New iMac's glossy screen to anger graphics pros?

[gregjp48]

Won't the new imac with a glossy screen anger graphics pros since there's no choice of a matte display for truer color? It seems like apple is using the display as the distinction between their consumer and pro lines now, just as they did with the macbook and macbook pro. No longer can a graphics pro get a cheap workstation, and all in one package that will do what they need it to do, with a matte screen. Now the mac-using designers, photographers, and graphic artists will have to buy an acd for their imac if they want a matte-finish screen, taking away the all in one form factor, or not buying an imac at all, narrowing their choices down to the mac pro in the desktop area, which is considerably more expensive and bulky, and overall not necessary unless a very powerful workstation is needed.

I don't know what your impression was, but it seemed that throughout that whole imac part of the presentation, Jobs was trying to sell glossy screens, as he said the 'pros think they look more professional, and the consumers think they look more high end,' or something along those lines.

Is jobs trying to corner pros into apple's more expensive offerings, or has he just gone completely insane?

On another note, apparently the press didn't like the new imac very much, there was barely any applause at that point in the keynote, which is unusual when Jobs announces a new product. I think the previous design was much more aesthetically pleasing, anyway, not caring for the black trim around the edge of the screen. Like the aluminum though.

[QuarterSwede]

Well, graphics pros shouldn't be using an iMac anyway because it's LCD is only 6-bit w/dithering. That ain't true color folks.

[bartelby]

Why would a pro be using a consumer level computer anyway?:confused:

[gregjp48]

Why would a pro be using a consumer level computer anyway?:confused:

design firms etc.
they really like imacs, and they really have enough power for most design/photo work, unless you want dual screens in aperture.

[bartelby]

design firms etc.
they really like imacs, and they really have enough power for most design/photo work, unless you want dual screens in aperture.

Well, it's their choice. It's still a consumer level machine.

[gregjp48]

Well, graphics pros shouldn't be using an iMac anyway because it's LCD is only 6-bit w/dithering. That ain't true color folks.

true, but it's really much less noticeable difference than matte vs. glossy reproduction, no?

[synth3tik]

The way I see it is that with the way computers are going the line between consumer and pro lines is getting smaller, now that Apple has decided to take the aluminum of the pro line and share it with the consumer line they need a reason for us to by Mac Pros, then comes the screen that for the life of us can we find usable, forcing us to get a Mac Pro. I was thinking a bit about getting the new iMac with the C2E BTO option until I saw the glossy screen crap.

[iBookG4user]

My parents are looking into getting an iMac to replace their current one and they don't like the glossy screen. So they are probably going to end up getting a Mac Mini instead, thus Apple lost $400 extra they could've had. If Apple gave them a choice then Apple could've had more money in their pocket, it was a bad move on their part.

[gregjp48]

The way I see it is that with the way computers are going the line between consumer and pro lines is getting smaller, now that Apple has decided to take the aluminum of the pro line and share it with the consumer line they need a reason for us to by Mac Pros, then comes the screen that for the life of us can we find usable, forcing us to get a Mac Pro. I was thinking a bit about getting the new iMac with the C2E BTO option until I saw the glossy screen crap.

exactly what i meant
there are no CONSUMER and PRO machines anymore
Look at the macbook and mbp, the only difference is screen-size, some expandability and Apple crippled the macbook with integrated graphics. A macbook with a good graphics card instead would run most pro apps easily. However, apple wants us to buy their pro and more expensive models, so they took the macbook and stuck a crappy graphics chip in it, making it of no use in final cut studio, and made the screen glossy only.

Now they're doing the same thing with the imac screen.
Not to mention it looks hideous. What happened to Apple's design skill?

I wish there WAS a line between consumer and pro machines now. I mean, what consumer needs a Dual 2.xxGhz Processor to read and answer email, browse the web, and watch a couple of dvds, and edit a few snapshots? Oh well, I'm not complaining, pro power for consumer prices isn't such a bad deal. I'll definitely be hooking any macbook I get into an external matte display.

[atari1356]

Why would a pro be using a consumer level computer anyway?:confused:

Because they don't need the extra power of the Mac Pro - and prefer an all-in-one unit?

or, because that's all they can afford?

[Mac In School]

I went down to the local Apple store to check them out tonight, and those screens are absolutely gorgeous when you have no glare or reflective light to worry about. A try thing of beauty. Looked like a plasma TV.

But, as a designer... I can't consider one for the reasons mentioned here. Doesn't matter to me since I'm happy with my current set-up, but it would be nice to have the option.

Also, as a Web designer, I should have the choice of working with a "consumer level" machine. It's not like I work with images over 100k in file size. Mac Mini should be fine.

That said, I'm still not gonna knock it. The thing was beautiful. I would not mind watching movies on it, that's for sure.

[iW00t]

Won't the new imac with a glossy screen anger graphics pros since there's no choice of a matte display for truer color? It seems like apple is using the display as the distinction between their consumer and pro lines now, just as they did with the macbook and macbook pro. No longer can a graphics pro get a cheap workstation, and all in one package that will do what they need it to do, with a matte screen. Now the mac-using designers, photographers, and graphic artists will have to buy an acd for their imac if they want a matte-finish screen, taking away the all in one form factor, or not buying an imac at all, narrowing their choices down to the mac pro in the desktop area, which is considerably more expensive and bulky, and overall not necessary unless a very powerful workstation is needed.

I don't know what your impression was, but it seemed that throughout that whole imac part of the presentation, Jobs was trying to sell glossy screens, as he said the 'pros think they look more professional, and the consumers think they look more high end,' or something along those lines.

Is jobs trying to corner pros into apple's more expensive offerings, or has he just gone completely insane?

On another note, apparently the press didn't like the new imac very much, there was barely any applause at that point in the keynote, which is unusual when Jobs announces a new product. I think the previous design was much more aesthetically pleasing, anyway, not caring for the black trim around the edge of the screen. Like the aluminum though.

iMac = iProduct

iProduct = for consumers

If your designers need it for doing their work (I believe they are doing it salaried, which by definition makes them professional designers) they should be buying a Mac Pro or a Macbook Pro.

iProducts are not advertised to be fit for any professional purposes!

Most consumers do not care about distortion. The colour lab at Walmart will correct for it anyway... NOT.

Professionals shooting weddings on their EOS 1DsIIs do.

Because they don't need the extra power of the Mac Pro - and prefer an all-in-one unit?

or, because that's all they can afford?

Starting to feel the sting of having no choices eh? This is what happens when everything comes from a single vendor.

If that is all they can afford then perhaps they should reassess their profession.

[gregjp48]

iMac = iProduct

iProduct = for consumers

If your designers need it for doing their work (I believe they are doing it salaried, which by definition makes them professional designers) they should be buying a Mac Pro or a Macbook Pro.

iProducts are not advertised to be fit for any professional purposes!

Most consumers do not care about distortion. The colour lab at Walmart will correct for it anyway... NOT.

Professionals shooting weddings on their EOS 1DsIIs do.

