Glossy iMac disappointing, back to waiting...

[mattraehl]

External monitor color calibrators

If you care that much about color accuracy, you will use an external color calibration tool, making your concern about the glossy display a moot point. Since you said you edit photos as a hobby, you might not be familiar with such devices. This Macworld article explains the basics and reviews a few, but it is 2 years old. One point it makes is that using one of these tools can make even the worst monitors at least bareable, in terms of color accuracy.

Also, reflections are much less noticable when you are looking directly at the screen. I suggest you go see one for yourself.

 

[suneohair]

Where have you read that the 24" is using a TN panel?

I know that the 20" uses a TN panel, based upon findings from the 20" iMac disassembly posted on Kodawarisan. I haven't seen anything about the 24" yet though... aside from Arstechnica reporting that it has a 178 degree viewing angle (whereas the 20" only has a 160 degree viewing angle).

At best, the 24" uses a PVA, sorry for saying it was TN. I thought Kodawarisan did a 24". I am surprised the 20" uses a TN, is that maybe the cheaper one thus thats what makes it so cheap?

PVA is nominally better than TN. MVA is a better step. Apple is definetly not using a IPS 24", as there aren't any in EDIT: HIGH production.

TN cuts costs and I could see Apple using a TN over anything else though. There are some TNs that purport 178, but that does not mean there isn't any color shift. It means you can still see it. A lot of specs are somewhat inflated and manipulated in that regard.

 

[ChrisA]

It's seriously disappointing to me that the new iMac screens are all glossy... I've been waiting for this update, and if it weren't for that - I'd probably order the 24" model this week.

I could have written the above. I really did want one of these new iMacs but now, no way. When Leopard comes out I'll look around and see if Apple has fixed this problem. If not I'll try to get Leopard running on Generic PC hardware. Maybe running inside a VM under Linux? I'll buy Leopard for my G4 Power Mac

My guess is that Apple crippled the new iMacs so as not to cannibalize sales of the Mac Pro and ACD. No serious photographer or video editor is going to be able to use the new iMac. The iMac is a consumer level entertainment device now.

I wonder how much Apple saves by not including the anti glare coating on the screens. Maybe that's how they paid for the price drop - by using a cheapper glossy screen.

 

[ChrisA]

If you care that much about color accuracy, you will use an external color calibration tool, making your concern about the glossy display a moot point.

Sorry. It does not work. The glossy screen screws with the apparent color saturation and contrast. I don't think colorimeters see this effect. And then there is the issue of screen glare with ambient light mixing

As I've written elsewhere, I think Apple intentionally crippled the iMac so as to prevent cannibalization of MacPro/ACD sales.

 

[Dustman]

Only wide gamut LCD panels can produce 92% of the sRGB color gamut. Typically, LCDs are 72% while CRTs are 85% and higher when you get into premium CRTs.

LCDs are also limited in terms of contrast ratio due to the backlighting used. CRTs produce nearly perfect blacks and white whites. Whereas LCDs produce blacks that are washed out (more gray) and whites with a yellow tint (typically, without calibration).

Also, CRTs can be viewed from VERY WIDE angles. The argument of "No one looks at it from the side," is irrelevant. Because, as I mentioned above, as we move towards larger displays our FOV cannot take in the whole thing. So there is a slight sngle on the extreme ends of the display (most horizontally due to the widescreen trend). So, a wide angle allows you to have accurate colors regardless. Not to mention, what if you are looking down at something and give a look up to look at a color. On a TN panel, those colors will not be accurate.

LCDs do not compare to CRTs even the wide gamut panels. Not even close, due to the other things I mentioned. Whats more, adding glossy makes it even worse.

In a print enviroment, an LCD is murder, which is why many do their work on an LCD with a smalled high quality well calibrated reference monitor, to reference, before going to print.

The gamut thing was what i was thinking of, and as for my statement of viewing the screen from the side, that was because of the person who posted the iMac showing relections, even though you would never look at it from that angle, and if you were to look at it straight on, the reflection would probably have disappeared. People will find anything to Bi-ch about.

 

[ChrisA]

Oh for God's sake, there's obviously the mother of all light sources behind you.

It does not matter. The reason for the glossy display is because it tricks the eye into thinking it sees more contrast and color saturation than is really present. That's way Apple put it into the consumer level Macs. (I'm sure it also save them a pile of money too. Anti-glare coatings are not cheap.) The trick works. That's why people who like to watch DVDs and play games like them. But because the eye is tricked the screens are usless except for all but the most casual use by photographers.

It's not the mirror-like image of anything in back of you, it's the exaggerated color and contrast. This exaggeration would still happen even inside a dark cave.

Here is another one: Why isn't Apple replacing their ACDs with glossy screens? Why does the MBP have a anti-glare coating? Could you imagine what would happen if Apple tried to sell glossy screens on the professional level Macs? They'd loose their high-end customer base.

 

[Dustman]

Sorry. It does not work. The glossy screen screws with the apparent color saturation and contrast. I don't think colorimeters see this effect. And then there is the issue of screen glare with ambient light mixing

As I've written elsewhere, I think Apple intentionally crippled the iMac so as to prevent cannibalization of MacPro/ACD sales.

