Are G5 iMac displays as crap as they seem?

[IEatApples]

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?

I actually called Apple and asked about it. They were quite clear on that there was no difference, the screens are the same. 😕

 

[MattG]

I just got a 20" iMac at work and quite honestly, it's got the most beautiful, brightest, sharpest LCD screen I've ever seen. Far from "crap."

 

[jkandell]

I actually called Apple and asked about it. They were quite clear on that there was no difference, the screens are the same. 😕

They may say that, but your own eyes will tell you differently. Take Kandell's Challenge: Scroll down the NYT home page using a mouse (not arrows or page down) on a 20" (imac or cinema plus mini) and compare it to scrolling down using a mouse on a 17" imac. Stuff flickers on and off as you scroll on the 17" but is much smoother on the 20". Compare grey tones and diagonal lines, especially. Right?

 

[IEatApples]

The reason I called them was this (link ):

Display
Built-in 17-inch (viewable) widescreen or 20-inch (viewable) widescreen TFT active-matrix liquid crystal display
Millions of colors at all resolutions
Typical viewing angle:
17-inch models
120° horizontal
90° vertical
20-inch model
170° horizontal
170° vertical
Typical brightness: 200 cd/m (17-inch models); 230 cd/m (20-inch model)
Typical contrast ratio: 400:1

This seem to be differences to me, but maybe I'm wrong? 😕 😱 😕

 

[dmw007]

I happen to think that the LCDs on the Apple iMac G5's are of a very good quality. I use one at college everyday (typing this post on one right now) and have always thought that they looked great.

Would highly recommend an iMac G5 as they are extremely nice Macs.
A perfect balance of power & price. 🙂 🙂

 

[Dave00]

I have an iMac, and the graphics are simply beautiful. Images on LCD are just as crisp (actually, usually more so) than CRT. However, you have to be viewing at the native resolution, otherwise you get interpolation and resultant blockiness. The drawback of LCD's is the depth of black and the fine differentiation of color, which is inferior to CRT. However, LCD's are much easier to look at for long periods of time. I can't imagine going back to CRT at work.

Dave

 

[Snide]

I used an ATI Graphics eMac for a year and a half, and have been using a 20" iMac since May.

Side by side, the iMac screen utterly, absolutely, and unequivocally blows the eMac
out of the water in every way––the increased brightness, sharpness, and overall
clarity is astonishing! Plus the LCD is much easier on the eyes when using for extended periods.

 

[ATD]

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.

WOW, I been seeing post after post about how great LCDs are. When it comes to accurate color, a high end CRT is much more accurate than a high end LCD. If you compare the same file on a Barco Reference Calibrator (CRT) and a Apple Cinema Display (LCD) you will see one big difference. The Cinema Display will show good sharpness and good color but the Cinema Display will have a big drop off of detail in the brightest highlights and the deepest shadows. What looks like clean 100% whites on the LCD will show up full of unwanted tone on the Barco. You can claim a monitor is accurate but unless you have a way to measure and control this (a hardware calibrator that measures the Delta E, built into the Barco) the claims are a bit useless.

 

[LGRW3919]

as you may see, i have a 20" iMac G5, Rev B and i absolutely love it. The design is wonderful and somewhat more importantly, it MOVES. The display is also great, I've tested the viewing angles and it's crisp until about 170? as the specs say. My sister, as a matter of fact, has a 17" Rev A and not only does it look like a dwarf, the display just doesn't have the brightness/contrast of mine. not crap by any means.

 

[alangyssler]

And don't forget

Apple LCD displays are one of (if not the only) LCD displays approved by SWOP (Specifications for Web Offset Publications - not Sex Workers Outreach Program).

If it's good enough for SWOP, it's good enough for me. I've been using dual 2.0 g5s with 20" al. displays for the past year and a half, as well as new 17" iMac g5s and they're both fantastic!

as a side note, I only wish my 15" Apple LCD would turn into a 20" magically overnight... much like my iBook turning into a PowerBook.

oh the disappointment. the display still ROCKS!

 

[dogbone]

You're all mad, mad I say.

Well I've just come back from the local shop to have a closer look. I checked out my web site which had text and pictures and graphics that i was well used to looking at.

My conclusion is that nearly everyone is suffering from some mass hysteria.

Reading between the lines I get the feeling that everyone loves their iMac and the screen is a part of that. But I'm not concerned with the computer or the sexiness of the LCD.

I want an image to look like on my monitor what it will look like when printed either web or laser.