I've seen your posts before and you are extremely anti-iMac. Don't you realize that the imac has all of the necessary power for most 2d graphics applications, and even light final cut studio work, for much less than a decently loaded Mac Pro? Why pay so much more for PCI slots and extra expandability if you aren't going to use it?
If you need the mac pro's power, great. But that doesn't mean if you do something for a living, you have to automatically buy a PRO designated model, when the "consumer" model is quite powerful enough for what you need it to do. Plus, this thread is not a Mac Pro vs imac debate (or whether Apple needs a midrange tower or headless imac, which in my opinion it definitely does, allowing you to choose your own screen, with more expandability if you don't care about the thin form factor). It is about how the lack of a choice of a glossy or matte screen will affect sales of imacs to graphics professionals.

Why throw away money buying extra power you don't need, just for a PRO label? just because you're a pro doesn't mean you need to own a PRO model, but pros still need decent displays. Heck, if the mac mini had a decent graphics card, a pro could even use that, albeit waiting a little longer for certain functions. But apple decided to cripple it with integrated graphics so that we'd HAVE to buy a mac pro instead, our only other choice if we want to use an apple cinema display as our only display for our mac (and not along with an imac). This kind of thing happens when a company has no competition (as if PC vendors are REAL competition ;), or rather no other vendor can use the mac OS on their hardware). It's really a shame that apple sank this low, though.

Just because YOU have money to burn...

[iW00t]

I've seen your posts before and you are extremely anti-iMac. Don't you realize that the imac has all of the necessary power for most 2d graphics applications, and even light final cut studio work, for much less than a decently loaded Mac Pro? Why pay so much more for PCI slots and extra expandability if you aren't going to use it?
If you need the mac pro's power, great. But that doesn't mean if you do something for a living, you have to automatically buy a PRO designated model, when the "consumer" model is quite powerful enough for what you need it to do. Plus, this thread is about the display choice, not a Mac Pro vs imac debate.

Why throw away money buying extra power you don't need, just for a PRO label? just because you're a pro doesn't mean you need to own a PRO model, but pros still need decent displays. Heck, if the mac mini had a decent graphics card, a pro could even use that, albeit waiting a little longer for certain functions. But apple decided to cripple it with integrated graphics so that we'd HAVE to buy a mac pro instead, our only other choice if we want to use an apple cinema display as our only display for our mac (and not along with an imac). This kind of thing happens when a company has no competition (as if PC vendors are REAL competition ;), or rather no other vendor can use the mac OS on their hardware). It's really a shame that apple sank this low, though.

Just because YOU have money to burn...

Nope, I have never been a fan about Apple making certain design decisions and market segmentation choices without regard for our needs, but each time I raise that argument there are bound to be countless fanbois who would shoot me down. What can I say... they are rabid fanbois...

I am really enjoying today, said fanbois can eat their own feet.

As for me? I have my MacBook Pro and on the desktop I have Semtex to thank for, and no, I will be a fool if I go out and buy a 19 month old workstation today for almost 2 year old pricing.

Lack of competition, you see.

Thanks Semtex! I have no guilt or remorse using OSX in breach of its EULA!

[The Man]

I've seen your posts before and you are extremely anti-iMac. Don't you realize that the imac has all of the necessary power for most 2d graphics applications, and even light final cut studio work, for much less than a decently loaded Mac Pro? Why pay so much more for PCI slots and extra expandability if you aren't going to use it?
If you need the mac pro's power, great. But that doesn't mean if you do something for a living, you have to automatically buy a PRO designated model, when the "consumer" model is quite powerful enough for what you need it to do. Plus, this thread is about the display choice, not a Mac Pro vs imac debate.

Why throw away money buying extra power you don't need, just for a PRO label? just because you're a pro doesn't mean you need to own a PRO model, but pros still need decent displays.

I totally agree. And in this regard, the old iMac displays were acceptable. I do some photography and some video editing with FCP on the side. The previous 20" screens were quite nice, non glare, with 178 degrees viewing angle. iMacs are quite powerful for most work. I cannot afford a pro thing. iMacs will do the job. And the new iMacs are nice, but I'm worried about the new screens.

[shecky]

design firms etc.
they really like imacs, and they really have enough power for most design/photo work, unless you want dual screens in aperture.

i have been in many, many design studios and its very rare you see an iMac, with the exception of the receptionist or the business development people.

so the question is, will glossy screens prevent designers from buying iMacs? i say its an irrelevant question since most pro designers would not buy an imac anyway.

[The Man]

i have been in many, many design studios and its very rare you see an iMac, with the exception of the receptionist or the business development people.

so the question is, will glossy screens prevent designers from buying iMacs? i say its an irrelevant question since most pro designers would not buy an imac anyway.

OK, I know this thread is about graphics pros. And I see that THEY will want to buy a Mac Pro. But how about freelance/home/beginner designers or amateur photographers, etc. who do use their Mac to create nifty stuff, and do rely on their screen, but cannot afford a Pro machine? The previous iMac screen was not the best, but with calibration could be made to serve them. Also, I have seen iMacs at newsrooms. Won't the glossy screen become a problem in these work environments?

[iW00t]

iMacs come with a DVI port so you can always buy a high quality matte screen to go with it.

1. Glossy screens are cheaper to manufacture
2. Most people are attracted to glossy screens
3. Apple caters to "most" people

If your needs are not satisfied by a particular product, then chances are you are not meant to be the target customer of said product. It is not you rejecting the product, it is the product rejecting you!

[The Man]

iMacs come with a DVI port so you can always buy a high quality matte screen to go with it.

1. Glossy screens are cheaper to manufacture
2. Most people are attracted to glossy screens
3. Apple caters to "most" people

If your needs are not satisfied by a particular product, then chances are you are not meant to be the target customer of said product. It is not you rejecting the product, it is the product rejecting you!

Yes, but Apple is forcing people more and more to a particular path. Previously, there were less strict lines between the product groups. All i-designated Macs are now glossy. And maybe the regular crowd just don't care. So people on these boards complaining are not regular--which simply means we won't be replacing our Macs anytime soon. Mostly I think it's the success of the MacBook with its glossy screen that made Steve make this decision. He saw that glossy=sell many, apparently. So glossy it is for the iMac, he thought. We will sell a tons of them.

[chaosbunny]

All you guys saying "why would a pro use an iMac" just don't get it. Can't a pro only use a product with the word "pro" in its name? Is there some law that a pro has to buy something with "pro" in its name? Is a pro not allowed to buy a cheaper machine if it fits his needs and he won't notice the speed difference to the mac pro?

To make things clear: the my pro is perfect for 3D animators, video cutters, etc., stuff where you need every little bit of power. As a graphic designer, who does most of his work in Illustrator and InDesign, I don't even notice a difference between my 1,67 ghz G4 pb and the 2,3 ghz dual G5 at work. Only when opening real big images, which isn't the case everyday.

I was dead set on the new iMac until I saw that glossy only crap. Right now I'm debating if I should just ignore that or not...

Anyway, I refuse to buy a machine like the mac pro when 50% of its power will sit around doing nothing all the time. I think it's plain stupid that I have to buy a machine just because it has the word "pro" in its name.

Yes I earn my money with it, and could even afford one, but I'd rather put that extra money towards new software, or a course in some program I don't know yet, or a holiday. Something I can actually benefit from, not 2 cores that don't help me anything with the software I'm using.

