24" owners with a good screen, please post a pic!

[IDanne]

I thought it would be great if some of the 24" owners with good screens could take the time and effort to post a pic.
I´ve seen a couple of good ones and it would be real encouraging to see that there are plenty more good ones out there.
I also think this could be useful to future buyers whom are wondering if there are any good screens at all and put an end to those who claim that there aren´t any.

Thanks!

[nissan.gtp]

mine is just fine. too many people bitch about tiny little things :rolleyes:

hard to get a good pic (the vertical line on the left is some sort of artifact) , but here you go:

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/9140/cimg32361jc4.jpg

I have one "white" (stuck?) pixel. can you spot it ?

[Leon Kowalski]

I thought it would be great if some of the 24" owners with good screens could take the time and effort to post a pic.
Good idea! However, just any ol' photo won't do. To demonstrate brightness and color uniformity (or lack thereof), the best 'subjects' are clutter-free desktops with solid-color backgrounds:

- "Solid Aqua Blue" for evaluating brightness uniformity

- "Solid Gray (Medium or Light)" for evaluating color uniformity


Kinda like these -- but hopefully, without the uglies:

http://picasaweb.google.com/TheLooby/24IMacScreenPhotos


...and turn off the room lights to avoid reflection artifacts,

LK

[czachorski]

Good idea! However, just any ol' photo won't do. To demonstrate brightness and color uniformity (or lack thereof), the best 'subjects' are clutter-free desktops with solid-color backgrounds:

- "Solid Aqua Blue" for evaluating brightness uniformity

- "Solid Gray (Medium or Light)" for evaluating color uniformity


Kinda like these -- but hopefully, without the uglies:

http://picasaweb.google.com/TheLooby/24IMacScreenPhotos


...and turn off the room lights to avoid reflection artifacts,

LK

Good points. For example, in the pic that Nissan posted, the race track is darker on one side, where the cars have traveled more. Is that darkness just the track, or in part the brightness gradient? It is hard to tell. Trusting Nissan's post, it is probably just the track, but a better background image would make it more clear.

[nissan.gtp]

the pic I posted isn't perfectly accurate, but it's close -- the track is darker on the right.

as Washac correctly says, what matters is real life use, not artificial setups

the display isn't PERFECT, but it's damn good. I have no complaints. Want better ? Sack up for big bucks, but you'll probably never be happy.

[Toddgabweg]

I love my 24"imac

[Leon Kowalski]

the pic I posted isn't perfectly accurate, but it's close .... as Washac correctly says, what matters is real life use, not artificial setups .... the display isn't PERFECT, but it's damn good.
Problem is, that photo conveys ZERO information on the display's quality. It might be absolutely 100% perfect, or in might have huge color and brightness gradients. There's no way to tell.

Brightnesss and color uniformity are measurable and photograph-able, while "damn good" is just one more anonymous net.opinion.

BTW, are the solid white 'n gray backgrounds on this web page an "artificial setup?"

Want better ? Sack up for big bucks, but you'll probably never be happy.
OR, you could "sack up" $1200 or $1500 for a (brand new) 20" or 24" White C2D iMac.

Here are some photos of my white 20" upgrade from the two ALU uglies. Uniform color, very good off-axis performance, and brightness uniformity approximately TEN TIMES BETTER than either of the ALU disasters.

http://picasaweb.google.com/TheLooby/White20IMacScreenPhotos

The screen's brightness is so uniform that my camera's light meter can't detect ANY variation at all. So, all I can say is that any "gradients" are below the meter's limit of resolution -- with LESS THAN 20% difference between max and min. (The five 24" ALU iMac samples I've measured had left:right brightness differences ranging from 150% to 270%.)

...hmm? If "aluminum and glass" is the answer, WHAT was the question?

LK

[czachorski]

Just downloaded the Leopard guided tour from Apple, and couldn't help but notice the nice uniformity on the screen in the video. That from a pretty high off-axis angle, too.

http://homepage.mac.com/czachorski/fun/alum_imac.jpeg

[Aranince]

Just downloaded the Leopard guided tour from Apple, and couldn't help but notice the nice uniformity on the screen in the video. That from a pretty high off-axis angle, too.

I have a feeling its added in post.

[czachorski]

I have a feeling its added in post.

I don't think so. I just watched it, and for instance, when they were demo'ing iChat, you could see the video window was live with the other person blinking and stuff. Its the same exact camera angle as the one I posted.

For example, in the shot below, he has just rotated from facing the iMac, to facing the camera. As he rotated, his little image in the corner of iChat rotated, and you can see his chat-mate blinking and moving. Watching this demo definitely proves to me that there is at least one perfectly functioning iMac screen somewhere at Apple.


http://homepage.mac.com/czachorski/fun/alum_imac2.jpeg

[czachorski]

Just some other photos I found around the web......I'm hard pressed to tell which of these has it and which do not, primarily because they are photos of actual use. Perhaps if people would put solid colors and take the photos straight on with low room lighting, we would have a better understanding, but most people just post pics in actual use (similar to how they use them, I suppose).

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/imac1_wideweb__470x316,2.jpg
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2007-08/08/xin_47080408084870223311.jpg
http://images.appleinsider.com/imac-2007-review-1.jpg
http://www.wkrn.com/files/images/ap/technology/2007/08/tech_test_imac.jpg
http://media.arstechnica.com/journals/apple.media/fullon.jpg

http://images.appleinsider.com/imac-07-gallery-2.jpg

[puckhead193]

the computer is a fake, it was done in post.
The keyboard has no wire to the computer, and its not the bluetooth version cause its the full size.

[Tonerl]

the computer is a fake, it was done in post.
The keyboard has no wire to the computer, and its not the bluetooth version cause its the full size.

