Thoughts on iMac Display

[MacFoodPoisoner]

I 'm thinking of going with a previous gen 27" imac, of course taking out the bs glass cover, staying with the minimal reflections a la air of the panel itself and getting a macframe...

It all depends on how well they 've implemented the glass lamination. In the ipad mini, it's amongst the worst ones, worse than the nexus 7 and the fire hd according to Ray Soneira of display mate. This guy has probably some of the most advanced display tests for screens and found that the mini's reflectance is double that of its competitors. (and just in case some fan boy screams bias, the same guy declared the screen of the ipad 3/4 the best ever tablet screen). There's also a measurement he takes of what sort of offset there is for a certain point due to the multiple layers of lcd and glass, because we might not be able to consciously discern such detail with a naked eye, but subconsciously the eyes can tell and they tire more easily.

I am going to go with the past imac for sure if they 've done yet another blunder and disabled a vesa mount for the new slimmer mac, last thing I need is a huge screen with pretty much zero ergonomics. If they managed to slim the imac by making it non vesa mountable yet kept the decade old non height adjustable foot they will be inane of course.

[deang001]

Just out of interest, has anyone calibrated their new iMac displays yet?

They are meant to be individually calibrated with accurate colours, gamma and white point.

I'm interested to know how accurate they are out of the box.

[spcdust]

As I was passing the Apple store in Convent Garden this afternoon I popped in to check out the new iMac. My initial thoughts on the display, albeit viewed in the context of a bright Apple store, was that it was nice but I can sincerely say I really didn't think it was any great improvement of the 2011 iMac display. I viewed quite a few photos and they were as great as the 2011 iMac but I honestly couldn't see this discernible difference that some reviews have referred to. This is in know way a negative, the iMac display for the last three generations has been excellent and as the 2012 iMac shares the same panel not that surprising that the display seemed to look the same. As far as the anti reflective panel, to be honest I didn't really clock it but on "reflection" there was an improvement here. One thing I did think, but again hard to judge in a bright Apple store, was that the range of brightness seemed more conservative - however on my 2011 iMac the highest brightness setting is retina burning so I actually have mine set at about just one notch above 1/3 setting.

Just as an aside, although the thin edge isn't so important to me I would concede that it was quite sexy, however the biggest surprise was that the "bulge" at the back really wash't that pronounced and to that end (compromises withstanding) it was quite impressive what Apple have achieved in respect of design. The fact that the bulge isn't that great kind of justifies/makes more sense of the thin edge screen. To the average Joe, not worried about desktop GPU's etc, this iMac does look the business.

[bobright]

Originally Posted by spcdust

As I was passing the Apple store in Convent Garden this afternoon I popped in to check out the new iMac. My initial thoughts on the display, albeit viewed in the context of a bright Apple store, was that it was nice but I can sincerely say I really didn't think it was any great improvement of the 2011 iMac display. I viewed quite a few photos and they were as great as the 2011 iMac but I honestly couldn't see this discernible difference that some reviews have referred to. This is in know way a negative, the iMac display for the last three generations has been excellent and as the 2012 iMac shares the same panel not that surprising that the display seemed to look the same. As far as the anti reflective panel, to be honest I didn't really clock it but on "reflection" there was an improvement here. One thing I did think, but again hard to judge in a bright Apple store, was that the range of brightness seemed more conservative - however on my 2011 iMac the highest brightness setting is retina burning so I actually have mine set at about just one notch above 1/3 setting.

Just as an aside, although the thin edge isn't so important to me I would concede that it was quite sexy, however the biggest surprise was that the "bulge" at the back really wash't that pronounced and to that end (compromises withstanding) it was quite impressive what Apple have achieved in respect of design. The fact that the bulge isn't that great kind of justifies/makes more sense of the thin edge screen. To the average Joe, not worried about desktop GPU's etc, this iMac does look the business.

That's weird as like you said every review I've read commented on how great the screen looked. It's probably due to the lighting no display looks at it best under bright lights.