[iW00t]

Yes, but Apple is forcing people more and more to a particular path. Previously, there were less strict lines between the product groups. All i-designated Macs are now glossy. And maybe the regular crowd just don't care. So people on these boards complaining are not regular--which simply means we won't be replacing our Macs anytime soon. Mostly I think it's the success of the MacBook with its glossy screen that made Steve make this decision. He saw that glossy=sell many, apparently. So glossy it is for the iMac, he thought. We will sell a tons of them.

Yes, such a move would upset many of the more well informed users.

However the corollary of that is Apple is neglecting the wants of many mainstream users when offering iMacs without a glossy option. Between catering to the wants of the many, and catering to the needs of a few, I guess Steve made his call.

Especially when such a call actually has the benefits of:
1. upselling more Mac Pros/ACDs to amateur pros who do not need the Mac Pro that badly
2. cut down the costs of the iMac
3. Oh look! Shiny! factor

With the choice of GPUs Apple made with the new iMacs it also seems like Apple's intent is to target the HTC market rather than the niche gaming/techie/geek markets with this machine.

Catering to all users with a glossy/matte BTO option diminishes economies of scale, complicates inventory management and increases production costs with little benefits to show for it.

Apple is a corporation, they exist to sucker every last cent out of you. And considering they have NO COMPETITION, they are in a very good position to do so.

[netdog]

If people "love glossy" so much, I wonder why Steve hasn't changed the ACDs to glossy. ;)

[bartelby]

exactly what i meant
there are no CONSUMER and PRO machines anymore

As far as you're concerned maybe.
But Apple probably have a different view of things...

[darkanddivine]

I was hiding behind the sofa hoping my decision to go with the older iMac a few weeks ago was right. While I could have used the speed bumps as a designer, the glossy screen would have put me off. I do prefer the white design too.

As I use the machine for GD, and I know plenty of others that do, the iMac is a great machine. It can be used in the home for general tasks as well as most pro tasks. As chaosbunney rightly points out, at home the machine will not take the pounding that one might at work (having CS3 open all day, opening huge files on a regular basis). Most designers I know have an iMac in their home for doing work outside of the office, so as a machine the iMac is immportant to designers in this position, and those on a budget.

Overall the new spec is reasonably ipressive but i know a lot of designers will not buy the machine n its current revision and perhaps will not if there is to be no matte option in future.

[iW00t]

Overall the new spec is reasonably ipressive but i know a lot of designers will not buy the machine n its current revision and perhaps will not if there is to be no matte option in future.

Option 1:

Throw Adobe Creative Suite into dust bin, shell out $1000 to rebuy Windows version

Option 2:

Perform your duty and shell out the extra $1000 for Mac Pro + ACD

[Wild-Bill]

Apple is a corporation, they exist to sucker every last cent out of you. And considering they have NO COMPETITION, they are in a very good position to do so.

RAID card anyone??? Only $999.00 !!! Only works in a Mac!

I never really noticed before, but you post some pretty good stuff iWoot. As for me, you say tomato, I say tomato. You say Semtex, I say Tubgurl. ;)

[iW00t]

RAID card anyone??? Only $999.00 !!! Only works in a Mac!

I never really noticed before, but you post some pretty good stuff iWoot. As for me, you say tomato, I say tomato. You say Semtex, I say Tubgurl. ;)

*******!! :D

Well what is even more sickening is Apple may well buy the card RETAIL at say... $500-$600, put in their own "special" firmware to make it work with their EFI bootup sequence, and sell it at $999 for a cool 100% profit.

[darkanddivine]

Option 1:

Throw Adobe Creative Suite into dust bin, shell out $1000 to rebuy Windows version

Option 2:

Perform your duty and shell out the extra $1000 for Mac Pro + ACD

My iMac is doing just fine atm! But seriously, at work I know I need a pro for the multitasking. Just not at home. I wanted an iMac to lose the tower from a regular PC as I don't have much space. It's fitting the bill nicely and runs CS perfectly well. I'm not going to buy a Windows machine any day soon!

[maverick808]

Option 1:

Throw Adobe Creative Suite into dust bin, shell out $1000 to rebuy Windows version

Option 2:

Perform your duty and shell out the extra $1000 for Mac Pro + ACD

Option 3:

Buy a Mac Mini and an ACD.

A lot of "pro" apps and users actually don't need a decent graphics card at all. Most of Creative Suite, for instance, doesn't tax the GPU at all. I also think you probably can put 3GB of RAM in the new Mac Minis, although not from Apple, you'd have to do it yourself. I'm not saying this is an option for ALL pro users, but it is certainly an option for some.

[Azerty]

I'm curious about the displays, I hope someone will run a SwitchResX test on these new iMacs.

[gregjp48]

Yes, such a move would upset many of the more well informed users.

However the corollary of that is Apple is neglecting the wants of many mainstream users when offering iMacs without a glossy option. Between catering to the wants of the many, and catering to the needs of a few, I guess Steve made his call.

Especially when such a call actually has the benefits of:
1. upselling more Mac Pros/ACDs to amateur pros who do not need the Mac Pro that badly
2. cut down the costs of the iMac
3. Oh look! Shiny! factor

With the choice of GPUs Apple made with the new iMacs it also seems like Apple's intent is to target the HTC market rather than the niche gaming/techie/geek markets with this machine.

Catering to all users with a glossy/matte BTO option diminishes economies of scale, complicates inventory management and increases production costs with little benefits to show for it.

Apple is a corporation, they exist to sucker every last cent out of you. And considering they have NO COMPETITION, they are in a very good position to do so.

This is not the solution, this is what i'm COMPLAINING ABOUT
That they are trying to push people to pro models that they don't need.
thanks for agreeing with me, whilst trying to debate against me.
Doi!

[ontpaintballer]

I'm I "professional designer" and have been done school and working for about 2 years now. I think everyone out there needs to realize that these new iMac have enough power to get the job done. I'm planning on buying a iMac soon and the reason for this is, I would like to start doing some freelancing at home. I'm still new in the this industry, just bought a house and don't have I alot of money. Apple only make a couple of "pro" products the mac pro (which I can't afforded) and the mac book pro (I can't stand working on a laptop and I don't need the portability) So I've turned to the iMac, I'm more then confident that it has the power and the options to get the job done. When I first started at my current job I was using an old G4 ya it was slow but it did get the job done, and I'm convinced that a new IMac running duo core 2 at 2.4 or 2.8 could out preform a G4.

So for every one out there that is saying the Imac is not a pro machine, take a look at what designer where and some still are using not to long ago, old G4s and G5s, and look at how the new iMac stacks up. For designer looking to upgrade they may not want to spend $3000 or more for a new system the iMac falls right into place, at least untill Apple release a mini towner.

[iW00t]

Option 3:

Buy a Mac Mini and an ACD.

A lot of "pro" apps and users actually don't need a decent graphics card at all. Most of Creative Suite, for instance, doesn't tax the GPU at all. I also think you probably can put 3GB of RAM in the new Mac Minis, although not from Apple, you'd have to do it yourself. I'm not saying this is an option for ALL pro users, but it is certainly an option for some.

It is true actually.

So many people keep thinking that CS3 requires the GPU for some reason. For lesser pros like photographers and web site designers they can get away with a Mac Mini and ACD easily.

If you are into movie/video editing then you need a Pro anyway, no way around that.

[dont24]

It is true actually.

