Monitor and calibrator upgrading

Hey all,

It has been really long time ago.

I am planning to change/replace my old models of items i already have, and the ones i am thinking about now is my monitor which Apple Cinema Display 30", and also my 2 calibration devices, Spyder3Elite and Spyder 4 [not sure if elite too or pro].

So, what is alternative to that ACD 30"? i want 30" as minimum, no 27" or similar, only 30" and larger up to 32" [I can't afford 32" so definitely not larger, but 32" can be affordable if i try hard to save and sell my monitor].

I don't care much about 4K, i left that to my TV for movies or games or whatever, but for this monitor i am mostly for photos editing and usual net surf for photos sites, so i think i care about the editing quality maybe than viewing, but if many current monitors are just awesome fantastic already then why not, also forgot to mention that i prefer a Matte look as to my ACD 30" and Eizo 22" ones.

About calibrator, i keep thinking to move from DataColor [Spyder versions] to Xrite one, not sure how good/better is the i1Display over Spyder [5], i may try to sell both of my current calibrator then i can manage new one if it is worthy, i still read that Xrite calibrator is somehow better than DataColor Spyder one, so maybe i should give that a serious go.

The monitor is a main or must plan to upgrade, but the calibrator isn't that important right now, but i can think about replacement if necessary, so i wait your recommendations and opinions, thanks!

Also in addition to my OP, what do you think of current TVs that are LED and 4K compared to some old computer monitors? i mean how do you rate or compare a new TV say 32" UHD to an old 10 years Eizo 30" monitor? what makes computer monitors different than TV screens?

I am talking about new TV vs. old monitor, i won't compare new monitors to TV as new technology improved and so i can't say new TV might outperform new monitors for photography, but it has been nearly 9 years i am using my monitor so i have no idea how much those monitors and TV had improved, the TV i already have 4K coming from Plasma first then Full HD second, but no experience with old<>current computer monitors.

So nearly to be 2 months and no any reply to this thread, so there is no answers?

The most expensive TVs are pretty impressive: OLED 4K TVs not only offer ultraHD resolutions, but also have Dolby Vision. Some streaming UHD services as well as UHD discs have Dolby Vision: which is an HDR format. Having the higher resolution and greater color depth does make the image more lifelike and 3 dimensional. IMO, it's worth it to have 4K for a 30" monitor....it is good for photography. The main immediate thing I noticed viewing photographs on a 4K monitor was not just the extra sharpness, but also a real difference in DOF. It's easier to see what's in tack sharp focus. Then, if you want to try getting a higher bit depth, you may have to upgrade your video card. Photoshop currently operates with 10bit color depth with Nvidia Quadro cards. For the price point you're probably looking for, you're probably looking for a monitor that fully covers sRGB space.

davesrose wrote in post #18468149
The most expensive TVs are pretty impressive: OLED 4K TVs not only offer ultraHD resolutions, but also have Dolby Vision. Some streaming UHD services as well as UHD discs have Dolby Vision: which is an HDR format. Having the higher resolution and greater color depth does make the image more lifelike and 3 dimensional. IMO, it's worth it to have 4K for a 30" monitor....it is good for photography. The main immediate thing I noticed viewing photographs on a 4K monitor was not just the extra sharpness, but also a real difference in DOF. It's easier to see what's in tack sharp focus. Then, if you want to try getting a higher bit depth, you may have to upgrade your video card. Photoshop currently operates with 10bit color depth with Nvidia Quadro cards. For the price point you're probably looking for, you're probably looking for a monitor that fully covers sRGB space.

So, are you telling me to buy a 4K TV or 4K computer monitor? i am looking for to replace my so old Apple Cinema Display 30" which is coming with about 4K resolution regardless how old it is and it is a Matte screen, so i wanted non glossy or non reflective monitor, and not less than my 30" ACD size, TV at size 32" or similar i can find cheap even for 4K, but most likely they are reflective or non matte, and i don't know what their real resolution are, i wanted to keep the aspect ratio as close to my ACD which is 6:10 [6:9 is fine too].

