I do not expect the iMac to significantly improve CPU-wise in the next year or so.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
...
- Thread starter 3282868
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Because some guy joined on a date close to when this thread started he's therefore me posting? Oh, I get it, I'm trying to pull a fast one by using a different name in order to have someone back up my point? In case you didn't catch it, there are a few people who agree with what I wrote. Oh wait, those are probably user names I created, right?
LOL.
Your defensiveness on the topic makes it even more suspect.
both of your responses are written in the same voice.
And the fact that he came in all of sudden with his "Captain-Save-A-Hoe" responses for the OP were really strange.
So hilarious.
oh and this was also funny:
Graphics professional?
Last I heard, Leibovitz only recently started using Digital SLRs from her usual Hasselblad film camera. Traditional practice is to trust only proofs, not the monitor.
Jonathan Ive? Industrial designer?
If we're talking about the same person, then I really don't see how AutoCad could benefit from a better display. And at his position, I doubt he's the one doing the monkey work on the computer. Just the concepting.
But please enlighten me. (you seem to like doing that hahaha)
if you really want to argue for the right "pro" you should be referring to Print and Web designers. And as far as I'm concerned, the only people who should really be bitching about the gloss/color accuracy are the Web designers. Print people know better than to trust even a color calibrated monitor, regardless of brand.
You say you're a graphics/web designer. You don't check your finished websites on a PC with a different monitor? You would trust just your Cinema display? Because we all know that everyone in the world has your exact display and its setting? The point I'm trying to make here, is that you shouldn't fully trust any monitor you have, even if it IS the most "pro" model.
(btw. for the record, i am not a fan of the glossy screens)
I'm sorry? ROFLCOPTER?
My favorite part is how you start with this:
"I'm sorry, who are you that I need to answer to?"
... then continue on this epic tirade addressed to me.
Lets be real here. You started this thread looking for approval, (on a mac fan site no less) and surprise, surprise, you get mostly the opposite.
Then you go on to make numerous snide (and over inflated) responses to those that don't agree with you and you look like the typical internet tough guy.
Your e-penis must be huge.
And you actually should "fret about the names of designers" because from the rest of your posts, you seem to like showing how your so damn credible in this field with correct terms, monitor brands/panels etc. Because naming irrelevant designers makes the rest of your posts seem less credible.
Sorry to get under your skin so early in the morning.
Its just that your type is entertaining to watch on the interwebs.
(cue the inevitable thesis paper size response my post LOL)
Apple brought all their marketing gimmicks from the MB and iMac line to the rest of the line up. The PRO at the end is just there to justify price and help distinguish the MB and MBP. The ACD line up was great, too bad the newer LED lacks any versatility or variety now.
Apple likes to upgrade their products by taking out features and adding their own, "this looks nice and there is less to deal with features."
Which is ironic because you can't even deal with the new LED displays without a new Apple computer and that glass gets so smudged that it looks bad and well there is glossy and then there is Apple glossy.
Apple likes to upgrade their products by taking out features and adding their own, "this looks nice and there is less to deal with features."
Which is ironic because you can't even deal with the new LED displays without a new Apple computer and that glass gets so smudged that it looks bad and well there is glossy and then there is Apple glossy.
To chime in, I've done websites where my color looked great on high quality monitors, and when it was printed out. However, the colors I used would look like crap on the $150 Dell LCD's, and so I actually changed to colors to look better for piece of crap computers (and ergo worse on higher end monitors) because that's where my clientele was.
Wow, you have a ton of issues I don't even know where to begin. I feel sorry for you, really, I do. You're reading into a lot of what I wrote. I hope for your sake you grow up soon, or that you're a teenager using your parents' computer, otherwise, just... wow...
Like I said before. You shouldn't be surprised. There are plenty of people here who think Apple can do no wrong. They'll discount your opinion, call you stupid or behind the times, and completley ignore any legitimate concerns you raise. It's best to ignore them.
Reality Check
If this isn't the most ridiculous thread I've ever seen on MacRumours, it's gotta be in the top ten. The complete ignorance of real facts by the OP is astonishing. Let me just set a few things straight for the record and he can then continue this thread with at least a modicum of real facts at his disposal.
Adding glass between the receiver (your eye) and the transmitter (your screen) does alter several things. No glass is 100% light transmissive, so you lose some amplitude (brightness). No glass is 100% colour traansmissive, so you lose some gamut (spectrum). All glass reflects, internally AND externally, which is where the loss of transmission and colour scattering occurs.