I can see the cable from the keyboard to the computer! Look above the keyboard, near the foot of the iMac.

[czachorski]

the computer is a fake, it was done in post.
The keyboard has no wire to the computer, and its not the bluetooth version cause its the full size.

Did you watch the video? It's pretty clear it's real. The other pics I posted - are they faked too?

[Leon Kowalski]

Just downloaded the Leopard guided tour from Apple, and couldn't help but notice the nice uniformity on the screen in the video. That from a pretty high off-axis angle, too.
I've seen NO complaints -- anywhere -- about color uniformity or off-axis performance with the 24" iMacs. The 24" problem is a severe (2.5:1) left:right brightness gradient.

None of the photos posted here so far provides any useful information on that subject. You can't judge a display's quality if you don't know what the image SHOULD look like.

The 20" iMacs have severe top-to-bottom brightness and color non-uniformities. For example, the "ars technica" web page in your post #12 has a strong gradient in the vertical gray side bars. That might be an intentional "gradient fill," _OR_ it might be the 20" iMac's classic display FUBAR. We have no way of knowing for sure...

...but I'd be happy to place a small wager,

LK

[czachorski]

I've seen NO complaints -- anywhere -- about color uniformity or off-axis performance with the 24" iMacs. The 24" problem is a severe (2.5:1) left:right brightness gradient.

None of the photos posted here so far provides any useful information on that subject. You can't judge a display's quality if you don't know what the image SHOULD look like.

The 20" iMacs have severe top-to-bottom brightness and color non-uniformities. For example, the "ars technica" web page in your post #12 has a strong gradient in the vertical gray side bars. That might be an intentional "gradient fill," _OR_ it might be the 20" iMac's classic display FUBAR. We have no way of knowing for sure...

...but I'd be happy to place a small wager,

LK

The last picture I posted has a gradient from left to right across the bottom of the .........hold......hold....wait for it........across the bottom of the iMac in the aluminum. What are you going to do?

If one side of the screen was 2.5x as bright as the the other, you would think it would show definitively in one of these pics.

[czachorski]

Here is a few more....these are just so easy to find.

http://blogs.chron.com/techblog/WindowsLiveWriter/VirtuallytiedParallelsDeskt.VMWareFusion_BB69/imac24_3.jpg

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.engadget.com/media/2007/08/8-14-07-imac.jpg

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.engadget.com/media/2007/08/imac-4g-unboxing-top.jpg

http://blogs.chron.com/techblog/WindowsLiveWriter/Backtothefuture_7A69/newimac24_3.jpg

http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/1397/s6000537fo2.jpg

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/629/s6000528ku8.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fox-orian/1047705752/

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1014/1207753827_bc7d5b4e96_o.jpg

[HLdan]

Problem is, that photo conveys ZERO information on the display's quality. It might be absolutely 100% perfect, or in might have huge color and brightness gradients. There's no way to tell.

Brightnesss and color uniformity are measurable and photograph-able, while "damn good" is just one more anonymous net.opinion.

BTW, are the solid white 'n gray backgrounds on this web page an "artificial setup?"


OR, you could "sack up" $1200 or $1500 for a (brand new) 20" or 24" White C2D iMac.

Here are some photos of my white 20" upgrade from the two ALU uglies. Uniform color, very good off-axis performance, and brightness uniformity approximately TEN TIMES BETTER than either of the ALU disasters.

http://picasaweb.google.com/TheLooby/White20IMacScreenPhotos

The screen's brightness is so uniform that my camera's light meter can't detect ANY variation at all. So, all I can say is that any "gradients" are below the meter's limit of resolution -- with LESS THAN 20% difference between max and min. (The five 24" ALU iMac samples I've measured had left:right brightness differences ranging from 150% to 270%.)

...hmm? If "aluminum and glass" is the answer, WHAT was the question?

LK


Leon, in all honesty I see the gradient in your white iMac pics. I see brighter look on the left of the screen as opposed to the right in the grey and blue background pics. I really don't see any difference from your Alu iMac pics to your new white iMac pics.

[Leon Kowalski]

I really don't see any difference from your Alu iMac pics to your new white iMac pics.
Didya ever hear of MEASUREMENT ?

I invite you re-visit my picasaweb galleries and MEASURE the screen photos of all three iMacs.

http://picasaweb.google.com/TheLooby

Hint: If you actually own an Apple computer, you might try:

/Applications/Utilities/DigitalColor Meter.app

Then please come back and tell us all what you found.

...the physical universe doesn't give a rat's rump about "opinions,"

LK

[czachorski]

Didya ever hear of MEASUREMENT ?

I invite you re-visit my picasaweb galleries and MEASURE the screen photos of all three iMacs.
If you actually own an Apple computer, you might try:

/Applications/Utilities/DigitalColor Meter.app

Then please come back and tell us all what you found.

...the physical universe doesn't give a rat's rump about "opinions,"

LK

Leon - I am very interested to be the random sample for the 24" iMac - when mine comes in (scheduled for Th or Fri next week). In the mean time, I challenge you in a similar manner that you have challenged those here to post a pic of a working 24" iMac. I have found dozens on google images. Here is the thing, I don't see many images on google images of ones that definitively have the 24" brightness issues. Certainly of over a dozen I have posted, one would have this problem visible if every single 24" iMac had this defect. But here is the thing: none of them do. And furthermore, I did not see any in google images that definitively had it.

So here is my challenge: if this problem is so widespread, go on to google images, and post pics of even half as many that definitively have this problem as I have.