I have old TV too, which is 55" Full HD, i connected my Mac Mini which i use with my ACD monitor to that TV, and it made it worse resolution than my ACD, even i tried on another newer TV but still Full HD, wasn't better than my older TV anyway, the colors weren't correct from what i see unless if i calibrate it, but it was shiny on both TV and that affected the output i can see somehow, but i never tried on any 4K new TV to compare, i am planning to update my old TV to a 4K TV minimum 60-65", i saw one of 65" smart TV for low price, but that is for view and watching TV or playing games, but for images editing/processing and checking i don't know how good they are really.

The Apple Cinema Display 30" isn't 4K resolution. If running through single-link DVI, it's 1980x1200. There are few Mac video cards which support dual-link DVI, and then the resolution is 2560x1600. Newer connectors like thunderbolt or displayport are needed for 4K resolutions (or above). 4K cinema standards have a width of 4096 pixels, while standard video resolutions for 4K TVs (and monitors) are 3840x2160. I'm not telling you whether to buy a TV or monitor, but you're more likely to get a matte display with sRGB and aRGB color support, as well as computer specific connectors. 4K resolution monitors are more expensive, and depending on your computer, may require hardware upgrades with your computer. You don't state a budget or your computer setup.

Here's just a basic list of 30" monitors based on features and price:

Best 30-inch LCD Monitors

davesrose wrote in post #18468459
The Apple Cinema Display 30" isn't 4K resolution. If running through single-link DVI, it's 1980x1200. There are few Mac video cards which support dual-link DVI, and then the resolution is 2560x1600. Newer connectors like thunderbolt or displayport are needed for 4K resolutions (or above). 4K cinema standards have a width of 4096 pixels, while standard video resolutions for 4K TVs (and monitors) are 3840x2160. I'm not telling you whether to buy a TV or monitor, but you're more likely to get a matte display with sRGB and aRGB color support, as well as computer specific connectors. 4K resolution monitors are more expensive, and depending on your computer, may require hardware upgrades with your computer. You don't state a budget or your computer setup.

Here's just a basic list of 30" monitors based on features and price:

Best 30-inch LCD Monitors

The budget is low, anything under $1000,, if it is $400 that is fine, if $250 it is better for my budget, if it is $600-800 it is bad for me but i know i can get the quality, so i am trying not going much much higher than $700-800, but i can stretch it up to $1000 maximum if something is worth it.

I still don't understand the resolution thing here, my Mac Mini has a desktop with so many icons or files, and with ACD they are distributed well at resolution 2560x1600, but when i connect my Mac Mini to TV via HDMI all that distribution is gone, and i can't re-order it again to the native TV resolution, even if i do it then i will re-order it again once i take it off and connect it back to computer monitor, so the resolution is more about how it is re-arranged the desktop rather than how the quality is, but i still prefer matte screen, and i really don't know how do you rate a TV if you find one as matte screen with 4K feature compared to a 4K monitor for PC, and i only want to connect my Mac computer, not PC, when i connect my Windows desktop to TV they are just fine, but the quality of photos aren't that precise as on my ACD, maybe the are shiny or glossy which some think it is lifelike, but i still feel TV quality that i have isn't matching my ACD or even my laptop screen or even my other PC monitor which is 22" Eizo for photos, but maybe 4K TV is a different story, wish i can test a TV of 4K before i buy it unless i replace my TV then i can test and confirm.

I looked at different models of current monitors, but i can't tell which one is good, for each model there are pros and cons, and i really don't know whom i should trust, one model i see 10 people giving 4-5 stars and 2 giving it 1 star, another models i see 20 giving like 3 stars and 8 giving 5 stars and 4 giving 1-2 stars, i can't build my decision on that, if someone got a bad case with a monitor then i might face that, but if i should go with all giving good reviews then there are hundreds of monitors, then narrowing down the cheapest this will put me in front of at least 7-10 ones, and every month i wait there is something new coming, i asked about monitors to replace my ACD since maybe 4-5 years ago and still didn't decide on something.

I am sure connection type has to do with the computer, maybe HDMI isn't the best connection, but if i get the TV for 4K, then how can i connect it to my Mac Mini older model? I am not sure my Mac Mini has a DisplayPort, but i connect my Mac Mini to ACD via USB and a port that look like a Thunderbolt port, is that a Thunderbolt port or Display port?