A glossy screen is JUST a piece of glass placed in front of a traditional matte-finished LCD - so it is a combination, an addition if you will, to the same old technology everyone is throwing around here with very little actual understanding. i.e. a piece of glass placed between the transmitter and receiver.
LEDs cannot produce a better black. Black, being the absence of any light - not a colour - can only be produced by turning OFF the illumination. CCFLs "produce" black the same way as any lamp - by being extinguished. If you want to see how black your screen really is, just turn it off and look at the screen - is it black? That's your black, and yes, the only improvement to the black being "produced" is to remove any external illumination.
White? Uh, what colour is that exactly? 6500K? 9300K? Paper white? Which paper? This speaks to an issue which has been woefully ignored by the OP and others - calibration.
No designer or photographer would ever trust what they see on their monitor 100%, in fact the true mark of the pro is being able to predict what the output will look like "in their head". Having a calibrated monitor doesn't mean you will be able to see everything just as it will appear on another computer screen or printer, it just gives you a baseline that is predictable, and most important - repeatable. The mere mention of "boosting" your monitor for different "effects" indicates someone is not too familiar with these issues.
Please, if you're going to discuss this subject rationally, then an "empirical" approach will get you nowhere. It's difficult to maintain one's objectivity in this verbal pissing match, so maybe, and this is just a suggestion, OP should go read up a little bit on the theories of light and vision before trying to re-invent what Newton, Helmholtz, Snellius and others already knew a hundred years ago and more.
dmz
If this isn't the most ridiculous thread I've ever seen on MacRumours, it's gotta be in the top ten. The complete ignorance of real facts by the OP is astonishing. Let me just set a few things straight for the record and he can then continue this thread with at least a modicum of real facts at his disposal.
Adding glass between the receiver (your eye) and the transmitter (your screen) does alter several things. No glass is 100% light transmissive, so you lose some amplitude (brightness). No glass is 100% colour traansmissive, so you lose some gamut (spectrum). All glass reflects, internally AND externally, which is where the loss of transmission and colour scattering occurs.
A glossy screen is JUST a piece of glass placed in front of a traditional matte-finished LCD - so it is a combination, an addition if you will, to the same old technology everyone is throwing around here with very little actual understanding. i.e. a piece of glass placed between the transmitter and receiver.
LEDs cannot produce a better black. Black, being the absence of any light - not a colour - can only be produced by turning OFF the illumination. CCFLs "produce" black the same way as any lamp - by being extinguished. If you want to see how black your screen really is, just turn it off and look at the screen - is it black? That's your black, and yes, the only improvement to the black being "produced" is to remove any external illumination.
White? Uh, what colour is that exactly? 6500K? 9300K? Paper white? Which paper? This speaks to an issue which has been woefully ignored by the OP and others - calibration.
No designer or photographer would ever trust what they see on their monitor 100%, in fact the true mark of the pro is being able to predict what the output will look like "in their head". Having a calibrated monitor doesn't mean you will be able to see everything just as it will appear on another computer screen or printer, it just gives you a baseline that is predictable, and most important - repeatable. The mere mention of "boosting" your monitor for different "effects" indicates someone is not too familiar with these issues.
Please, if you're going to discuss this subject rationally, then an "empirical" approach will get you nowhere. It's difficult to maintain one's objectivity in this verbal pissing match, so maybe, and this is just a suggestion, OP should go read up a little bit on the theories of light and vision before trying to re-invent what Newton, Helmholtz, Snellius and others already knew a hundred years ago and more.
dmz
Thanks for the clarification. The terms I used were not exact and/or unclear, I apologize, I didn't want to make the posts any longer than they needed. As for calibrating, most of the articles I read calibrated the displays to 6500k. The reference to whites and blacks was really in reference to a few reviews on read on CNET and a few other electronic review sites, and mostly personal experience, with regards to LED vs CCFL backlighting. My comment on the glass "boosting" was that it "appears" to boost/over-saturate, it actually does not literally do so, but the comments that the Apple LED looks "crisper" and more "vivid" is what I was referencing. It is very true, most if not all photographers do not believe what they see 100% on their digital displays, and it takes expertise in knowing exactly how it will look printed or otherwise.
Was there any need for the sarcastic comments? I never said I was right, I stated this was my opinion, and I posted this in order to learn more. Obviously I am not an expert, no where near it. I thought these forums were for teaching and helping others??? Everyone has to learn, we all start somewhere. I take issue with people reading into my tone and lashing out, seriously guys, if you are better at the field then educate others, don't berate.