[MacFoodPoisoner]

Originally Posted by spcdust

As I was passing the Apple store in Convent Garden this afternoon I popped in to check out the new iMac. My initial thoughts on the display, albeit viewed in the context of a bright Apple store, was that it was nice but I can sincerely say I really didn't think it was any great improvement of the 2011 iMac display. I viewed quite a few photos and they were as great as the 2011 iMac but I honestly couldn't see this discernible difference that some reviews have referred to. This is in know way a negative, the iMac display for the last three generations has been excellent and as the 2012 iMac shares the same panel not that surprising that the display seemed to look the same. As far as the anti reflective panel, to be honest I didn't really clock it but on "reflection" there was an improvement here. One thing I did think, but again hard to judge in a bright Apple store, was that the range of brightness seemed more conservative - however on my 2011 iMac the highest brightness setting is retina burning so I actually have mine set at about just one notch above 1/3 setting.

Great reporting. Thanks!

That last bit sounds very promising at least. Apple in an attempt to make their machines *look* impressive (shiny, glass etc.) has been notorious at turning brightness as high as they can in the panels (whilst pro monitors such as the ones from eizo have always had lower nits, and better calibrated contrasts). If these supposed (cause I can't take anything apple marketing say without a grain of salt) individually calibrated panels have lower maximum brightness and better tuned contrasts that will be great. Also interesting is the pwm they use for brightness control.

[naktak]

Originally Posted by spcdust

As I was passing the Apple store in Convent Garden this afternoon I popped in to check out the new iMac. My initial thoughts on the display, albeit viewed in the context of a bright Apple store, was that it was nice but I can sincerely say I really didn't think it was any great improvement of the 2011 iMac display. I viewed quite a few photos and they were as great as the 2011 iMac but I honestly couldn't see this discernible difference that some reviews have referred to. This is in know way a negative, the iMac display for the last three generations has been excellent and as the 2012 iMac shares the same panel not that surprising that the display seemed to look the same. As far as the anti reflective panel, to be honest I didn't really clock it but on "reflection" there was an improvement here. One thing I did think, but again hard to judge in a bright Apple store, was that the range of brightness seemed more conservative - however on my 2011 iMac the highest brightness setting is retina burning so I actually have mine set at about just one notch above 1/3 setting.

Just as an aside, although the thin edge isn't so important to me I would concede that it was quite sexy, however the biggest surprise was that the "bulge" at the back really wash't that pronounced and to that end (compromises withstanding) it was quite impressive what Apple have achieved in respect of design. The fact that the bulge isn't that great kind of justifies/makes more sense of the thin edge screen. To the average Joe, not worried about desktop GPU's etc, this iMac does look the business.

And so did you have a 2011 iMac next to it to compare it to?

And did Apple ever say the display was improved outside of the 75% glare reduction?

[uptownnyc]

Originally Posted by naktak

And did Apple ever say the display was improved outside of the 75% glare reduction?

Pretty sure it's the same panel inside, isn't it?

[naktak]

Originally Posted by uptownnyc

Pretty sure it's the same panel inside, isn't it?

Exactly.

People's expectations based on review websites (outside of a very few dependable ones i.e. Anandtech)....smh.

[MacFoodPoisoner]

Originally Posted by naktak

And so did you have a 2011 iMac next to it to compare it to?

And did Apple ever say the display was improved outside of the 75% glare reduction?

Yes they did, they claimed that the panels were individually calibrated, that's a claimed improvement. It also hints that they might be new panels, even at the same resolution. They have never explicitly indicated themselves that the panels are the exact same ones used in the previous gen macs, and due to the glass lamination and claims of individual calibration the average customer may assume new panels. Apple has apparently no problem with this assumption.

I think apple was interested in adding better panels, even if non retina, in this iteration of the imac. Sadly for them samsung showed them the finger, and rightfully so, and hence no pls panels for the imac, and back to the good (or not so good based on the rampant image retention on the lg models of the rmbp) old lg as a supplier. Reportedly they are working with au optronics as a samsung replacement and/or as a producer of sharp's technology.

[naktak]

Originally Posted by MacFoodPoisoner

Yes they did, they claimed that the panels were individually calibrated, and thus hinted that they might be new panels, even at the same resolution. They have never explicitly indicated themselves that the panels are the exact same ones used in the previous gen macs, and due to the glass lamination and claims of individual calibration the average customer may assume new panels. Apple has apparently no problem with this assumption.