Also i was more talking about the aspect ratio, maybe i got used to that ratio on ACD [6:10] so i was thinking if i go with 30-32" monitor then staying with same aspect ratio, don't like to have ultra/super wide, also not a square like monitors if any available.

So, basically, it looks like i look for monitor with almost following conditions or requirements.

1. 30" minimum up to maybe 32" or 34"
2. Matte screen
3. Aspect ratio similar to Apple C.D., 6:10 or 6:9, i will accept 6:11 or 7:11 if available, but not something like 8:20 or 6:14....etc
4. Wide gamut if possible
5. Can be calibrated so it can give better output if possible for photos.

Additional features are bonus if available such as 4K, high brightness, response time...etc, but almost above points are the main factor i like to have, i do have Eizo 22" which is better than my ACD but i don't use it at all because it is small, and 27" isn't that big because i still feel i want bigger than 30", and too much big will not necessarly be better if i sit very close and watch edge to edge, so let's say i am trying to take out ACD and put another monitor same characters but newer or better technology, change size to slightly bigger is acceptable but not to smaller even that 27" isn't different than 30".

If your Mac Mini is older, chances are it has a mini DisplayPort connector. The ACD comes with a dual-link DVI adapter (that requires USB to power the adapter and offer 2560x1600 resolution). If you do connect a computer to a TV or projector with lower resolution, shortcuts will get re-organized. I'm not really sure what your intention is, though. You mention connecting a PC to TV, getting a 4K TV for general viewing, replacing the ACD. The ACD was expensive when it was new, and is still a good monitor. You're not going to find a better monitor in the $200-$400 range. If you're looking for a monitor with good color reproduction, you're looking at just over $1000. The Dell Dell UP3017 has HDMI or DisplayPort connections at 2560x1600 resolution (along with a wide color gamut). For slightly more, the Dell up3216q offers full UHD resolution and 99% aRGB colorspace. If your PC is new, it might have DisplayPort or HDMI (HDMI might limit it to 1920x1080). With the Mac, you'd have to get a mini DisplayPort to DisplayPort cord (and chances are it wouldn't support 4K resolutions).

davesrose wrote in post #18468645
If your Mac Mini is older, chances are it has a mini DisplayPort connector. The ACD comes with a dual-link DVI adapter (that requires USB to power the adapter and offer 2560x1600 resolution). If you do connect a computer to a TV or projector with lower resolution, shortcuts will get re-organized. I'm not really sure what your intention is, though. You mention connecting a PC to TV, getting a 4K TV for general viewing, replacing the ACD. The ACD was expensive when it was new, and is still a good monitor. You're not going to find a better monitor in the $200-$400 range. If you're looking for a monitor with good color reproduction, you're looking at just over $1000. The Dell Dell UP3017 has HDMI or DisplayPort connections at 2560x1600 resolution (along with a wide color gamut). For slightly more, the Dell up3216q offers full UHD resolution and 99% aRGB colorspace. If your PC is new, it might have DisplayPort or HDMI (HDMI might limit it to 1920x1080). With the Mac, you'd have to get a mini DisplayPort to DisplayPort cord (and chances are it wouldn't support 4K resolutions).

Good point, i am sure it is a mini DisplayPort then, and when i checked the monitor resolution or size whatever on the settings it was set at highest value which is 2560x1600, and yes, i need USB and all all cables connected with the dual-link DVI, and i really hated very much that dual-link hanging around with so many cables around just to power the monitor, so that i was thinking about another monitor as good quality or better than ACD but less connection hassles.

I do have a TV for general or normal watching, and i have 3 desktops, i gave one to my daughters, but PC isn't my main workstation for photography or photo editing, most likely i use it for PC games or web browsing or some stuff that i don't use graphics much rather than games, and i don't much care about the quality on games which are already good on TV, but when looking at photos, i feel they are not so natural and precise colors, it is so saturated or too contrast or i can't see the DR there at all, could b nice colors but it is like there is no gradients in colors mostly in shadow or brightness areas, and because i stay really away from TV rather than a PC monitor, so i decided to keep the TV for general watching, and i wanted to upgrade to 4K just to watch some 4K videos or whatever if having that UHD capability, while with PC monitor i wasn't really look for 4K, if it has it then fine, but i care more about wide gamut and aspect ratio with matte-like monitor, so different purposes for TV and PC computer.