It's a silly statement to say that because no Pro uses their screen to judge color that the color shouldn't be as close to representing the real thing as possible. Sure I could hit control+option+command+8 and do all my photo editing with my colors inverted as I'd have to print out the image to see the product but that would be counter intuitive. Apple's glass screens now exaggerate colors and cause a lot of eye strain as your eyes adjust to see the mirror image and back to what the screen displays, back and forth.
Either way I don't think the glass screens are a huge step back, but they can be problematic.
As for what color of white should you calibrate to, you should calibrate to the white of the paper you'll be printing on. That's a no brainer and a ridiculous question.
Either way I don't think the glass screens are a huge step back, but they can be problematic.
As for what color of white should you calibrate to, you should calibrate to the white of the paper you'll be printing on. That's a no brainer and a ridiculous question.
The only ridiculous question is the question that doesn't get asked, Jim. Would it hurt to be a bit more civil?
I directed that at OneFortheMoney. But thanks for confirming my (and others) suspicion that you are indeed the same person! My opinion is this: no matter how concrete and well-reasoned your argument, if people see 'scandal' like this, it's all over. You lose all your credibility for everything you say and your arguments (again, no matter how good) fall away from under you. Don't do it again, yes?!
There was no need to use your age to discredit what you said; the logic of the statement itself did it for me! I questioned your age not on your statements about monitors, but rather your fuzzy logic in advocating that it's ok to use irrational reasoning to get to the 'right' result. I 'disclaimered' it by saying I genuinely didn't want to appear condescending, but apparently you feel I was.
For that I'm sorry - but, again, it was merely an attempt to gauge what to say next. There's no point verbally beating up a 12 year old simply because they don't have a judicial-level reasoning to apply to problems; it's neither fair nor realistic.
AppleMatt
You're right. That's not really a no brainer anyway, most people don't even realize that there's more than one "white". It was rather rude on my part.
In the excitement of you outing yourself I forgot the actual content of my post. Here it is. You mentioned that you'd had a hard time on this thread, I agree you have. I believe it's because you're coming across as very inflammatory. For example, your very first reply to the thread began with...
Your latest post however brought your plight to my attention. It seemed horribly unfair; did everyone fundamentally misunderstand you, unjustly turning you into the outcast? I thought it only right to take a look into it. You said:
Oh really? So did we all misunderstand you? Well, no. Your subsequent replies (sometimes your very first words in-fact) to many other forum users have been;
That's just from the first page!. You're upset about how others have treated you?! Regardless of where you sit on the monitor issue, you've got to concede that you made your bed and to say otherwise (post above) is nothing short of hypocrisy. If people want to throw you to the wolves, so be it as far as I'm concerned.
AppleMatt
edit:
Your latest post however brought your plight to my attention. It seemed horribly unfair; did everyone fundamentally misunderstand you, unjustly turning you into the outcast? I thought it only right to take a look into it. You said:
I never said I was right, I stated this was my opinion, and I posted this in order to learn more. Obviously I am not an expert, no where near it. I thought these forums were for teaching and helping others??? Everyone has to learn, we all start somewhere. I take issue with people reading into my tone and lashing out, seriously guys, if you are better at the field then educate others, don't berate.
Oh really? So did we all misunderstand you? Well, no. Your subsequent replies (sometimes your very first words in-fact) to many other forum users have been;
That's just from the first page!. You're upset about how others have treated you?! Regardless of where you sit on the monitor issue, you've got to concede that you made your bed and to say otherwise (post above) is nothing short of hypocrisy. If people want to throw you to the wolves, so be it as far as I'm concerned.
AppleMatt
edit:
QFT. Brilliant.
Incorrect means just that, incorrect. If you ware reading any negative tone to that, my apologies, none implied.
As for "wrong", that was in response to a commentator who was less than polite in their comments. It goes both ways. Either way, my initial comments were not inflammatory, many of the responses were. At the end, I regret letting those individuals "get to me" (most if not all of those comments your referenced were in response to commentator nick, not the general community), for that I was wrong, and I acknowledged that fact. However, that doesn't excuse many of the comments and their tone. Should I have simply been a piñata for everyone to beat on without at least defending myself? The hostility has been (and continues) to be thick on this forum.
EDIT: I reread the beginning, and I honestly do not understand where you believe I initially came off hostile. The initial responses to my statement generally agreed with me, and two posters commented that I was insane and/or ignorant to believe that high reflections from glass on LCD displays negatively impacts some imaging. I truly did not attack any one or intend to, and for those responses in which my words were strong in nature they were simply in defense of my opinion to those who initially wrote with very little respect.
Another No Brainer
Really? Which paper?