(I post this knowing full-well that I have jinxed myself and my 24" iMac will show up with the brightness issue AND the freezing problem. :(

[Bolteh]

I'm going to back up the others here by saying that the pics of your white iMac screen show traces of a gradient as well (lighter on the left)

Now, my 24" Alu iMac has a little screen issue itself, but not a gradient. When my screen is all black (and only noticable when black), I can see a lighter blob of about 3-4" wide and about an inch high (it's very very faded/blurry though, but it's there).. It doesn't annoy me at all though.. But if my iMac keeps getting the freezes after Leopard (or a fix to all OS'), I'm going to exchange it stating that it has uneven brightness, a dead pixel and freezing issues. (maybe even wait untill after a new hardware revision :p)

[Toru-kun]

hey,

i am a future switcher (am i in the right thread?), and i have been waiting for the leopard release to buy an Imac with the new OS pre-installed. however I was taken a little bit aback after reading all the posts concerning the freezing issue.

did this happen to the vast majority of people or just a few unlucky ones? shall i wait until this is finally fixed or shall i buy it right after october 26th with my fingers crossed hoping that if i ever encounter these sort of problems a future update shoudl fix it or in worst case scenario, i get my machine replaced for a new one of repared?

what do you think?

thanks in advance for your help!:o

[SaSaSushi]

hey,

i am a future switcher (am i in the right thread?), and i have been waiting for the leopard release to buy an Imac with the new OS pre-installed. however I was taken a little bit aback after reading all the posts concerning the freezing issue.

did this happen to the vast majority of people or just a few unlucky ones? shall i wait until this is finally fixed or shall i buy it right after october 26th with my fingers crossed hoping that if i ever encounter these sort of problems a future update shoudl fix it or in worst case scenario, i get my machine replaced for a new one of repared?

what do you think?

thanks in advance for your help!:o

I took delivery of my 24" aluminum iMac on 8/17 and have had not had any freezing issues whatsoever. I appled the 1.1 update when it came out.

Incidentally even though you didn't ask I don't have the mysterious "gradient" issue either. I "upgraded" from an early 2006 20" Core Duo iMac with a matte display which didn't have it either. Personally I like the glossy screen better than the matte too.

The only negative issue I've had with the machine is my down arrow key on the aluminum keyboard seems to have gone a bit soft and sometimes doesn't register a keystroke depending on how I hit it. I may be sending it in for a replacement. I love the aluminum keyboard otherwise.

It's a great machine and I can't recommend it highly enough.

[Leon Kowalski]

I'm going to back up the others here by saying that the pics of your white iMac screen show traces of a gradient as well (lighter on the left)
Sheesh! Yet another meaningless "I think I see." Please open DigitalColor Meter.app ...

...and show us some NUMBERS!

LK

[Bolteh]

I don't "think I see", I even tried that digital colormeter and it does show up that the left side is lighter than the right side (31-51-66 left, 27-46-59 right).

[Leon Kowalski]

I even tried that digital colormeter and it does show up that the left side
is lighter than the right side (31-51-66 left, 27-46-59 right)
Congratulations, einstein! You found a 12% non-uniformity "problem."

(31 + 51 + 66) / (27 + 46 + 59) = 1.12

I only claimed: "less than 20%"

...thanks for confirming my measurements,

LK

[czachorski]

Congratulations, einstein! You found a 12% non-uniformity "problem."

(31 + 51 + 66) / (27 + 46 + 59) = 1.12

I only claimed: "less than 20%"

...thanks for confirming my measurements,

LK

Did you try searching google images for bad alum iMac screens yet? Any comments on all of the pics showing up now with good iMac alum screens?

[gkroeger]

the computer is a fake, it was done in post.
The keyboard has no wire to the computer, and its not the bluetooth version cause its the full size.

I agree that there is no keyboard cable into the Imac... but I do think the display is realtime based on the iChat display... The narrator cannot take the time to look down at the keyboard, nor be expected to do precise mousing, so there is probably an assistant with a wireless keyboard and mouse doing the work.

[Leon Kowalski]

Did you try searching google images for bad alum iMac screens yet?
Uh, why limit the source to "google images" -- especially when a quick search of that site (with domain name filtering) returns NONE of the many gradient-related photos posted in this forum, in discussions.apple.com, or any other Mac-related site?

...try these for starters,

LK

http://discussions.apple.com/message.jspa?messageID=5166261#5166261
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=4144982&postcount=19
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=4145730&postcount=35
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=4147167&postcount=45
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=4150341&postcount=51
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=4159996&postcount=64
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=4165464&postcount=86
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=4184846&postcount=118
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=4249652&postcount=194
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=4251236&postcount=201
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=4251452&postcount=204

[czachorski]

Uh, why limit the source to "google images" -- especially when a quick search of that site (with domain name filtering) returns NONE of the many gradient-related photos posted in this forum, in discussions.apple.com, or any other Mac-related site?

...try these for starters,

LK

http://discussions.apple.com/message.jspa?messageID=5166261#5166261
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=4144982&postcount=19
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=4145730&postcount=35
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=4147167&postcount=45
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=4150341&postcount=51
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=4159996&postcount=64
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=4165464&postcount=86
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=4184846&postcount=118
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=4249652&postcount=194
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=4251236&postcount=201
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=4251452&postcount=204

Well, you've proven my point nicely. All the problems you linked to are from these forums, and there are very few problems in a general search of the web, like google. Could it just be that the forums are biased to the problems, because people tend to come here with problems, and google is biased to no problems, because people showing off their new iMacs don't tend to have problems?

[WBryan]

Leon -

Have you returned your aluminum iMac yet? If you have, why are you continuing to be so obsessed with this screen gradient? Anyone that is looking to buy a new iMac will surely see one of the many posts you have on this topic. For those that actually want to pull out the light meter and measure their screens, they will get the real results and appreciate your information and knowledge.