So, you are saying the equivalent or replacement to my ACD is already high cost, yes my ACD was so expensive that time, so that i won't get rid of it unless i have something as good or even better, not necessary $200-400, but i was thinking that technology improved a lot these days, and i thought maybe there are monitors at that size or bigger with low price and they smash ACD in performance, but your answer strengthen the idea that a better monitor than my ACD even currently are still all at high prices.

My Mac mini is old, but it has HDMI port in addition to that mini DisplayPort, but you said HDMI might limit it, then if i want to watch movies on 4K TV, how do i connect a media player to this TV then? and i did read somewhere that there are HDMI cables that support up to 4K, are they really you think?

Also you mentioned Dell Ultrasharp, does it mean it is a great capable monitor better than my ACD? i was thinking about Dell Ultrasharp monitors long time ago, but i wasn't sure how they are compared to Apple monitors either Cinema display old monitors or Retina, so that i didn't decide on one yet, and i may go with older model of Dell Ultrasharp if i can find available in 30" and non 4K, so i shouldn't look at another brands such as Asus/Benq/Viewsonic...​.etc?!!!!

Sources for 4K televisions do use HDMI, but it's a newer standard of HDMI (specifically, at least 1.4). The main sources for 4K video content are streaming services (youtube, Netflix, Amazon, etc) and a new blu-ray disc standard called UltraHD (you have to get a new ultraHD player to be able to play the discs). Devices like Roku have specific models that output 4K over HDMI. My dad bought a fancy new LG OLED TV last year: ultraHD content does look very impressive on it. But it is an investment, not just for TV but for sources that give you the higher resolution and color depth.

If you got your Mac around the same time as the ACD, then chances are it's highest resolution it can output is 2560x1600: on mini DisplayPort. It may or may not support higher resolutions then 1920x1080 with HDMI (HDMI 1.4 came out in May of 2009). Most high end graphics cards, which can better handle high resolutions and 10-bit color depths, use DisplayPort. So, DisplayPort is the popular format for monitors, and HDMI for TV. If you have a specific computer you're thinking of hooking the new display to, I'd check its graphics card specs to see the maximum resolution it has.

The Dell Ultrasharps are considered really good monitors for color rendition at their price point. Perhaps the main features that are compromised as compared to more expensive Eizos or NECs is not having as many settings and controls. Current Dells do have a wider color gamut then the ACD.

davesrose wrote in post #18468672
Sources for 4K televisions do use HDMI, but it's a newer standard of HDMI (specifically, at least 1.4). The main sources for 4K video content are streaming services (youtube, Netflix, Amazon, etc) and a new blu-ray disc standard called UltraHD (you have to get a new ultraHD player to be able to play the discs). Devices like Roku have specific models that output 4K over HDMI. My dad bought a fancy new LG OLED TV last year: ultraHD content does look very impressive on it. But it is an investment, not just for TV but for sources that give you the higher resolution and color depth.

If you got your Mac around the same time as the ACD, then chances are it's highest resolution it can output is 2560x1600: on mini DisplayPort. It may or may not support higher resolutions then 1920x1080 with HDMI (HDMI 1.4 came out in May of 2009). Most high end graphics cards, which can better handle high resolutions and 10-bit color depths, use DisplayPort. So, DisplayPort is the popular format for monitors, and HDMI for TV. If you have a specific computer you're thinking of hooking the new display to, I'd check its graphics card specs to see the maximum resolution it has.

The Dell Ultrasharps are considered really good monitors for color rendition at their price point. Perhaps the main features that are compromised as compared to more expensive Eizos or NECs is not having as many settings and controls. Current Dells do have a wider color gamut then the ACD.

Then as i said, for my Mac Mini it is better i go with a monitor that has mini DisplayPort so it can support over 1920x1080, i feel i will replace my TV with another one new that has 4K, i already has a media player that supports or play 4K videos, so i am set already for that, and this media player has those streaming services, and i downloaded some YT 4K videos and it didn't play with my WD TV Live hub due to it doesn't support 4K, but with my media streaming player it plays fine but sure i couldn't get the best of the quality on Full HD TV regardless it was already nice, and i felt somehow the TV is stuttering or slow playing those videos, i can't blame the media player because it is supposed to support 4K, otherwise it won't play it at all, and i am planning to sell it and buy new one that i found better because it has DVB ports for Satellite channels as well, so it is like 2 in 1.