So many people keep thinking that CS3 requires the GPU for some reason. For lesser pros like photographers and web site designers they can get away with a Mac Mini and ACD easily.

If you are into movie/video editing then you need a Pro anyway, no way around that.
Professional movie/video editing, right? The average Joe, like myself, editing home movies, the mini is enough. Hell I'm doing it on a G4 mini now. Rendering takes a very long time. Which is why I'm upgrading. Was ready to pull the trigger on a 24" iMac until I saw the glossy screen. I'll have to stop my the local Apple store and check them out. If there's too much glare, I'll opt for a new 2.0 mini and a Dell 24" LCD.

[zero_bit]

I'm a web/print designer and I'm thinking about pulling the trigger on a new iMac 24".

Is there something besides glare that would cause the colors to be off? Does it have the same horrendous tinting at minor angles that their laptops do? The way my workstation is located, glare is not an issue at all for me. I've got a mac mini currently, but I'd like the upgrade in processor speed, and the non-integrated graphics card is luring me for when I use the computer for, er, non-professional uses.

[kingslod]

Option 1:

Throw Adobe Creative Suite into dust bin, shell out $1000 to rebuy Windows version

Option 2:

Perform your duty and shell out the extra $1000 for Mac Pro + ACD

Or option 3: buy the last round iMac at retail for a discount while you still can...

I'm a freelance graphic designer and I use a G5 20" iMac for all of my work, and it takes whatever I throw at it -- Illustrator, Indesign, Photoshop, GoLive, Dreamweaver, and more. People who think you have to use a pro machine to do pro design are just being pretentious. Sure we'd all love to use a big Tower and 30" screen, but many of us just can't afford it, or justify the expense. Especially us lowly self-employed designers.

I've been waiting for the new iMac so I can upgrade both my computer and the Adobe CS suite, but I'm gonna have to see the screen in person before I commit. :confused:

[..........?]

exactly what i meant
there are no CONSUMER and PRO machines anymore
Look at the macbook and mbp, the only difference is screen-size, some expandability and Apple crippled the macbook with integrated graphics. A macbook with a good graphics card instead would run most pro apps easily. However, apple wants us to buy their pro and more expensive models, so they took the macbook and stuck a crappy graphics chip in it, making it of no use in final cut studio, and made the screen glossy only.

Now they're doing the same thing with the imac screen.
Not to mention it looks hideous. What happened to Apple's design skill?

I wish there WAS a line between consumer and pro machines now. I mean, what consumer needs a Dual 2.xxGhz Processor to read and answer email, browse the web, and watch a couple of dvds, and edit a few snapshots? Oh well, I'm not complaining, pro power for consumer prices isn't such a bad deal. I'll definitely be hooking any macbook I get into an external matte display.

Apple is not forcing you to buy pro machine. If you need the graphic then the macbook is not targeted to you. Most people do not need the dedicated graphic so they are not "force" to buy a pro machine.

The macbook is not crippled. It is a capable machine. Some of the lower end window pc will integrated graphics. Some will market with ati or nvidia brand but look closely they are lower end stuff and most time will be nvidia or ati branded integrated graphics that is no better than intel integrated graphic.

I think apple is trying to make imac more of a multimedia machine that look like a LCD tv.

Yes A consumer needs Dual 2.xxGhz Processor for editing the home video, make nice dvd of home movie in idvd, recording their own podcast and making music in garage band.

You are getting confused at what each machine is design to do.

Mac pro

design for high end work such as video editing(in HD or SD, not home video but comercial, tv and movie), photo editing with raw photo from camera at pro level(not you average 10 megapixel but more such as 50 megapixel for megazine, big bill board and published material) and graphics. Also 3D graphics and CAD and engineering and scienticfic uses. Basically for pros to use for work.

Macbook pro

a mobile notebook equivalence of a mac pro. Limitation by mobile hardware but still use the newest tech available.

imac

a consumer pc for internet, word file, spread sheet, powerpoint, pictures, audio and video. Basically a pc for consumer. The low end imac with weaker graphic aim at education purpose and people with tight budget.

Macbook

a consumer notebook. Aim at education and consumer uses. Graphic capable to do everything a consumer or education needs to do. It does not need a graphic card because the integrated graphic can handle 1080p (over kill since the native resolution of the lcd is lower than 720P). Does not need to run final cut pro since it is not a pro machine.

mac mini

a entry level pc. That can be use for home theater pc.

[thedonga]

I'm a web/print designer and I'm thinking about pulling the trigger on a new iMac 24".

Is there something besides glare that would cause the colors to be off? Does it have the same horrendous tinting at minor angles that their laptops do? The way my workstation is located, glare is not an issue at all for me. I've got a mac mini currently, but I'd like the upgrade in processor speed, and the non-integrated graphics card is luring me for when I use the computer for, er, non-professional uses.

that panel is not as good as the 23" ACD panel.
and the non-integrated graphics card you are thinking about upgrading for? it sucks...horrible reviews.

I do web design, and photography on a 1.6 mini with an upgraded hard drive (7200 rpm), and maxed out RAM (2GB) with the 23" ACD...wonderful combination. That being said I might have pulled the trigger if the iMac wasn't glossy and had something better than the ati pro crap they put in it.
Honestly, for probably $3 more an iMac they could have at least put the XT version of the card in there. I mean it's only $30 more RETAIL...and it kills the pro version.

oh well Apple, you lost my $2K

time to go back to using my mini with a beautiful matte 23" screen :)

[150hp]

I don't like the glossy myself. Another reason to like my current iMac.

[yojitani]

My parents are looking into getting an iMac to replace their current one and they don't like the glossy screen. So they are probably going to end up getting a Mac Mini instead, thus Apple lost $400 extra they could've had. If Apple gave them a choice then Apple could've had more money in their pocket, it was a bad move on their part.

Your parents can still buy a refurb. I bought a refurb imac for my wife last november and I've been impressed.

[Azerty]

Kodawarisan (http://www.kodawarisan.com/imac_2007_mid/imac_2007_mid_03.html): the 20-inch panel is the LM201WE3 manufactured by LG Philips.

LM201WE3 (http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/news_archive/2.htm#lg.philips) / apple.com/iMac/specs (http://www.apple.com/imac/specs.html)
Size 20" widescreen
Tech TN Film
Colour Depth 16.7 (8-Bit)
Resolution 1680 x 1050
Response Time 5ms
Contrast Ratio 800:1
DCR Contrast Ratio 2000:1
Brightness 300 / 450
Viewing Angles 160 / 160

[jimsoff]

I just bought a 24" imac from apples online store. This whole hatred towards the glossy screens has got me worried.

But I'm not a graphics designer, and how badly does the glossyness mess things up? Can I still do photo editing in photoshop, and making nice looking things in illustrator, all of which will probably never go to print, so the color accuracy doesn't really matter?

[gothiquegirrl]

I just bought a 24" imac from apples online store. This whole hatred towards the glossy screens has got me worried.

Don't Imac support another monitor? Why couldn't you just buy a matte monitor an use it to double check your color? Or would this not work?

If you don't need a MacPro.. you could do that.. or get a Mini..

I'm an amature graphics designer.. and I'd LOVE to have the imac and another screen! But i dunno.. i keep going back and forth on a book. Right now i have a cheapo Vista book.. and I dunno i may just sue that on the go.. and an imac at home.