I don't know what resolution the monitor was set in the shop and certainly it wouldn't have been calibrated. However it was still unusable IMHO.

I was astounded at the small viewing angle on the x-axis. The colour was ghastly.

But the resolution was impossible to work with. I could bearly read some of the words on my website that are clear on the eMac. I have my eMac monitor set to it's maximum res of 1280 x 960 it only refreshes at 72Hz at that res but I notice no flickering, apart from some flickering caused by the speakers if they are too loud but that is now fixed as I have external speakers.

I do not exaggerate when I say that if I had the opportunity to have my eMacs replaced with G5 iMac (and I wasn't allowed to sell) then I would not want the iMac. Simply put I could not carry on my business.

I have concluded that the LCD on the iMac might be as good as or better than most LCD's but nevertheless from the simple perspective of a usable monitor they are rubbish.

I used to use a 21" apple studio monitor and apart from the size I prefer the eMac's shadow mask screen over the trinitron.

I've worked in professional colour labs all my working life and have got used to judging colour to very high tolerances and I can say the the shift in an LCD's colour caused by the tiniest shift in viewing angle would have me in a psychiatric ward very quickly.

 

[MontyZ]

.

 

[dogbone]

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.

Well there you go, .27 is a very poor dot pitch isn't it?

I used an ATI Graphics eMac for a year and a half, and have been using a 20" iMac since May.

Side by side, the iMac screen utterly, absolutely, and unequivocally blows the eMac
out of the water in every way––the increased brightness, sharpness, and overall
clarity is astonishing! Plus the LCD is much easier on the eyes when using for extended periods.

Well is more always better? My eMac screen is the perfect contrast and it can go higher. In every way but you have not mentioned colour accuracy. I have also heard LCD's are easier to look at but I've never had a problem with CRT's and I look at them far to much.

Many people will prefer and oversharpened image from photoshop and the average client always prefers a "punchy" image. But this doesn't really address objective issues.

WOW, I been seeing post after post about how great LCDs are. When it comes to accurate color, a high end CRT is much more accurate than a high end LCD. If you compare the same file on a Barco Reference Calibrator (CRT) and a Apple Cinema Display (LCD) you will see one big difference. The Cinema Display will show good sharpness and good color but the Cinema Display will have a big drop off of detail in the brightest highlights and the deepest shadows. What looks like clean 100% whites on the LCD will show up full of unwanted tone on the Barco. You can claim a monitor is accurate but unless you have a way to measure and control this (a hardware calibrator that measures the Delta E, built into the Barco) the claims are a bit useless.

Yes things like subtlety and shadow detail are crucial to some but just get in the way of a "snappy" image to others.

I suppose in the end it is horses for courses, do you want a sexy monitor or do you want an accurate monitor.

 

[MontyZ]

.

 

[SmegFirk]

I've had my 20" G5 iMac for 2 weeks and the screen burned in. It's going back for a refund.

I had it set to turn off the screen after 30mins of inactivity and the machine was always shutdown every night. Yet, i moved the HD icon by accident 2 days ago and you could see the 'ghost' where it had been. I then moved the dock to the left and at the bottom there was the top edge of the dock as a dark line. I took some screenshots which did not have the fault on them so it wasn't a rendering issue. Also, when i restarted and you see the apple logo on the grey background you could see the fault then before osx had loaded.

I wonder how common this is without imac users even realising it. If i hadn't moved my HD icon i'd not have noticed.

 

[mkrishnan]

...they removed that wording from their website, but keep selling the defective displays.

Well, I don't think Apple displays are necessarily perfect myself, but the ACDs are still SWOP certified, aren't they?

 

[Capt Underpants]

Did you even check to see if the display was set to its maximum resolution, as another poster suggested? This is very important!!! I'm sure you don't want to make another trip up there, but if you do, make sure the display is set to its optimum settings.

To do this, (1) Go to System Preferences, (2) Click on Displays, and (3) Make sure the display is set to 1680x1050 resolution.

One time I went to Frys and they had a 30" display set up at 1280x1024. It looked like crap.

 

[dogbone]

I will do a final check on the resolution tomorrow.

Something that no one has brought up yet except me, is the incredibly small tolerance on the x-axis that is the sweet spot for viewing. ("sweet spot" being a relative term in this case)

I was under the impression in the early days of steam operated LCD screens that unless you locked your head into a special clamp that kept your eyes at the right angle you wouldn't see much.

But I have been led to believe that, that was the bad old days and on the newer LCD's you can see nice bright colours even if you stand behind the screen.