I will check current models of Dell Ultrasharp monitors, if they are Matte screen and have that mini DisplayPort then most likely they will give me same experience on ACD or even better as long they have wider gamut than ACD, i have a feeling that any Matte screen designed for PC will do the job, i have same amazing quality on my MacBook Pro laptops where are old models, and even with my old but latest PC laptop the view is nice and great quality, while with my old PC laptop that is not Matte, it is awful and terrible, regardless both have not powerful video graphics and both are i7 and 16GB RAM, and both are at same size, 15", so i have to be careful on what i choose, not necessary it is 4K or even 8K and i will be relieved with its performance, with that old laptop shiny i have really very difficult time to find an angle to watch it under the light or sun light if coming backlit, but with my ACD and my newer old laptop i don't have that issue anywhere.

If your TV is FullHD and you're trying to display 4K content, that means your streaming device is having to convert the 4K content to HD output (that would account for stuttering or flicker issues: it might also have to change frame rates from 60hz to 30 or 24). I wouldn't display 4K content on a FullHD TV. Some computers can handle the scaling and framerate OK. For instance, I have a new 4K laptop, but also have an older mobile workstation in which I can render or download 4K content (that's displayed at fullHD on the older laptop, but sharper on the new laptop).

Dell Monitors have both mini DisplayPort and full sized DisplayPort. With DisplayPort, you can also daisy chain monitors for dual configurations. Last time I setup a Dell, it came with a mini-DisplayPort to DisplayPort cord (that seems to be a common config).

Today, i've got a call from a person so he can pay or give me an annual payment [paid once every year] to me, no need for details, with that payment or budget i have one of 2 choices now, either i buy new TV which is 4K and sell my older one, and if i can sell my ACD then i can also buy a monitor for my Mac Mini, or just buy a monitor for my Mac Mini, check out if it is any better than my ACD then i can sell my ACD and by a new TV 4K, the budget is enough for one, i don't want to spend for both at once yet, so not sure if i should go with TV 4K and tested it with my Mac Mini, if it gave e quality i need then i can simply buy another 4K TV instead of a monitor and i go with smaller size, but i really think i should buy 2 separated products.

I saw monitors, most have more than one port, DP, mDP and HDMI, so it is not a problem, i will keep looking at Dell monitors, there is one model i saw of Dell, a bit expensive, but if i will buy it then i will buy once for years, my ACD is nearly 8-9 years old now, so i won't change ay soon if i buy new, i may increase the budget to about $1500, but i hope i can find something good cheaper than that if possible

Just an update here:

I finally bought a 4K TV [not monitor], and i tried it with my Mac Mini via HDMI, once with mini DisplayPort to HDMI and another time with HDMI to HDMI because the TV doesn't have any mini DisplayPort, and it gave me same result, no $K or higher resolution than 2560x1600, but when i played with settings it sounds i must resize things to accommodate for different sizes, and the final desktop output was great, the color wasn't true, but that means i can easily accept to buy any 4K monitor then and use any native resolution, the main thing is the size of the monitor not the native resolution, i am sure i will love that 3840x2160 over 2560x1600 over the time, and sure i will prefer anything larger than 30" anyway, but i have to make sure that the monitor isn't glossy and it has enough wide gamut so it will give me better colors rendition and crisp quality if possible.

My TV has VGA port, does this support 4K or even that ACD native resolution of 2560x1600 if i bought a right cable?

Also, the cable of HDMI to HDMI i bought was written on the package that it supports up to 4K and 3D and support HDMI high speed with Ethernet, it is a very cheap chinese cable, is it real or fake or a joke maybe? i tested with my 4K media player and it gave me 4K quality and resolution, and i know i can't push my Mac beyond what it can give, maybe after all it is not designed for 4K, and ACD is definitely not 4K, but it is just full HD maybe but up scaled, in all cases i don't want any monitor less than 30" anyway, and i always wanted larger than 30" anyway all those years , but i think i will not go more than 32" or 34" because they are large enough, i wanted to get rid of ACD due to its cables management and converter, too annoying.