I am just curious to see why you keep posting on this topic over and over? What are you trying to do?

I for one have no intention of using a light meter on my iMac and I bet most people won't! Yes, I spent over $2,000 for this machine and if there is a small screen gradient issue, I am still happy with my overall experience. If the problem was so bad that I actually noticed this problem, I would go back to apple and get a refund.

Your smart a** replies and attempts at making everyone else look stupid for even considering buying an aluminum iMac are really pointless! Please upgrade to the white iMac as you put it and leave it already! Be glad you don't have the aluminum iMac then!

I LOVE MY iMAC!!!! (For all those that are scared off by light meter readings):apple:

[reorx]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/3A109a Safari/419.3)

Sounds like this "Leon" character needs to get a real job so he can afford an actual professional, calibrated display and stop complaining about consumer hardware. I have an iMac 24, and its display is perfectly fine, no dead pixels, and much better off axis than any of my other Macs. There is no such thing as a "perfect" display. Period.

[RRK]

Leon -

Have you returned your aluminum iMac yet? If you have, why are you continuing to be so obsessed with this screen gradient? Anyone that is looking to buy a new iMac will surely see one of the many posts you have on this topic. For those that actually want to pull out the light meter and measure their screens, they will get the real results and appreciate your information and knowledge.

I am just curious to see why you keep posting on this topic over and over? What are you trying to do?

I for one have no intention of using a light meter on my iMac and I bet most people won't! Yes, I spent over $2,000 for this machine and if there is a small screen gradient issue, I am still happy with my overall experience. If the problem was so bad that I actually noticed this problem, I would go back to apple and get a refund.

Your smart a** replies and attempts at making everyone else look stupid for even considering buying an aluminum iMac are really pointless! Please upgrade to the white iMac as you put it and leave it already! Be glad you don't have the aluminum iMac then!

I LOVE MY iMAC!!!! (For all those that are scared off by light meter readings):apple:

Amen! My new iMac has the "problem" and is the most beautiful screen I have ever owned. I couldn't even see it with a solid grey screen until I took a picture of it which exaggerates the "problem".

[Kuska]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/3A109a Safari/419.3)

Sounds like this "Leon" character needs to get a real job so he can afford an actual professional, calibrated display and stop complaining about consumer hardware. I have an iMac 24, and its display is perfectly fine, no dead pixels, and much better off axis than any of my other Macs. There is no such thing as a "perfect" display. Period.

Like Leon, I also took delivery of a number of machines that had less than perfect screens. The second was much worse than the first, so much so that my 6 year old nephew commented on it! (and for some unusual reason I got angry, really angry with apple)

Anyhow, those machines are history, I've ordered a third and if it's bad, its going back again (I guess three attempts is enough) .

Problem is, I'm looking for the problems now so I expect to be my own worst enemy.

But guess what, in between all the ranting (some of my own included) I've learnt a thing or two about displays and thats a good thing.

I've also learnt I can wait a while longer than I thought I could and that my 2004 iMac G5 also has a little more life in it than I gave it credit for.

Kuska

[megfilmworks]

the computer is a fake, it was done in post.
The keyboard has no wire to the computer, and its not the bluetooth version cause its the full size.I highly doubt that. Are you saying it was CGIed in post? Wow talk about spending a fortune. I don't see why they would blow the budget for that when they could have just moved the camera.
My feeling is that it is real.

[rainydays]

I highly doubt that. Are you saying it was CGIed in post? Wow talk about spending a fortune. I don't see why they would blow the budget for that when they could have just moved the camera.
My feeling is that it is real.

The image on the screen was put there afterwards, yes. The whole computer wasn't rendered. I would think that he actually used the computer in the movie but that they captured the whole thing and put it back onto the screen afterwards. That way they can make it appear perfectly uniform and without any glare. (they did this in the iPhone movies as well)

It's really not anything advanced and it doesn't cost much. It's common practice in advertisements that contain screens. In fact I would say that practically every computer/screen advertisement is either done this way or completely computer rendered.

Perhaps you'd also like to know that most product photos from larger companies these days are actually computer rendered. It's cheaper and more practical to do it that way. Product photographers is a dying breed.

[RRK]

The image on the screen was put there afterwards, yes. The whole computer wasn't rendered. I would think that he actually used the computer in the movie but that they captured the whole thing and put it back onto the screen afterwards. That way they can make it appear perfectly uniform and without any glare. (they did this in the iPhone movies as well)

It's really not anything advanced and it doesn't cost much. It's common practice in advertisements that contain screens. In fact I would say that practically every computer/screen advertisement is either done this way or completely computer rendered.

Perhaps you'd also like to know that most product photos from larger companies these days are actually computer rendered. It's cheaper and more practical to do it that way. Product photographers is a dying breed.

I know that I heard Apple was rendering all the product shots on the website, but in this case it seems strange that the time keeps changing on the screen. I guess it could suggest either possibility but to me it suggests that the time changes are due to editing a long day of shooting. If the screen was replaced it would seem to me that the timeline would be more seamless.

[gorby]

hey,

i am a future switcher (am i in the right thread?), and i have been waiting for the leopard release to buy an Imac with the new OS pre-installed. however I was taken a little bit aback after reading all the posts concerning the freezing issue.

did this happen to the vast majority of people or just a few unlucky ones? shall i wait until this is finally fixed or shall i buy it right after october 26th with my fingers crossed hoping that if i ever encounter these sort of problems a future update shoudl fix it or in worst case scenario, i get my machine replaced for a new one of repared?

what do you think?

thanks in advance for your help!:o

Wow, I am 100% in the same exact situation. Was waiting for Leopard etc. etc....