I think apple was interested in adding better panels, even if non retina, in this iteration of the imac. Sadly for them samsung showed them the finger, and rightfully so, and hence no pls panels for the imac, and back to the good (or not so good based on the rampant image retention on the lg models of the rmbp) old lg as a supplier. Reportedly they are working with au optronics as a samsung replacement and/or as a producer of sharp's technology.

Uhh...factory calibrated panels in no way indicates that the panels themselves are different. Look up the meaning of calibration if you are unsure of this. The assumption is yours - not Apple's.

There are so many strange assumptions in what you wrote above that indicate YOUR expectations and wishes. Good luck with that.

[MacFoodPoisoner]

Originally Posted by naktak

Uhh...factory calibrated panels in no way indicates that the panels themselves are different. Look up the meaning of calibration if you are unsure of this. The assumption is yours - not Apple's.

There are so many strange assumptions in what you wrote above that indicate YOUR expectations and wishes. Good luck with that.

Rubbish. Since apple doesn't explicitly indicate in their specifications, nor explicitly mentions in their keynote that they are using the same panels, both the lamination process for the glass and the claim for individual calibration amidst vague claims about "new" screens are very much leading for someone to think they should be expecting new panels. That's why a lot of people were surprised that they used the very same lg panels. Even the slashdot review (unaware of the ifixit teardown) originally claimed that new panels were in the new 27" imac which they had at hand to review, and the 21.5" imac.

Better luck next time buddy.

[naktak]

Originally Posted by MacFoodPoisoner

Rubbish. Since apple doesn't explicitly indicate in their specifications, nor explicitly mentions in their keynote that they are using the same panels, both the lamination process for the glass and the claim for individual calibration amidst vague claims about "new" screens are very much leading for someone to think they should be expecting new panels. That's why a lot of people were surprised that they used the very same lg panels. Even the slashdot review (unaware of the ifixit teardown) originally claimed that new panels were in the new 27" imac which they had at hand to review, and the 21.5" imac.

Better luck next time buddy.

Like I said, good luck on those assumptions and expectations of yours.

[MacFoodPoisoner]

Originally Posted by naktak

Like I said, good luck on those assumptions and expectations of yours.

Not my expectations, the expectations apple is leading people to have. I read the ifixit part no for the lg display a few minutes after it was posted.

Anyway I don't mind their using the older panels. I do mind though that I 've heard people saying that the touted 75% reduction in reflection is more like 25% reduction and apple has still not solved the problem that they introduced themselves to begin with with the extra glass on the imac.

[naktak]

Originally Posted by MacFoodPoisoner

Not my expectations, the expectations apple is leading people to have. I read the ifixit part no for the lg display a few minutes after it was posted.

Anyway I don't mind their using the older panels. I do mind though that I 've heard people saying that the touted 75% reduction in reflection is more like 25% reduction and apple has still not solved the problem that they introduced themselves to begin with with the extra glass on the imac.

Slice it any way you want - they're your expectations. Show me where Apple says that they are new panels (and don't show me anything quoted by a review site). If they didn't say they were new panels, then the expectation is yours. Like I said before, look up lamination and calibration and show me where they say that, that in turn, means new panels. The jump in logic in all of these claims you are making originate in your wishes and expectations.

When you can prove it, I'll respond. Otherwise, your talking to your reflection in a mirror

[IGregory]

Originally Posted by Chupa Chupa

Just gotta wait for the technology and lower cost of the larger panels to catch up.

for a high PPI desktop monitor.

[thekev]

Originally Posted by MacFoodPoisoner

Anyway I don't mind their using the older panels. I do mind though that I 've heard people saying that the touted 75% reduction in reflection is more like 25% reduction and apple has still not solved the problem that they introduced themselves to begin with with the extra glass on the imac.

