Are G5 iMac displays as crap as they seem?

dogbone

macrumors 68020
Original poster
I bought an eMac because that was all I could afford and I have been astounded with the quality of the display and calibration. I used the inbuilt software to calibrate it and I can take a digital shot of a painting which looks as near as dammit to what it should look like on my monitor.

Then I can tweak it in photoshop and convert to CMYK and output to a Xerox commercial dotscreen laser from my local bureaux and it is as perfect as can be.

I recently wanted to get another mac and thought about getting a G5 iMac. I checked them out at the local Mac dealer a few times but although I could not bring myself to buy it as everytime I looked at the monitor it just looked blocky. I could see all the indivdual pixels and type looked really bad.

Is this because LCD's are generally no good for graphics or is it the the LCD's on the G5 iMacs particularly are not very good.

The LCD monitors on the PC's in my local library are woeful but I thought that Mac used really good LCD's. But they seem really poor quality on the G5 iMac
 

mad jew

Moderator emeritus
Apr 3, 2004
32,191
5
Adelaide, Australia
I like the LCD on my iMac. I think it's probably more an issue of LCDs not being great for photography rather than iMac LCDs being particularly bad.
 
Comment

nightdweller25

macrumors 6502
Mar 2, 2005
421
0
You're a little confused, The iMac's have great screens, the thing is, LCD's show more of what's really there, they give you every little detail that CRT's hide, in other words, great screen, so great, you see all the imperfections.
 
Comment

mcmillan

macrumors 6502
Jul 4, 2004
318
0
I thought LCDs had better graphics. I used to have a huge (I mean deep, it was just 15" wide) MultiScan CRT with my old beige G3, now I have a slim 17" LCD, and I could never go back to CRT, everything is so precise. As nightdweller said, LCDs show every detail, if you see blurred in a CRT, that isn't right.
 
Comment

macdon401

macrumors 6502
Jul 9, 2005
261
0
I agree with the rest, i have 2 friends, both professinal photographers and they swear by the iMac LCD's, as a matter a fact one takes his on location with a special carrying case to show clients instant proofs on screen!
Im a film Director and my screen stands up to screens in online editing suites as well! - and they cost thousands of dollars!
R
 
Comment

Voidness

macrumors 6502a
Aug 2, 2005
847
65
Null
dogbone said:
everytime I looked at the monitor it just looked blocky. I could see all the indivdual pixels and type looked really bad.
It might not be set on its native resolution. LCDs look horrid when they're not set on the resolution they're made for.
 
Comment

IEatApples

macrumors 6502a
Jan 26, 2004
526
0
Northern Hemisphere (Norway)
I bought an eMac for the same reason as you (lack of money), but after having used it for a month now I'm satisfied with it. My concern about the LCD screen in general is the cleaning. I have cleaned my eMac screen several times already and I don't think that the LCD would be as simple to clean. However, there should be nothing wrong with the quality of the iMac screen.
Personally waiting for PB upgrades. I need a 12" for college. :)
 
Comment

Mac_Freak

macrumors 6502a
Apr 22, 2005
713
0
When it comes to CRTs everything, including type, looks smoother on the screen, however; the image on the LCD is a sharp. iMac LCDs are just great and you shouldn't hesitate to buy one. Stock monitor profile is good, but if you are planning on calibrating it, I would be more careful while using the built-in, do it by eye, calibrator.
 
Comment

AlBDamned

macrumors 68030
Mar 14, 2005
2,626
0
MUCKYFINGERS said:
iMac LCDs have always looked nice to me . . .

Ditto: The eMacs are good machines for the price, but an iMac has a much better screen overall. I'm amazed at the difference even between my Powerbook and and iMac screen. The laptop gets blown away by it.
 
Comment

Peter Griffin

macrumors regular
Jul 10, 2005
219
0
I switched over from a CRT to LCD a couple months ago. I can't see myself going back. Just the thought of having to put up with the constant flicker CRTs produce justifies the price jump of an LCD. At least for me, I feel like my eyes are a lot more comfortable now with an LCD monitor. I can't speak for eMacs or iMacs since I don't own either but I'm assuming they're similar to standard LCDs and CRTs.
 
Comment

Eluon

macrumors regular
Apr 14, 2005
216
0
Spring, Texas
besides its speed, beauty, coolness, etc... my iMac G5's biggest selling point is its screen. Most people are so shocked by the clarity of my screen. Maybe you were looking at a demo model that has been messed up?

Curtis
 
Comment

Chaszmyr

macrumors 601
Aug 9, 2002
4,266
76
iMac G5 screens aren't top notch, but they are definitely high quality nonetheless.
 