Now I'm getting cold feet, and thinking I should wait for the 'hardware revision'.... assuming there will be one.... sometime soon.

[megfilmworks]

The image on the screen was put there afterwards, yes. The whole computer wasn't rendered. I would think that he actually used the computer in the movie but that they captured the whole thing and put it back onto the screen afterwards. That way they can make it appear perfectly uniform and without any glare. (they did this in the iPhone movies as well)

It's really not anything advanced and it doesn't cost much. It's common practice in advertisements that contain screens. In fact I would say that practically every computer/screen advertisement is either done this way or completely computer rendered.

Perhaps you'd also like to know that most product photos from larger companies these days are actually computer rendered. It's cheaper and more practical to do it that way. Product photographers is a dying breed.The type of rendering you are talking about is not the same as would be needed for this off angle shot, and it is very expensive. You are talking about the master shot and not the inserts, right? And let's say it was, you would most likely not be able to tell. What makes you so sure? Do you see visible artifacts?
EDIT: After looking at the HD version of the spot I now see that the stationary shot is used on the master angle. That would be very easy to do in post. I don't see the need, though, as it could be photographed live and not be a problem either.

[rainydays]

You are absolutely correct, poor communication on my part. He actually told me that the screen was dirty. (It was actually the uneven backlighting)

Dirty is a very good description of it. The thing is that it isn't only darker but yellow/brownish which makes it look.. dirty.

[xrayvision]

Congratulations, einstein! You found a 12% non-uniformity "problem."

(31 + 51 + 66) / (27 + 46 + 59) = 1.12

I only claimed: "less than 20%"

...thanks for confirming my measurements,

LK

I'll be the first to admit that I'm also no Einstein, but given that sample set you cannot just say "the mean difference is 12%". If you calculate the variance between the measurements (ie: do a student's T-test on that data), you will find that the two means are NOT statistically different.

In other words, (31 + 51 + 66) / (27 + 46 + 59) = no statistically significant difference.

If you can provide numbers with less variability (variance?) on each side, and increase the number of measurements, you may be able to make a significant difference. Until then, you've got nada (that's Spanish English, btw).

For now I'll just stick with my subjective impression that the iMac screens I've seen look Really Good!!

All the best.

[Leon Kowalski]

If you can provide numbers with less variability (variance?) on each side, and increase the number of measurements, you may be able to make a significant difference. Until then, you've got nada (that's Spanish English, btw).
WHAT variance? There was ONE measurement of ONE location on each side of the screen. Each datum consists of three independent dimensions: red, green, and blue. The total luminance at each location was approximated by summing three orthogonal values -- NOT by averaging three observations of the same property.

Furthermore, repeated "observations" of any given point on a digitized image will yield EXACTLY the same result every time. There is no possibility of "scatter," because the bits in the image file are time-invariant. What's the standard deviation of your social security number?

And what's your formula for calculating the "variance" of ONE data point?

...innumeracy RULZ!

LK

[Kuska]

Dirty is a very good description of it. The thing is that it isn't only darker but yellow/brownish which makes it look.. dirty.

Initially I'd wondered if the condensation experienced with both machines on initial start up had some way discoloured either the glass or the actual screen itself as the water evaporated, but have no idea if simple condensation would have this type of effect ?

Kuska

[Bigtree]

After reading all this, not only do you lint pick the iMacs, (if that's so important as compared to the world's real problems), you lint-pick each other's grammar!! I think this thread says more about you than it does the iMac's screen.


If you don't like the screen go buy a windows computer!!!!!

[xrayvision]

WHAT variance? There was ONE measurement of ONE location on each side of the screen. Each datum consists of three independent dimensions: red, green, and blue. The total luminance at each location was approximated by summing three orthogonal values -- NOT by averaging three observations of the same property.

Furthermore, repeated "observations" of any given point on a digitized image will yield EXACTLY the same result every time. There is no possibility of "scatter," because the bits in the image file are time-invariant. What's the standard deviation of your social security number?

And what's your formula for calculating the "variance" of ONE data point?

...innumeracy RULZ!

LK

Oh, well in that case you have NO point whatsoever. You need to collect multiple measurements because you have a high potential for sampling and measurement error, which is not necessarily the same thing as the precision (defined as reproducibility, NOT accuracy) of your measurement. When you've read something about statistics, I'd be happy to have a real discussion.

In the meantime, you sound like your arse is sore about something. Try not to be such an A-hole to the community, ok? I'm interested in the topic of a potential screen defect, and you want to toss around insults with the idea that I'm somehow numerically illiterate?? Take it down a notch, I'm not here to be insulted.

[Leon Kowalski]

Oh, well in that case you have NO point whatsoever. You need to collect multiple measurements because you have a high potential for sampling and measurement error,
Clearly the ravings of an algebraic maniac.

Here, try this little experiment in applied statistics:

1) Count your fingers (both hands, if you can manage it).

2) Carefully record the results in your laboratory notebook.

3) OOPS! Insufficient sample size.

4) Enlist ten thousand or so neutral observers to repeat the measurement.

5) Carefully record their observations in your laboratory notebook.

6) Calculate the mean, median, standard deviation and skew of the sample distribution.

7) Calculate the MoE of your final result at, say, the 95% confidence level. Feel free to use the handy-dandy MoE calculator at http://americanresearchgroup.com/moe.html.
(Hint: Enter Population_Size = 1, Sample_Size = 10001)

8) Report your approximate number of fingers (+/- MoE).


...uh, 4 or 5 significant digits of precision should be sufficient,

LK

"I would advise you Sir, to study algebra, if you are not already an
adept in it: your head would be less muddy, and you will leave off
tormenting your neighbors about paper and packthread ..."
- Samuel Johnson

[xrayvision]

Clearly the ravings of an algebraic maniac.