Apple always talks things up in marketing. I'm interested in seeing the performance of the new ones. I will mention that measured values of parallel light reflections aren't really a good measure of how they'll be perceived. You're looking at basically uncolored surface reflections which aren't tuned to the gamma behavior of the display like like the emitted light. Computer displays, televisions, etc. use gamma encoded behavior to display images properly over a limited dynamics range. The reflections you're seeing on the surface of the glass aren't treated in this way. You're seeing fairly parallel light rays returned as surface reflections, rather than specifically tuned/color managed emitted light. I'm not that great at explaining this. I was trying to describe why the comparative behavior may not appear logical in terms of percentage.

Originally Posted by naktak

Uhh...factory calibrated panels in no way indicates that the panels themselves are different. Look up the meaning of calibration if you are unsure of this. The assumption is yours - not Apple's.

There are so many strange assumptions in what you wrote above that indicate YOUR expectations and wishes. Good luck with that.

Factory calibrated panels is more of an ambiguous marketing thing. They're just using it to talk up a new product. They may have also updated the methods or tolerance levels to better suit the product. What frequently annoys me on here is the notion that the use of a cheap colorimeter and a custom profile will negate the need for proper factory calibration or vice versa. You need both for maximum stability.

[naktak]

Originally Posted by thekev

Apple always talks things up in marketing. I'm interested in seeing the performance of the new ones. I will mention that measured values of parallel light reflections aren't really a good measure of how they'll be perceived. You're looking at basically uncolored surface reflections which aren't tuned to the gamma behavior of the display like like the emitted light. Computer displays, televisions, etc. use gamma encoded behavior to display images properly over a limited dynamics range. The reflections you're seeing on the surface of the glass aren't treated in this way. You're seeing fairly parallel light rays returned as surface reflections, rather than specifically tuned/color managed emitted light. I'm not that great at explaining this. I was trying to describe why the comparative behavior may not appear logical in terms of percentage.



Factory calibrated panels is more of an ambiguous marketing thing. They're just using it to talk up a new product. They may have also updated the methods or tolerance levels to better suit the product. What frequently annoys me on here is the notion that the use of a cheap colorimeter and a custom profile will negate the need for proper factory calibration or vice versa. You need both for maximum stability.

Agreed. My reply above was in reference to the assumption that because Schiller said they were calibrated, that somehow implies that the panels themselves would be new.

[ahbdesign]

Originally Posted by IGregory

for a high PPI desktop monitor.

It's interesting how that article technically quotes the 27" iMac as a "retina display".

[Chupa Chupa]

Originally Posted by IGregory

for a high PPI desktop monitor.

OK, but if I'm suggesting we'll have to wait it out why would I be holding my breath? Don't really understand your comment.

[KhrisGarcia]

Originally Posted by MacFoodPoisoner

Not my expectations, the expectations apple is leading people to have. I read the ifixit part no for the lg display a few minutes after it was posted.

Anyway I don't mind their using the older panels. I do mind though that I 've heard people saying that the touted 75% reduction in reflection is more like 25% reduction and apple has still not solved the problem that they introduced themselves to begin with with the extra glass on the imac.

I never expected a new panel... Unless they surprised us with retina. As for the reflections it's pretty damn noticeable at Best Buy with the big glowing Apple logo behind you. It reflects pure white off the 27" thunderbolt and is at least half as noticeable on the new 21.5. It's a big difference. I use a 17" mbp with anti-glare, which is why I'm interested.

Now if you want to see a mirror go check out the new Dell IPS at Best Buy. It's literally a black mirror.

[MacFoodPoisoner]

Originally Posted by KhrisGarcia

I never expected a new panel... Unless they surprised us with retina. As for the reflections it's pretty damn noticeable at Best Buy with the big glowing Apple logo behind you. It reflects pure white off the 27" thunderbolt and is at least half as noticeable on the new 21.5. It's a big difference. I use a 17" mbp with anti-glare, which is why I'm interested.

Now if you want to see a mirror go check out the new Dell IPS at Best Buy. It's literally a black mirror.

That's true, they went from aggressive antiglare coating to mirror glass at dell... I guess apple isn't the only one with a knack at inane desktop design.

I wish apple could lose the bezel too. What's the point in framing the display with glass on black thus creating a mirror... as if you need to hold the imac a la ipad (which at least has the white option that's much better with reflections...) It seems the bezel stays there just to give the display a bit more space all around so they can taper it off to the thin end... again this thin obsession costs so much to functionality...