one thing I hate about the company is what many perceive is their "elitist attitude" toward their users - do they really think most people in the real world have so much money that in order to use Apple's new 27" display that they have to go out and spend more than the display costs on updating their computer and software. I am not a zombie fanboy willing to buy anything just because it has Apple on it.

3. Like most people I do not live by an Apple store or a Apple reseller, even the local Best Buy does not carry Apple computers in their store because the retail space does not justify the resulting sales (not that I would buy anything there anyway as they are over priced). I am really not interested in driving several hundred miles to the nearest store.

4. For a $1,000 I expect a monitor to offer a native 4:3 (1600 x 1200) aspect ratio - certainly Apple knows that this is the preferred working environment of many CAD and graphic users but they chose not to offer this in the display, thus the Apple display is really seems geared toward pop corn munching movie watching consumers.

5. This display is not actually made by Apple, its probably LG or one of their other suppliers.

Reply

Answer 5

eww

Level 9

53,028 points

Dec 1, 2010 5:05 PM in response to Community User

I mentioned the two 1024 x 768 CRTS not because I'm ignorant about the variable resolution of CRTs, but because you said that was the resolution you use on them.

Since you are so much better informed than I, I'll wish you good luck and bow out.

Message was edited by: eww

Reply

Answer 6

EmmieM

Level 1

0 points

Dec 5, 2010 1:11 AM in response to Community User

Not sure about the aspect ratio, but I have a new Dell U3011 which SHOULD get 2560 x 1600 resolution. So far, I am only able to connect to it via HDMI and thus get only 1900 x 1200. The Dell monitor does not have a glossy screen, like the new Apple LED monitors. I prefer a monitor that doesn't act like a mirror....

This monitor has a different aspect ratio, new to Dell and I believe, just new: 16:10.

I have yet to open and use my design, photo, film softwares, because just trying to get the highest resolution has been an ordeal.

I have a mini-display port and Nvidia 9400M and 9600GT graphics cards, both of which support 2560 x 1600 monitors.

I did try an 32 inch LG LED television and it had different aspect ratios. It had amazing HD video resolution, but the fonts and regular computer graphics were horrible no matter the resolution or software.

Good luck and I'll keep you posted if I can get it to its maximum resolution. My next try is to at least get the VGA resolution of 2048 x 1280.

Reply

Answer 7

seaboard

Level 1

0 points

Jan 26, 2011 7:41 PM in response to Community User

Resolution only means how much you can squeeze onto the screen at once. A higher resolution means text is smaller than lower resolution screens.

Aspect Ratio, well then get a 4:3 lcd monitor if you do not want or need widescreen 16:9 or 16:10.

But you really should get a 24" widescreen that will display a whole 11x17 page with room for toolbars. If you want to display the entire page at 100% real size, then a 27" lcd is needed.

If you are using a G4 still, you are way behind. You can't expect new monitors to work with an old G4. Use the Macbook Pro with a 27" monitor then. You will not miss the old G4 one iota.

You really should be updating Adobe software at least every two years at the cheap upgrade price to stay current. I can't believe a professional designer is stuck on Power PC software still.

Reply