Here, try this little experiment in applied statistics:

...(psudo-intellectual babble)...

LK


Are you seriously arguing that a single point measurement is going somehow accurately assess the monitor? And why exactly to you think that a repeat measurement will give the exact same result?? Oh wait a sec... you're not so stupid that you're measuring the screen with the DigitalColor Meter utility, ARE YOU?? Haha! Nice Experimental Design GENIUS! Yeah, that will tell you exactly what the computer has mapped to that area of the screen, but it will not assess he actual output of the screen. Get a monitor calibrating device, and do repeat measurements.

I think I'm done with this topic, and I'm certainly done with you, LK. You come off like an under-educated, snotty little twerp. And FWIW, the correct statistical test is a 2-tailed Student's T-test (margin of error won't get you where you need to be). You bore me.

[Leon Kowalski]

...(psudo-intellectual babble)...
You're projecting, Bubba. Please refresh my memory on WHO jumped into the fray babbling utter nonsense about "student's T-tests", "statistically significant differences" and "variance" -- of a SINGLE data point, no less.

When you find yourself in a hole of your own making -- STOP DIGGING!

Are you seriously arguing that a single point measurement is going somehow accurately assess the monitor?
Yet another lame straw man. The weasle-worded phrase "assess a monitor" is nothing but a transparently dishonest attempt to muddy the waters and divert attention from your astoundingly idiotic "statistical" pronouncements.

The subject was not "assessment" (whatever that might mean) -- it was a discussion of LUMINANCE UNIFORMITY, which (unfortunately for you), is an easily-understood, precisely-defined, and unambiguously quantifiable property of LCD displays.

Widely-accepted international standards define and specify luminance uniformity as a simple ratio of maximum to minimum brightness. No statistics involved; just divide the brightest by the darkest. Any errors in locating the absolute brightest/darkest areas of the screen simply produce a slightly optimistic result. No big deal. No one cares if it's off by a few percent.

And why exactly to you think that a repeat measurement will give the exact same result??
As I already explained, there is nothing to repeat -- and no reason to repeat it. The data-set under discussion (a more-than-sufficient 10 million+ discreet RGB brightness measurements) was acquired by Mr. Sushi's superb Canon IXY DIGITAL 700 camera -- in a matter of 20 milliseconds -- and promptly recorded on his SD flash card. Measurement complete! Everything after the shutter-click is data analysis -- NOT measurement.

Are you seriously suggesting that replicate high-quality digital photographs of the same display -- taken back-to-back, on the same day -- would yield substantially different results? Remember, Bubba, we're NOT talkin' about ppm precision hair-splitting; we're talkin' about macroscopic brightness differences -- on the order of tens (or hundreds!) of percents.

Please tune-in Sesame Street for a refresher course on "big" and "little."

Oh wait a sec... you're not so stupid that you're measuring the screen with the DigitalColor Meter utility, ARE YOU?? Haha! Nice Experimental Design GENIUS! Yeah, that will tell you exactly what the computer has mapped to that area of the screen, but it will not assess he actual output of the screen. Get a monitor calibrating device, and do repeat measurements.
What a maroon! I wouldn't have thought it possible that anyone capable of operating a keyboard could be so invincibly dense. The "actual output" of the iMac screen was ALREADY measured once -- by Mr. Sushi's camera. There is nothing more to measure. The data is now written in silicon; no matter how many times you "sample" it, it remains unchanged.

Anyone who follows your sage technical advice will be measuring the "actual output" of Mr. Sushi's display -- MULTIPLIED BY -- the "actual output" of the second display. ...but why stop at only two?

The ideal method of analyzing the 10 million+ RGB measurements acquired by Mr. Sushi's camera would be to programatically extract and process the binary JPG data -- directly from the camera's SD flash card.

The next best approach is an interactive graphical examination/analysis of the JPG's data bits -- exactly as they are "mapped" by the computer into an area of video memory. I freely admit that DigitalColorMeter.app has its limitations. OTOH, it's universally available, and good enough for detecting gross non-uniformities and distinguishing between "big" and "little."

And FWIW, the correct statistical test is a 2-tailed Student's T-test
Oooh! Now we have a TWO tailed test ... for the same ol' ONE data point!

...stupidity has no asymptote!

LK

[rainydays]

but have no idea if simple condensation would have this type of effect ?


No, this seems to be related to the backlighting. Because with those screen where the backlighting is fading from left to right the yellowish area is at the right side and not exclusively in the middle.
One interesting thing is that it varies in visibility over time as well. Sometimes it's barely visible and sometimes it's very obvious and quite annoying.

[mavis]

-snip-

As has already been said, you're boring us. Why don't you just NOT get an iMac and be done with it? Or better still: get a life, instead of spending countless hours with your multi-quote posts which are repetitive and lacking in substance - I mean, don't you have anything better to do with your time? It's laughable (and sad and pathetic) that you don't. ;)

posted from a 24" iMac with a good screen

[Washac]

Leon -

Have you returned your aluminum iMac yet? If you have, why are you continuing to be so obsessed with this screen gradient? Anyone that is looking to buy a new iMac will surely see one of the many posts you have on this topic. For those that actually want to pull out the light meter and measure their screens, they will get the real results and appreciate your information and knowledge.

I am just curious to see why you keep posting on this topic over and over? What are you trying to do?

I for one have no intention of using a light meter on my iMac and I bet most people won't! Yes, I spent over $2,000 for this machine and if there is a small screen gradient issue, I am still happy with my overall experience. If the problem was so bad that I actually noticed this problem, I would go back to apple and get a refund.