Ang

[66217]

If you are into movie/video editing then you need a Pro anyway, no way around that.

I think an iMac would be perfect for this.

I have a MB (not Pro) and I am editing video in FCE just fine.

And also, the MBP and the iMac are almost the same thing. So the iMac should be fine for most people, that are into video editing, but have not yet become to need all the power of a Mac Pro.

[gregjp48]

Apple is not forcing you to buy pro machine. If you need the graphic then the macbook is not targeted to you. Most people do not need the dedicated graphic so they are not "force" to buy a pro machine.

The macbook is not crippled. It is a capable machine. Some of the lower end window pc will integrated graphics. Some will market with ati or nvidia brand but look closely they are lower end stuff and most time will be nvidia or ati branded integrated graphics that is no better than intel integrated graphic.

I am not spending an extra thousand dollars just to have a matte screen intsead of a glossy. The macbook doesn't worry me either, considering I can hook it up to a better display on my desk. Do so to the imac though, and it looses it's all in one form factor that apple advertises so often. They can't use that as a substitute for not offering a matte option.

I think apple is trying to make imac more of a multimedia machine that look like a LCD tv.



I completely agree. But I believe that the imac is too powerful to just be an LCD tv. It's power would cater so well to graphics pros, who don't NEEED a mac pro. iWoot him/her-self said it, there is no need for a good graphics card for CS2/CS3, or 16GB of ram (unless it's being used as a scratch disk, but even then it's only convenient, not necessary).

Yes A consumer needs Dual 2.xxGhz Processor for editing the home video, make nice dvd of home movie in idvd, recording their own podcast and making music in garage band.


True, but just how many consumers that will go OOOOH PRETTY SCREEN are going to be the types of people to make podcasts and edit music and video (and by the way, my G4 ibook can edit in Garageband, and even Logic Express, just fine, there is no need for a core 2 duo). My dad's coworker just bought an imac for her kitchen . What does she do with it? Read and write e-mail and surf the web. She wanted that all in one, no cable clutter, design that apple advertises, so an imac would not have worked for her.

[/quote]


You are getting confused at what each machine is design to do.

Mac pro

design for high end work such as video editing(in HD or SD, not home video but comercial, tv and movie), photo editing with raw photo from camera at pro level(not you average 10 megapixel but more such as 50 megapixel for megazine, big bill board and published material) and graphics. Also 3D graphics and CAD and engineering and scienticfic uses. Basically for pros to use for work.

Macbook pro

a mobile notebook equivalence of a mac pro. Limitation by mobile hardware but still use the newest tech available.

imac

a consumer pc for internet, word file, spread sheet, powerpoint, pictures, audio and video. Basically a pc for consumer. The low end imac with weaker graphic aim at education purpose and people with tight budget.

Macbook

a consumer notebook. Aim at education and consumer uses. Graphic capable to do everything a consumer or education needs to do. It does not need a graphic card because the integrated graphic can handle 1080p (over kill since the native resolution of the lcd is lower than 720P). Does not need to run final cut pro since it is not a pro machine.

mac mini

a entry level pc. That can be use for home theater pc.



No, I am not mistaking their purposes. The line between consumer and professional macs a half a year ago was only expandability, and now they are adding screen type to it.

With all Jobs said about making the imac more professional looking, he made the imac less professional in practicality.
Way to go, Steve.

[Stu Allen]

Lots of people seem to be going on about that the new iMac is not designed for professionals as well as consumers so they should not expect an option of a matt screen. Well perhaps you should read this which comes from the 'Top Stories' section of Apple's own website under the heading 'Apple unveils new iMac'

"Apple today unveiled an all new all-in-one iMac line featuring gorgeous 20- and 24-inch widescreen displays encased in elegant and professional aluminum and glass enclosures. The entire new iMac line features the latest Intel Core 2 Duo processors and a new, ultra-thin aluminum Apple Keyboard, built-in iSight video camera for video conferencing and iLife ’08, making it the ultimate digital lifestyle desktop computer for both consumers and professionals".

Did you notice the last word.............. PROFESSIONALS!! Yes it says it's a lifestyle desktop but it does say it is designed for professionals as well. Professionals will not be using it though if it does not become available with a matt screen.

So for all those people who say the iMac is not designed for pro's to use perhaps in future you should make sure you have your facts right and read Apples own website fully.

It is quite clear 'professionals' do have a right to expect the new iMac to have a matt screen option.

[chaosbunny]

Well, ordered a 2,8 ghz 24 incher today as planned... the glossy screen bugged me at first, but I still have my Eizo I can hook up to it, so well, no big deal.

Why I didn't want a Mac Pro? Well, I still have a 10 years old crt TV, and my plan is to use the iMac for work & play for about 3 years and then it will become my new TV/Media Center. I expect to get a long time of use out of this baby, basically, until it dies... hope it lasts like my cube, over 6 years old and never had a problem. :)

[Stu Allen]

Well, ordered a 2,8 ghz 24 incher today as planned... the glossy screen bugged me at first, but I still have my Eizo I can hook up to it, so well, no big deal.

Why I didn't want a Mac Pro? Well, I still have a 10 years old crt TV, and my plan is to use the iMac for work & play for about 3 years and then it will become my new TV/Media Center. I expect to get a long time of use out of this baby, basically, until it dies... hope it lasts like my cube, over 6 years old and never had a problem. :)

Well for you it's fine as you have a second screen but should people be expected to have to go out and buy a second screen if they don't have one? Is that really fair? That is not aimed at you. lol. It's aimed at Apple.

[toke lahti]

Well, graphics pros shouldn't be using an iMac anyway because it's LCD is only 6-bit w/dithering.
Sure about that?
It isn't laptop panel and according to Kodawarisan 20" is 8bit.

[synth3tik]

Why would a pro be using a consumer level computer anyway?:confused:

With everything firewire/usb the only reason to get a Mac Pro is just internal storage and needing over 4G of RAM.

I was thinking about selling my Mac Pro and getting the new iMac, but that screen is crap, oh and the keyboard is too.

[iW00t]

Sure about that?
It isn't laptop panel and according to Kodawarisan 20" is 8bit.

It is a TN panel, which means it is 8 bit with dittering :(

[boer]

It is a TN panel, which means it is 8 bit with dittering :(

Do you know this for a fact for this particular panel? If you take a look at linked specs they clearly state 8 bit. On the same spec table there are others spec'd 6 bit + FRC so it is not like they are trying to hide the fact that some panels can only produce 6 bit colors.

[Azerty]

Do you know this for a fact for this particular panel? If you take a look at linked specs they clearly state 8 bit. On the same spec table there are others spec'd 6 bit + FRC so it is not like they are trying to hide the fact that some panels can only produce 6 bit colors.

TN panels have traditionally been 6 bit. Many manufacturers are listing some of their TN panels as offering 16.7 million colours but it seems that nobody knows for sure.

Summary of TFTCentral's article (http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/6bit_8bit.htm) about TN panels:

"TN panels are known to offer 262k colours, they can produce 16.2 million colours thanks to Frame Rate Control (FRC), also known as dithering. IPS panels are capable of producing a real 16.7 million colours with no need for dithering. These are the 8 bit panels.