That's a ridiculous comment - you calibrate monitors to a theoretical white point - not a piece of paper, typically, as has been alluded to by some other knowledgeable people, 6500K or 5000K for print purposes, but we're not all producing final output on the same piece of paper, are we? That's why you calibrate to a theoretical white point - so your colour management software knows how to display different colour spaces correctly. Soft proofing allows you to simulate the resulting output on many different media right on your screen. People are producing output for a wide range of media, but basically they all come down to two types - reflective or transmissive media, print or screen if you will. Your computer and monitor combination are part of a colour system, and when used properly with good colour management, can give you a pretty good idea of at least the differences you can expect to see as your file is rendered in different colour spaces or different media.
The science of colour is an exact one, and can be a cruel master for the novice, but a little application of knowledge and lots of experience will do more for you than any so-called "perfect" monitor. Its a poor craftsman who blames his tools...
dmz
ps: Please, excuse my sarcasm Bedifferent, but some of your replies have been less than civil. You say you want to learn from others, but so far you don't seem willing to take the lessons being offered. Research the topic - even wikipedia has some good content on this subject, the core of which is optical physics. When you have a better understanding of Colour Management, you will get a lot more out of threads like this. You have dangerously set out on this little tirade without the proper tools to even understand what you are attempting to argue.
Really? Which paper?
That's a ridiculous comment - you calibrate monitors to a theoretical white point - not a piece of paper, typically, as has been alluded to by some other knowledgeable people, 6500K or 5000K for print purposes, but we're not all producing final output on the same piece of paper, are we? That's why you calibrate to a theoretical white point - so your colour management software knows how to display different colour spaces correctly. Soft proofing allows you to simulate the resulting output on many different media right on your screen. People are producing output for a wide range of media, but basically they all come down to two types - reflective or transmissive media, print or screen if you will. Your computer and monitor combination are part of a colour system, and when used properly with good colour management, can give you a pretty good idea of at least the differences you can expect to see as your file is rendered in different colour spaces or different media.
The science of colour is an exact one, and can be a cruel master for the novice, but a little application of knowledge and lots of experience will do more for you than any so-called "perfect" monitor. Its a poor craftsman who blames his tools...
dmz
ps: Please, excuse my sarcasm Bedifferent, but some of your replies have been less than civil. You say you want to learn from others, but so far you don't seem willing to take the lessons being offered. Research the topic - even wikipedia has some good content on this subject, the core of which is optical physics. When you have a better understanding of Colour Management, you will get a lot more out of threads like this. You have dangerously set out on this little tirade without the proper tools to even understand what you are attempting to argue.
Thank you, I appreciate the comment.
I removed all my posts as this whole thread was innocently begun and has completely gotten out of hand. I do have a good grasp regarding LCD displays, in fact I helped a few people out who didn't know that LED and CCFL were LCD backlighting panels. While my exact knowledge on LCD displays has not been stated and does not need to be, stating that I should read up on this issue and that I "dangerously set out on this little tirade without the proper tools to even understand what you are attempting to argue" is astonishing. I didn't realize that posting a comment was dangerous on Macrumors, nor was it a "tirade", it was a comment that quite a few Apple users agreed on. Dismissing me as being uneducated and as a few read negative tone where there was none in my comments is disappointing. My recent comment that I am "learning" holds true for everyone, we are all constantly learning, which is why I try to hold patience for everyone. Unfortunately, even my patience was tested by a few people, and for that I apologize.
EDIT:
I don't understand why you are attacking someone else with a post that begins "Another no brainer" and continues:
You lectured me about being rude, and yet you treat someone else rudely. Perhaps I'm unaware of the social norms that dominate the online "community", however I try to speak to others as I would in person, if I wouldn't say it to their face, I wouldn't write it.
Wait, what? I can't imagine how this could have ended more spectacularly.
Having no axe to grind or position on this topic, I actually found it educational and amusing -- but my frank assessment is that you are no innocent in this thread.
You didn't exactly enter this debate under the pretense of trying to learn, or you have a funny way of eliciting information.
Again, this thread wasn't set up for polite conversation. But it did drive some entertaining debate.
Yes there is too much ad hominem attacks -- including your first post which included a preemptive strike:
Again, I did take responsibility and apologized for my part. You are reading into my post, it was not meant for any thing more than expressing an opinion and opening up the debate, NOT for an avenue for others to lead in with attacks.
FTR, "you'd be insane to believe otherwise" was not my first post, but in response to a rude poster.
what a $#@*-storm!
Completely agree. If there was a way for me to delete this (unnecessary) thread, I would
.End of discussion.
Apologies. I was going on memory and quoted another post which quoted you--someone has tampered with the record making primary quotes impossible.
- Status