Your smart a** replies and attempts at making everyone else look stupid for even considering buying an aluminum iMac are really pointless! Please upgrade to the white iMac as you put it and leave it already! Be glad you don't have the aluminum iMac then!

I LOVE MY iMAC!!!! (For all those that are scared off by light meter readings):apple:

I will second that, good post :)

[teerexx52]

I will second that, good post :)

Me too!

[Washac]

As has already been said, you're boring us. Why don't you just NOT get an iMac and be done with it? Or better still: get a life, instead of spending countless hours with your multi-quote posts which are repetitive and lacking in substance - I mean, don't you have anything better to do with your time? It's laughable (and sad and pathetic) that you don't. ;)

posted from a 24" iMac with a good screen


Here here, I will second this post as well, good post :)

[qom]

Boys, boys!
Where are the pictures? Calm down a bit :)

[rotlex]

Boys, boys!
Where are the pictures? Calm down a bit :)

LOL, I'd have to agree with the other posters at this point though. :) I mean, if it is really bothering someone THAT much, uh, just don't buy the iMac! :)

I think many, also need to realize, that, as everyone always states, you see more complaints on boards like these then you EVER will praise. It's just the nature of the internet and message boards in general. I'm sure for every "I got a bad one" post out there, there are dozens of folks that are completely happy with their screens.

[KeithnFW]

Here is a link to photos I edited through CS3 on my brand new 24" iMac 2.8 . . . I thought they turned out OK. I could find no problem with color at all.

http://www.pbase.com/keith1959/2007_sheppard_afb_open_house

[Cloudsurfer]

Did you watch the video? It's pretty clear it's real. The other pics I posted - are they faked too?

It's pre-recorded. Why is that so hard to believe?

[Kuska]

Here is a link to photos I edited through CS3 on my brand new 24" iMac 2.8 . . . I thought they turned out OK. I could find no problem with color at all.

http://www.pbase.com/keith1959/2007_sheppard_afb_open_house

Great, Great Photo's - Thankyou.

[HLdan]

Great, Great Photo's - Thankyou.

Ditto, but I wish they were large enough to be my desktop wallpaper.:D

[Kuska]

Alu iMac No.3 due to arrive on Friday (wonder if it will include Leopard ?)

Anyhow, I'm keeping my fingers crossed for this one - went a different route this time and ordered the 24" 2.4GHZ and upgraded it to the 2.8 with 500GB HD. (Initially thought that this one may be handled differently at the production end but on reflection, guess that they will send out a stock 2.8 with just the one stick of RAM).

So - I'll keep an eye out for condensation and try not to look at the screen too closely :rolleyes: !

...and I'll post some pics if I find anything particularly unusual or particularly pleasing.

Just had to give it one more go - would be really bad luck to get three 'dirty' units in a row!

C'mon :apple: !

Kuska

[KeithnFW]

Ditto, but I wish they were large enough to be my desktop wallpaper.:D

Below each photo, there are sizes you can choose. I believe it defaults to large, but if you click on "original", you'll get a larger photo to view and download. and thanks for the nice comments. I love my new iMac. . .

[HLdan]

Below each photo, there are sizes you can choose. I believe it defaults to large, but if you click on "original", you'll get a larger photo to view and download. and thanks for the nice comments. I love my new iMac. . .

Perfect, that works! Thanks for sharing! I love my new iMac too.:D

[czachorski]

Here's some perspective on all of these screen issues. Here are a few more "screen shots" just to demonstrate how you can drive yourself nuts taken pictures of your screen and then analyzing them in Photoshop:


Picture of the white wall behind my Mac with no flash:

http://homepage.mac.com/czachorski/fun/alum_imac7.jpg




Same wall with flash on:

http://homepage.mac.com/czachorski/fun/alum_imac8.jpg


Side by side of left edge and right edge of white wall with flash off:

http://homepage.mac.com/czachorski/fun/alum_imac9.jpg

Hmmmmm - my perfectly white wall has a gradient issue. Weird, huh? I think this proves the issues with posting photos, and analyzing them. I am not saying that there are not people out there with issues and that they don't photgraph well - they do, I have seen them, and I sincerely feel bad for those who got them, and hope they get their problems resolved.

But this business of asking someone to post a screen shot of a good working iMac, and then photoshopping to show a gradient under certain lighting conditions and with a "solid color" has got to stop. It's flawed. Plain and simple. Even a perfectly white wall shows up with a gradient in those conditions. If the screen looks consisent to your eyes when you are sitting in front of it, count yourself as blessed that you got a good one. Don't let some of the fools around here convice you that there is something wrong because a slight gradient shows up on a photo in photoshop.

BTW - here's my 24" iMac. Looks beautiful to me. If you photoshop you will notice a very slight gradient (its in the photo only - not reality, btw). I did the solid grey photo and side-by-side in photoshop too. The slight gradient is less than the one that shows up in a photo on my Apple Cinema display and my white wall. When I am sitting right in front of it, it looks perfect, you can't see any gradients at all in color or brightness. I am thrilled with this gorgeous machine!!!

http://homepage.mac.com/czachorski/fun/alum_imac6.jpg

[flyboykcj]

I have patiently waited since March, reading and researching, to make the big jump from my windows desktop to :apple:. My 24" iMac's screen is simply stunning. Viewed at a good sitting distance I don't see anything to detract from just WOW: no pixels out, no left-to-right color/brightness distortion, and no glare affecting my view. I'm transitioning away from a 17" perfectly good CRT, so I was pretty spoiled with color accuracy and sharpness from angles. I've honestly only been delighted.

Apologize I can't link up a picture -- I don't have any URL to link it from.