The reason that TN Film panels have traditionally been 6 bit panels is that the manufacturers used low performance A/D Convertors. This was a means to keep costs of these panels down, and also to help improve responsiveness. TN panels could just as well be 8-bit panels if the manufacturers decided to make them so.

Nowadays things aren't as clear cut. Many manufacturers including Samsung and BenQ for instance are listing some of their TN Film panels as offering 16.7 million colours. While it is hard to get any confirmed information from the manufacturers, it would seem that perhaps some modern TN Film panels now offer a full 8 bit colour depth, and perhaps negate the need for dithering technology.

Discussions across the internet seem to suggest that TN Film panels are either 6-Bit with FRC, or 6-Bit extended to 9-Bit, offering 16.7 million colours on paper. Either way, it looks as if there have been changes in TN Film recently, and dithering has become far less common."

[iSee]

Please don't burn me, this is an honest question:

How does the glossiness of a screen mess up its ability to display true colors?
I understand how glare could be an issue, but assuming someone could position their computer without glare, are glossy screens inherently less able to produce accurate color, even once calibrated? :confused:

[The Man]

It is a TN panel, which means it is 8 bit with dittering :(

I always thought that the old 20" iMacs used S-IPS panels, and thus delivering true 8 bit.

[earthsick]

I am a professional designer and am posting this reply from my work machine is...(*gasp*) an iMac. If you are only using layout and 2d design apps it is plenty fine. My PowerBook at home has a single core 1.33 ghz processor that was state of the art 3 years ago and did everything I needed it to do fine...and now that there is something out there that has over double the power I should consider it garbage because it has an "i" in front of it's name? PLEASE! Besides, many design firms prefer iMacs because they are "good enough" power wise and more cost effective than say a $3,000+ Mac Pro. Also, the bashing of the glossy screen is totally out of control...I was playing with one yesterday at the Apple store and thought it was fine. The truth of the matter is everyone on this board feels the need to make mountains out of mole hills and complain about new products....its just confusing.

[Mollemand]

I always thought that the old 20" iMacs used S-IPS panels, and thus delivering true 8 bit.

This panel tech is a bit out there... The 20" is stated to have a 160-160 degree viewing-angle at the US apple site. On many (if not all) international sites it says 170-170. To my knowledge 170 degrees would be more than a TN display can handle. 160 degrees on the other hand would be very consistent with TN, and thus 6bit per color channel - meaning dithering is needed to re-produce a 24bit color resolution.

The 24" on the other hand has a 178-178 degree viewing angle, which is not achieved by the TN technology. As there is no (S)-IPS panel in that size it is most likely to be a Samsung S-PVA Panel or possibly some MVA. This will be a 8bit per channel color resolution.

[update:] there IS a IPS panel in 24" - sorry bout that. My money are still on a Samsung S-PVA anyway

[Stu Allen]

I am a professional designer and am posting this reply from my work machine is...(*gasp*) an iMac. If you are only using layout and 2d design apps it is plenty fine. My PowerBook at home has a single core 1.33 ghz processor that was state of the art 3 years ago and did everything I needed it to do fine...and now that there is something out there that has over double the power I should consider it garbage because it has an "i" in front of it's name? PLEASE! Besides, many design firms prefer iMacs because they are "good enough" power wise and more cost effective than say a $3,000+ Mac Pro. Also, the bashing of the glossy screen is totally out of control...I was playing with one yesterday at the Apple store and thought it was fine. The truth of the matter is everyone on this board feels the need to make mountains out of mole hills and complain about new products....its just confusing.

We are not making a mountain out of a mole hill, we are perhaps a lot more fussy about calibration than you are though. Maybe for what you do you do not need to calibrate the screen. To say that you played with one in the Apple store and thought it was fine is no way to test a screen. You cannot tell by doing just that that it will calibrate. People who have already bought the new iMac and calibrated the screen and then done test prints on a calibrated printer are saying the screen is showing colours that are to saturated and that is far from 'fine'.

[Stu Allen]

Please don't burn me, this is an honest question:

How does the glossiness of a screen mess up its ability to display true colors?
I understand how glare could be an issue, but assuming someone could position their computer without glare, are glossy screens inherently less able to produce accurate color, even once calibrated? :confused:

The problem is the screens will not calibrate. You can use your calibration software/hardware on them but after that the screen is still not calibrated correctly. Gloss screens show too saturated colours plus too much contrast. They will also lose some of the detail in the blacks. So you adjust say a photo and then print it and the two just do not match.

[skye12]

I think its 8 bit too. Many are mis-informed.

[GWN]

People who have already bought the new iMac and calibrated the screen and then done test prints on a calibrated printer are saying the screen is showing colours that are to saturated and that is far from 'fine'.

Really? I have been looking for such a report on the net all day and came up empty. If there is an article/blog entry/whatever that discusses the calibration of the new iMac screen I would love to read it.

BTW, from what I read the display is matte but behind a glass plate. Does that make a difference?

[earthsick]

We are not making a mountain out of a mole hill, we are perhaps a lot more fussy about calibration than you are though. Maybe for what you do you do not need to calibrate the screen. To say that you played with one in the Apple store and thought it was fine is no way to test a screen. You cannot tell by doing just that that it will calibrate. People who have already bought the new iMac and calibrated the screen and then done test prints on a calibrated printer are saying the screen is showing colours that are to saturated and that is far from 'fine'.
Call me crazy but i never go by the color on the screen when working for print under any circumstance. I work with a $500,000 nexpress digital press every day and know that the only way to match a color is offset printing. Buy a pms swatch book to be sure. On the other hand i see how this can be an issue when working for web.

[aliquis-]

Well, graphics pros shouldn't be using an iMac anyway because it's LCD is only 6-bit w/dithering. That ain't true color folks.Is that true for the 24" aswell? It has 178 degrees viewing angle so I doubt it. Probably pva/mva/ips.

[mrbolano]

People who have already bought the new iMac and calibrated the screen and then done test prints on a calibrated printer are saying the screen is showing colours that are to saturated and that is far from 'fine'.

Some links to these calibrating 'people' you mention would be great. ;)

[nes11]

I think all you guys in here stating that imacs are totally non-pro and should not be used by any serious designers are quite amusing. I just came across this image the other day:
http://www.pingmag.jp/images/article/sagmeister01.jpg http://www.pingmag.jp/2005/09/27/visiting-stefan-sagmeister/
It is a shot taken at Stefan Sagmeister's studio. Look, i spot a laptop! Oh, Oh, and behind that chair, could that possibly be, god forbid, an imac?!?
Some of the best design studios in the world don't just use mac pro's. As various posts here mentioned: You don't need crazy power for 2D Graphics, which, sorry to say it, are still the main business for most designers on the planet.
So stop complaining about the imac being totally unsuitable for "pros". Sagmeister has one in his office. Or maybe he's just not a real pro.
The glossy screen is another argument and is based on preference (colour accuracy btw. shouldnt be handled by any screen anyway if you're serious about it. No matter if glossy or matte...) , but as far as power goes, the imacs are fine. :apple:

[The Man]

This panel tech is a bit out there... The 20" is stated to have a 160-160 degree viewing-angle at the US apple site. On many (if not all) international sites it says 170-170.