Comment

Abstract

macrumors Penryn
Dec 27, 2002
24,415
124
Location Location Location
Peter Griffin said:
I can't see myself going back. Just the thought of having to put up with the constant flicker CRTs produce justifies the price jump of an LCD. At least for me, I feel like my eyes are a lot more comfortable now with an LCD monitor.
Yes, the flickering, heat production, and size of CRTs are the only reasons not to get a CRT. When it comes to brightness and clarity and colour and such, CRTs are better than LCDs. I'm not saying that LCDs are crap or anything. I love LCDs and prefer to use one, but lets face it, everyone who says that LCDs produce great colour accuracy and such and such don't know much about CRTs. ;)

If you're going to use your iMac LCD and still claim that its brightness, clarity, and colour is great, at least use SuperCal first and calibrate it. The default calibration on LCDs is generally crap.
 
Comment

Lord Blackadder

macrumors G5
May 7, 2004
13,719
2,755
Sod off
I must be blind because I don't have problems with flicker on CRTs, and I don't have problems with blocky text on LCDs.

I have noticed how much color varies between LCDs though - just go to a store that sells LCDs and look at how different the color comes out on the different panels.

Since I'm not a graphic designer I'm not too worried about the color reproduction of the LCDs. To me, the LCD is better because of its small size and the fact that it won't go soft over time.

Still, where I work we have some high-end CRTs that cost thousands of dollars and you can definitely see why.
 
Comment

londonweb

macrumors 6502
Sep 14, 2005
260
0
london
I recently upgraded to a Sony X-Black LCD, and the image quality is absolutely brilliant- so brilliant in fact that scans and pics off a digital camera that haven't been balanced or anything look amazing, when in reality they're flat and horrible! My problem therefore has been trying to adjust it so the contrast and brightness are low enough to make the image on the screen look anything like what it will actually print like. Detail-wise it's amazing too, and very revealing. I have managed to calibrate it to a reasonable degree now and have been using it for print and web design with success. I still do tend to check things on the Lacie monitors in my office before I send them off to proof though- for sheer print accuracy I still don't think you can beat a high-end CRT.

If anyone else is having colour accuracy problems, I recommend trying a Gretag 'Macbeth' calibration spider. Costs about £150 and accurately measures the white on your screen and also accounts for ambient light as well, and then produces a very accurate profile for your monitor. You still need to calibrate your printer as well though, and Epson do this for a fairly reasonable price.
 
Comment

DaftUnion

macrumors 6502a
Feb 22, 2005
689
0
Wisconsin
Try making sure that 20 inch is at 1680 by 1050. (not sure what the 17 inch's native resolution is at) Second of all, before I bought my iMac I was having second thoughts because of the screen brightness. Try turning the brightness up all the way or close to all the way. It seems the Apple store turns this setting down in system preferences. Anyway, the screen's great, and is one of the best LCD's I've ever used at any price.
 
Comment

alexprice

macrumors 6502a
Jan 8, 2005
624
0
I would just like to point out that the 20" iMac G5 has a MUCH MUCH better quality picture than a 17" iMac G5.

Honestly!

Alex Price
 
Comment

jkandell

macrumors member
Sep 6, 2005
39
0
Tucson AZ
alexprice said:
I would just like to point out that the 20" iMac G5 has a MUCH MUCH better quality picture than a 17" iMac G5.
I noticed this too, in a few ways. Colors better on 20", contrast greater, and text and pictures scroll smoother too (they flash on/off when scrolling the 17").

My question is why there is a difference. The graphics card is the same; the RAM is the same, the pixel pitch is the same. So from whence the difference?
 
Comment

jkandell

macrumors member
Sep 6, 2005
39
0
Tucson AZ
Lord Blackadder said:
I must be blind because I don't have problems with flicker on CRTs, and I don't have problems with blocky text on LCDs.
Cheap CRTs may flicker a bit when still ("refresh rate"), whereas LCDs don't flicker when still but can flicker when scrolled ("pixel redraw rate"). But many CRTs have a smaller pixel pitch than the Imac LCDs. My ancient 2001 cheap Hitachi CRT for instance has a pixel pitch of .23mm, much more fine than the Imac's .269mm; so everything looks nicer on the CRT. I can actually see the pixels on the LCD!

However, like many of you, I prefer the LCD because of its thinness.
 
Comment

Peter Griffin

macrumors regular
Jul 10, 2005
219
0
IMO, you can't really go wrong with an iMac. Apple wouldn't crank out a lemon that would potentially be used by professional graphic designers.

Sorry to hijack a bit here, but does anyone know where I can find information on the width of LCD pixels in iBooks/PBs?
 
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.