Yet to my astonishment if I tilted the screen only a few degrees around the x-axis, ie up and down, the best viewing angle was very very small.

Surely this is more important for viewing comfort (not to mention colour accuracy) than non existent CRT flicker is.

 

[freddiecable]

agree - LCD on the iMac is quite good. use a high quality picture to compare LCD versus CRT. My impression is that the eMac is a really crappy screen and that it doesn't really show the imperfections.

www.istockphoto.com - is a great and cheap place to get hi-res pictures.

 

[Sutekidane]

The 20" iMac G5 uses a different LCD screen than the 17", which uses a cheaper screen. The 20" iMac has an LG-Philips Korean screen, and I'm not quite sure what the 17" has. Anyone with a 17" want to enlighten us? 🙂

 

[theanimaster]

DogBone... i get the impression that you're a professional who has a very good reputation with image quality on CRTs... but you also seem to have some crusade against iMac LCDs.

I myself have been using CRTs for the heckest of a long time. When my girlfriend got her Powerbook I swore I would never touch it for working on my digital photos, art, etc. My trusty ol' Apple 15" CRT seemed to give so much better colour accuracy.

That was until I got "used" to viewing LCD.

It sounds really stupid (seriously), but after using the Powerbook and several other LCD screens for a long period of time, I just couldn't go back to CRT. For one thing, slight colour shifts weren't that apparent to me anymore in LCD. My eyes seemed to have "learned" how to compensate for it so much that - it seems it's not there (but looking really really closely, I can still catch it). You mentioned that working on LCD would drive you insane because of the colour shifts you get - TRUE - I felt EXACTLY that way with the Powerbook. I would always be annoyed or paranoid that I wasn't seeing the true colour that was being shown on screen. It was as if the LCD was "blasphemously lying" to my eyes. Again - it sounds stupid, but if you just give it a try you'll see that LCD is the winner and in time you'll be thinking back to when you said such harsh things about LCD. It'll be like "wtf was I THiNkInG!?"

Back to the topic of iMac LCD - I have a 20" revB iMac. No problems, and the quality if much better compared to the G4 867mhz Powerbook, which has a crappier viewing angle. On the iMac, I couldn't get the same washed out view I get from the Powerbook without hitting the sides of the iMac.

So whether or not you think the lot of these people are silly amateurs who are in denial about their purchase that's up to you. You're great with CRT, but you need to "learn" how to work with LCD - whether you like it or not - because the majority of computer users are seeing things on their LCD screens, not your spiffy CRT. Printing proofs are another thing - but even CRT hasn't been 100% accurate in that area no matter how much money you've shelled out.

 

[gekko513]

The iMac LCD is fantastic. I have it next to a Hercules 17" LCD. Next to the iMac I see that the white on the Hercules is actually yellow, almost like the teeth of a heavy smoker and coffee drinker.

 

[Abstract]

....i get the impression that you're a professional who has a very good reputation with image quality on CRTs... but you also seem to have some crusade against iMac LCDs.

He probably has nothing personal against iMac LCDs. I'm sure he doesn't care either way, but just wanted to point something out.

I myself have been using CRTs for the heckest of a long time. When my girlfriend got her Powerbook I swore I would never touch it for working on my digital photos, art, etc.

You shouldn't. Definitely get an external LCD if you insist on using an LCD for print work, because the PBs LCD is garbage. Gar. Bage.

Back to the topic of iMac LCD - I have a 20" revB iMac. No problems, and the quality if much better compared to the G4 867mhz Powerbook....

Yeah, probably. 😉 I'd trust the iMacs screen before I ever trust the colour accuracy on a PowerBooks screen.

Dogbone is right about the viewing angle of an LCD. However, I think there are LCDs out there that are more forgiving in terms of the colour and what angle you're viewing from. Some LCDs have a small viewing angle, and the colour shift you get when changing angles, lets say a 15 degree change, on an LCD with a small viewing angle is probably worse than on a screen with a very wide viewing angle.

I can't say much about these Apple LCD claims. Some people here also pay 2x more for Apple's Cinema Displays because they're nicer than Dell's, although not as good spec-wise.

Also, people tend to defend the item they just (semi)recently bought because they don't want to feel like they bought something poor and wasted their money. That's why reviews given by users don't mean squat unless they have 3-5 competitors products to compare with and run identical tests or something. I don't know. Just ranting.

 

[carpe diem]

They seem great to me.

 

[MontyZ]

.