[footballboy3]

I keep reading posts that insult people who weren't satisfied with their bad imac screen as being too picky. If it isn't actually a problem, why does apple accept them back as returns and slap a DOA sticker on it like they did for me 2 times. As soon as the genius guy fired up the 2 24" imacs I returned, he noticed the same bad backlighting and yellow tinting that I did. Don't call me (and many others) picky for simply wanting uniform (or at least CLOSE to it) backlighting and for whites to be white across the whole screen. those who are happy with their product, thats great, but why are those who aren't the bad guys??

[flopticalcube]

I'd say you need to return your wall and demand one that is perfect! :D

[czachorski]

I keep reading posts that insult people who weren't satisfied with their bad imac screen as being too picky. If it isn't actually a problem, why does apple accept them back as returns and slap a DOA sticker on it like they did for me 2 times. As soon as the genius guy fired up the 2 24" imacs I returned, he noticed the same bad backlighting and yellow tinting that I did. Don't call me (and many others) picky for simply wanting uniform (or at least CLOSE to it) backlighting and for whites to be white across the whole screen. those who are happy with their product, thats great, but why are those who aren't the bad guys??


I would never mean to insult someone who has a bad one and it is obvious and you can see it right away when you turn it on and use it. I am tired of those who take someone who has a perfectly good screen and claims that it must be bad, because "they are all bad" and that people with good one just don't see the problem.

I believe that the problem is isolated, but very unfortunate for those who have it. I also believe that the extent of the problem can get exaggerated in the forums.

[i make movies]

Here's some perspective on all of these screen issues. Here are a few more "screen shots" just to demonstrate how you can drive yourself nuts taken pictures of your screen and then analyzing them in Photoshop:

Picture of the white wall behind my Mac with no flash:

Same wall with flash on:

Side by side of left edge and right edge of white wall with flash off:

Hmmmmm - my perfectly white wall has a gradient issue. Weird, huh? I think this proves the issues with posting photos, and analyzing them. I am not saying that there are not people out there with issues and that they don't photgraph well - they do, I have seen them, and I sincerely feel bad for those who got them, and hope they get their problems resolved.


People with gradient/uniform backlight issues should use your pictures of the wall as their wallpaper. It would cancel out the problems. Or they should take pictures of their 24" iMac and use that image as their wallpaper, then take another picture of the wallpaper....just keep on going until you're bored. Best idea I've had all day, maybe all week.

[Mindflux]

Here's some perspective on all of these screen issues. Here are a few more "screen shots" just to demonstrate how you can drive yourself nuts taken pictures of your screen and then analyzing them in Photoshop:





Not that I am doubting you, because you bring up a good point. How do you explain the light metering differences given by Leon "I can't drop this conversation" whatever his last name is?

It would be interesting to take a light meter to your wall :P Are you sure one side of it isn't closer to a light or another hallway with a light source?
:D

[czachorski]

Not that I am doubting you, because you bring up a good point. How do you explain the light metering differences given by Leon "I can't drop this conversation" whatever his last name is?

It would be interesting to take a light meter to your wall :P Are you sure one side of it isn't closer to a light or another hallway with a light source?
:D


I don't dispute that he got a bad one, and that there are bad ones out there with 100% - 250% variation in brightness. I am disputing the validity of the claims that every single iMac has the problem, even ones that look perfectly fine to the owner.

[Mindflux]

I don't dispute that he got a bad one, and that there are bad ones out there with 100% - 250% variation in brightness. I am disputing the validity of the claims that every single iMac has the problem, even ones that look perfectly fine to the owner.

Apparently he got 3 bad ones, and then tested 4 more in store?

I've got a 24" iMac coming tomorrow. I hope that I don't have the yellowing or the gradient problem.

:(

[BrianKonarsMac]

the computer is a fake, it was done in post.
The keyboard has no wire to the computer, and its not the bluetooth version cause its the full size.

so then the real question is...am I imagining this cable that you claim is not there? :rolleyes:

[Mindflux]

http://www.sendmefile.com/00589193

Try those html files as a test. White on both sides with a blue bar down the center.

results from users on discussions.apple.com

http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z316/tomorrow22/DSC00085.jpg

He posted this, and even though you claim it's camera irregularity he can see it with his naked eye too?

[Leon Kowalski]

Hmmmmm - my perfectly white wall has a gradient issue. Weird, huh? I think this proves the issues with posting photos, and analyzing them.

But this business of asking someone to post a screen shot of a good working iMac, and then photoshopping to show a gradient under certain lighting conditions and with a "solid color" has got to stop.
It's easy enough to test for camera artifacts -- and to minimize or avoid them if they actually exist.

What happens to that wall photo if you change the camera orientation?

What happens if you back up and use a longer focal length?

If the camera really is at fault, does any area of the frame have good uniformity?

For example, in your first wall shot, there appears to be a very uniform broad vertical stripe down the center of the frame. You could avoid camera artifacts (if any) by taking your screen photos with the camera in portrait orientation. The 24" iMac display has only 2 megapixels -- so you lose absolutely nothing by cropping-away 75% of the fame of an 8 megapixel camera. And you don't need nearly 2 Mp to demonstrate uniformity -- one tenth of that would be more than sufficient.

Bottom line: You CAN get an artifact-free screen photo -- IF you want one.

...a poor workman always blames his tools,

LK

[headhammer]

...a poor workman always blames his tools,



so please explain why you're complaining about the screen again?
i'm confused now, because this is the exact rhetoric that i've been pushing this whole time.

[czachorski]

I am not blaming my tools. Simply pointing out that a happy iMac owner who takes a photos of his screen just might not have the knowledge or the time to take a controlled photos that won't be affected by an external effects.