No, it's 170-170 degrees for the previous 20" iMac panel on the US site too. Where do you get your information from? I have saved the old iMac page on my computer. The Tech Specs from the US site are:

Display
Built-in 17-inch (viewable), 20-inch (viewable), or 24-inch (viewable) widescreen TFT active-matrix liquid crystal display
Millions of colors at all resolutions

Typical viewing angle:
17-inch model
140° horizontal
120° vertical

20-inch model
170° horizontal
170° vertical

24-inch model
178° horizontal
178° vertical

Typical brightness: 250 cd/m (17-inch model); 280 cd/m (20-inch model); 400 cd/m (24-inch model)
Typical contrast ratio: 500:1 (17-inch model); 800:1 (20-inch model); 700:1 (24-inch model)

[Stu Allen]

Call me crazy but i never go by the color on the screen when working for print under any circumstance. I work with a $500,000 nexpress digital press every day and know that the only way to match a color is offset printing. Buy a pms swatch book to be sure. On the other hand i see how this can be an issue when working for web.

That's fine but that does'nt help with adjusting photographs and then printing them on say fine art papers or sending your photo files to your regular pro print lab or forwarding the same files onto your client who then prints them off.

[Stu Allen]

Some links to these calibrating 'people' you mention would be great. ;)

Well me making a note of the sites would have been really sensible would'nt it! lol. Ok think it was on www.dpreview.com and then going into the mac section.

[chaosbunny]

One more thing about that reflection... when we were all using crt monitors they all had glass in front of them, and most of the time it didn't bother us. I doubt the reflection on the glass of the new iMac can be any worse than the reflection on an old crt. Or is this logic wrong?

[The Man]

One more thing about that reflection... when we were all using crt monitors they all had glass in front of them, and most of the time it didn't bother us. I doubt the reflection on the glass of the new iMac can be any worse than the reflection on an old crt. Or is this logic wrong?

While that's true, they also usually had a mat (anti-glare) coating on the glass. I don't believe that there's a anti-glare coating on the new iMac, because it's all about extra glossy, these days.

[chaosbunny]

While that's true, they also usually had a mat (anti-glare) coating on the glass. I don't believe that there's a anti-glare coating on the new iMac, because it's all about extra glossy, these days.

Damn, not what I wanted to hear! :D

[GWN]

Well me making a note of the sites would have been really sensible would'nt it! lol. Ok think it was on www.dpreview.com and then going into the mac section.

DPreview is the first site I went to trying to find more info on this potential "calibration" issue. Again, lot's of speculation but I haven't found a single thread about someone that actually owns one of the new iMacs and have tried to calibrate it. There is lots on the MPB glossy screen reporting issues but the iMac seems to be different because it's a matte screen with a piece of glass in front.

Again, I'm not trying to be a pain but if you have links to anything non-speculative about someone that owns a new iMac and that tried to calibrate it that would be nice... :)

[l33r0y]

The NEW 20" iMac uses TN Film from LG.Philips

Whether it is 6 or 8bit is still unknown - but the main factor for me is not dithering (at this resolution you are very unlikely to notice dithering anyway), but the issue is color distortion at different viewing angles - something that S-IPS and S-PVA doesn't suffer from.

The NEW 24" iMac is either a S-IPS panel (more likely) or a S-PVA panel based on the viewing angles alone. However as LG.Philips do not manufacture any *VA panel, this points to it being the superior S-IPS or even Enhanced S-IPS. The Cinema displays are S-IPS, so I think the 24" panel will be as good if not BETTER than the current Cinema displays that Pros use.

If the glass does indeed affect calibration (and i've not seen any evidence that it does on the new iMac with todays colorimeters and good software) then it can be removed!

[Stu Allen]

DPreview is the first site I went to trying to find more info on this potential "calibration" issue. Again, lot's of speculation but I haven't found a single thread about someone that actually owns one of the new iMacs and have tried to calibrate it. There is lots on the MPB glossy screen reporting issues but the iMac seems to be different because it's a matte screen with a piece of glass in front.

Again, I'm not trying to be a pain but if you have links to anything non-speculative about someone that owns a new iMac and that tried to calibrate it that would be nice... :)

Sure it was dpreview but I must admit I have had problems finding things on the agai in the past sometimes. If I come across the stuff again I wil put a link up.

I have out of interest just phoned up the shop I use to buy my calibration equipment now he explained things in a way which makes things clearer than the words I have used.

Although the screen will calibrate ok the trouble is gloss screens show a level of black the you just can't get when you print. ie it's much darker. So your sat looking at your screen seeing these different levels of black and adjusting your photo accordingly. The end result on scrren could be that you can see right into the shadow detail. You then go to print it and all that lovely shadow detail has turned to one level of black and the paper it is being printed on has nowhere near the range. The papers range is nearer that of a matt screen not gloss. Same problem if you adjust the photo on a gloss screen and then you upload it onto a website and people start viewing it on matt screen. You must remember this problem will not just be on black it will be on all colours.

One thing he did add was this, the calibration software/hardware company Gretag company have said that the macbook pro's with the new LED screens at present cannot be calibrated even if they are matt. For whatever reason the LED backlighting fools calibration systems. Gretag have told him they are looking into it and seeing what cure they can come up with. It maybe as simple as a software update.

Gloss screens on the other hand have no cure.

Glad I made the call because he explained the problem in a much clearer way than I have done so far. Hope this helps. Complete suprise about LED screens.

[Mollemand]

No, it's 170-170 degrees for the previous 20" iMac panel on the US site too. Where do you get your information from?

Sorry, for some reason I missed the 'old' in the whole thing. My bad :o

The NEW 20" iMac uses TN Film from LG.Philips

Whether it is 6 or 8bit is still unknown

All I can find on the LM201WE3 panel, says it is an 8-bit.

These guys say it is a LM201WE3:
http://www.kodawarisan.com/imac_2007_mid/imac_2007_mid_03.html

[shecky]

i think someone else on here will explain this better than i can, but ignoring the glare issue for a moment, as stu said above the problem for me as someone who does print design, is that glossy displays produce colors that are only reproducible on other glossy displays. if the color gamut of a glossy display is:

...|--------------------------------|...

the gamut that can be printed is:

...........|----------------|...............

that makes working on such a display a huge issue. even the gamut on a matte display is still wider than what can be printed but the colors are represented in a way that more like how they print. having said all that i have learned to never fully rely on my calibrated monitors; i rely on a combination of pantone books, printer's Kodak proofs and the final press sheets to see what the color really looks like. a good calibrated monitor will only help you make a better guess.

[l33r0y]

i think someone else on here will explain this better than i can, but ignoring the glare issue for a moment, as stu said above the problem for me as someone who does print design, is that glossy displays produce colors that are only reproducible on other glossy displays. if the color gamut of a glossy display is:

...|--------------------------------|...

the gamut that can be printed is:

...........|----------------|...............

that makes working on such a display a huge issue. even the gamut on a matte display is still wider than what can be printed but the colors are represented in a way that more like how they print. having said all that i have learned to never fully rely on my calibrated monitors; i rely on a combination of pantone books, printer's Kodak proofs and the final press sheets to see what the color really looks like. a good calibrated monitor will only help you make a better guess.



Well you've just described the 'issue' of an RGB working space to CMYK print space - so I hardly see this is a problem of monitor calibration of a glossy display...

If you use proofing on the display (when using photoshop, Command/CTRL +Y from memory) you will have an idea of the output on screen.

[Mollemand]

Here are the specs on the LM201WE3:

Size: 20"WS
Technology: TN Film
Color Depth: 16.7 (8-Bit)
Resolution: 1680 x 1050
Response Time: 5ms
Contrast Ratio: 800:1
DCR Contrast Ratio: 2000:1
Brightness: 300 / 450
Viewing Angle: 160 / 160

Ref:
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/news_archive/2.htm#lg.philips

[shecky]

the calibration is irrelevant, im talking about the perceived glossy gamut vs a perceived matte gamut. to my eyes the glossy seems even more out there than the matte even tho both work in an RGB colorspace.

[Stu Allen]

Well you've just described the 'issue' of an RGB working space to CMYK print space - so I hardly see this is a problem of monitor calibration of a glossy display...

If you use proofing on the display (when using photoshop, Command/CTRL +Y from memory) you will have an idea of the output on screen.

Lets make this quite clear, I am talking about all printing, which includes onto Photographic paper using either Adobe RGB or sRGB and inkjet printing. So it is a problem of the gloss screen. This is what the calibration guy told me.

[tiggle]

What is the difference between the 'glossy' of CRT monitors and the 'glossy' of the new 'glossies' (LCD)? I recall reading that CRTs were preferred because they offered more accurate colours. Are they not 'glossy'?

If they are the same as far as 'glossy' is concerned, then was there such major problems with CRTs before LCDs came along?

Forgive my total ignorance on the subject :)

[Stu Allen]

What is the difference between the 'glossy' of CRT monitors and the 'glossy' of the new 'glossies' (LCD)? I recall reading that CRTs were preferred because they offered more accurate colours. Are they not 'glossy'?

If they are the same as far as 'glossy' is concerned, then was there such major problems with CRTs before LCDs came along?

Forgive my total ignorance on the subject :)

The old CRTs did not change things like the LCD gloss screens do.

[observer]

I have out of interest just phoned up the shop I use to buy my calibration equipment now he explained things in a way which makes things clearer than the words I have used.

Although the screen will calibrate ok the trouble is gloss screens show a level of black the you just can't get when you print. ie it's much darker. So your sat looking at your screen seeing these different levels of black and adjusting your photo accordingly. The end result on scrren could be that you can see right into the shadow detail. You then go to print it and all that lovely shadow detail has turned to one level of black and the paper it is being printed on has nowhere near the range. The papers range is nearer that of a matt screen not gloss. Same problem if you adjust the photo on a gloss screen and then you upload it onto a website and people start viewing it on matt screen. You must remember this problem will not just be on black it will be on all colours.




It sure sounds like the problem with the glossy screens is that they're **too good**. Gosh, life is tough.

Surely any professional has to consider where the work is going to be printed -- newspapers have poor resolution, magazines much better, art books quite good. A heavily frosted crummy screen might be the best way to preview for newspapers. Since I'm not a professional, I don't have to worry about it. I'd really like to see as much as possible, and I'll get the best screen available. Which is glossy, it sounds like.

[Stu Allen]

It sure sounds like the problem with the glossy screens is that they're **too good**. Gosh, life is tough.

Surely any professional has to consider where the work is going to be printed -- newspapers have poor resolution, magazines much better, art books quite good. A heavily frosted crummy screen might be the best way to preview for newspapers. Since I'm not a professional, I don't have to worry about it. I'd really like to see as much as possible, and I'll get the best screen available. Which is glossy, it sounds like.

Well that is fine unless you intend to print using your home injet printer or say place a print order via iPhoto or Kodak's prints service or another online service or maybe a Walmart, Asda or Tesco's instore print service. The danger is your get the prints back which will lok really bad and blame the store. They will turn around and say 'well sir it's your adjusted file's that look bad'. So you see you don't have to be a pro to be effected by this. Just being fussy about the quality of your photos will be enough and that is a lot of keen amateur photographers.

[GWN]

Well that is fine unless you intend to print using your home injet printer or say place a print order via iPhoto or Kodak's prints service or another online service or maybe a Walmart, Asda or Tesco's instore print service. The danger is your get the prints back which will lok really bad and blame the store. They will turn around and say 'well sir it's your adjusted file's that look bad'. So you see you don't have to be a pro to be effected by this. Just being fussy about the quality of your photos will be enough and that is a lot of keen amateur photographers.

If you are fussy about prints you won't go to Walmart in the first place... They do all sorts of color corrections, sharpening that you have no control over. And again Stu, this is all speculation... I'm still waiting for real evidence that the glossy screen will be an issue that can't be worked around easily.

Having more colors/blacks displayed on the monitor than what can be printed is after all not a new issue is it?

[urbanskywalker]

No two screens reproduce colours exactly same. I do video editing and make projects that show on $50 TV.s and the latest HD TV.s Pro's use colour bars to standardize images but unless your broadcasting who cares. Print is the same way. Most labs will make changes to your images that are far more significant than monitor differences. There is no perfection.

[johnmcboston]

While that's true, they also usually had a mat (anti-glare) coating on the glass. I don't believe that there's a anti-glare coating on the new iMac, because it's all about extra glossy, these days.

We went out of our way to get glare free VT terminals. I even remember some people had those anti-glare filters they would put in front of their screens...

[Stu Allen]

No two screens reproduce colours exactly same. I do video editing and make projects that show on $50 TV.s and the latest HD TV.s Pro's use colour bars to standardize images but unless your broadcasting who cares. Print is the same way. Most labs will make changes to your images that are far more significant than monitor differences. There is no perfection.

Labs do NOT make changes to digital files unless you tell them to. I know this for fact. If their machine has not recently been recalibrated or their chemicals are getting a bit old then things will look different but this just means you are using a useless lab. Pro labs will give you an option for them to make changes to your files but you pay extra for this. The pro lab I use offer both options.

[l33r0y]

Here's a test to determine the type of LCD panel used

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=340129

[gonnabuyamac]

If people "love glossy" so much, I wonder why Steve hasn't changed the ACDs to glossy. ;)

They haven't done ANYTHING to ACDs for quite a while. I'd like to get one, but I'm waiting for an update.

I'm going to be the oddball here and say that I actually prefer glossy somewhat. I'm a graphic & web designer, but I usually keep my office pretty dim, so reflections are hardly ever an issue... I don't see them much, and even when they are there I'm used to it.

Especially for web - since the majority of computers are now being sold with glossy screens (take a walk through best buy), I like knowing somewhat what my pages are going to look like on the average persons computer. I use a glossy MBP paired with a higher-end sony monitor - which, like I said I want to replace with a new ACD someday.

[atari1356]

We went out of our way to get glare free VT terminals. I even remember some people had those anti-glare filters they would put in front of their screens...

Yeah, I remember selling a ton of these years ago when I worked for Office Depot:

http://content.etilize.com/Large/10007346.jpg

I'm sure we'll see anti-glare filters soon for the new iMacs.... ugh

[GWN]

Check this out, there is a guy on DPReview that did a pretty thorough calibration test on the new iMacs. Main conclusion:

"for consumer and most prosumer use the machines are fully up to the task."

So I guess they might not be good enough for Pro's after all...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1017&thread=24321625