It does not matter. The reason for the glossy display is because it tricks the eye into thinking it sees more contrast and color saturation than is really present. That's way Apple put it into the consumer level Macs. (I'm sure it also save them a pile of money too. Anti-glare coatings are not cheap.) The trick works. That's why people who like to watch DVDs and play games like them. But because the eye is tricked the screens are usless except for all but the most casual use by photographers.

It's not the mirror-like image of anything in back of you, it's the exaggerated color and contrast. This exaggeration would still happen even inside a dark cave.

Here is another one: Why isn't Apple replacing their ACDs with glossy screens? Why does the MBP have a anti-glare coating? Could you imagine what would happen if Apple tried to sell glossy screens on the professional level Macs? They'd loose their high-end customer base.

Apple wouldn't ever do that because you pay a premium to have the professional quality. It's more that people are making it seem as if the glossys are worthless and can't be used for anything. They both have their pros and cons.

And LOL @ the crippling thing. Yes. Apple purposly is trying to sell

 

[atari1356]

If you care that much about color accuracy, you will use an external color calibration tool, making your concern about the glossy display a moot point.

I'm familiar with those... but from what I've read color calibration devices do not always work well with glossy displays, so I'm not convinced that the point is moot.

 

[seahawk09]

Just rearange your desk it cant be that hard to do or if you have curtains close them it's no brainer.

 

[atari1356]

I'll wait until some reports come in from people who have tried to calibrate the screen - and have successfully matched what they're seeing on the screen to prints - before deciding if I'm buying one or not.

Speaking of which... someone on DPReview has an excellent post about some calibration testing they've done on both the 20" and 24" iMacs. While there are some downsides, he does say "for consumer and most prosumer use the machines are fully up to the task":

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1017&message=24321625

 

[nubero]

Okay, so how many of you people complaining have actually seen the new iMac?

I did and it's bad. Things like the apple website show up more or less ok but don't try to open up something dark on that screen (like http://www.blackle.com/)... no matter where the light source in the room is.

www.nubero.ch

 

[jsw]

...
To complain about glossy screens because they give you bad reflections and that you can't do your SERIOUS photo editing etc., is ridiculous, because if you were that serious in the first place, you wouldn't be trying to do it in a room right in front of a window and/or various bright light sources.

Thank you. I think that is a very valid point.

Likewise, people who use their Macs as graphics professionals have to know that the iMac is a consumer-oriented device and that it's fortunate that it works for many professionals anyway, but that's not the demographic. The target market prefers glossy, so that's how they went, good or bad. I too prefer matte to an extent.

Clearly also, one could get a 24" iMac and 24" external (matte) LCD for roughly the cost of a headless Mac Pro. However, I think TeddyBlack has the right idea: if it's truly important, the glossy screen's reflectivity isn't going to be an issue because your light sources will be placed differently.

 

[0007776]

Just rearange your desk it cant be that hard to do or if you have curtains close them it's no brainer.

but even if you get the lighting so that there is no reflections on it, that still will not make the color correct. and you shouldn't have to rearrange your desk just so you can use that particular computer.

 

[atari1356]

Likewise, people who use their Macs as graphics professionals have to know that the iMac is a consumer-oriented device and that it's fortunate that it works for many professionals anyway, but that's not the demographic. The target market prefers glossy, so that's how they went, good or bad. I too prefer matte to an extent.

Clearly also, one could get a 24" iMac and 24" external (matte) LCD for roughly the cost of a headless Mac Pro. However, I think TeddyBlack has the right idea: if it's truly important, the glossy screen's reflectivity isn't going to be an issue because your light sources will be placed differently.

The argument that the iMac shouldn't be used by professionals is getting very tiresome. The screen in the white iMacs isn't as good as high end calibrated displays... but in many cases, it's good enough. The previous iMac has been and is used by many professionals. The fact that the new displays are glossy greatly diminishes it's usability in certain environments. It's a valid concern.

Also, I only have space for one monitor - so an iMac plus an external monitor isn't an option I'm really considering. Less is more, that's what I like about the iMac. I'd just prefer it to not be so glossy. (and yes, I'm arguing this point despite the fact that I haven't actually seen one in person yet... )

 

[stevo1]

My point is that most people won't notice the very small change in accuracy, and i severely doubt that their world of photo editing would be over because of it. Apple isnt a stupid company, they know what they're doing.

No I agree, and I already made that point in my initial post.

The number of 'home' consumers Apple gains by using glossy could very well exceed the number of prosumers (like me) they lose because of it.

As I said earlier, it's just frustating being in that latter group, and knowing that the (new) iMac is no longer an option.

S'all.

 

[carlostsr]

iMac a health hazard!

Yes, I do not like Glare and glossy too.
What I posted there

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/340228/

refers to a very serious problem. It is not about aluminum, it is not about design, it is not about glass and recycling it, it is about us, it is about our health and our eyes. Eyes!!! Yes, the most precious thing we got from Mother Nature;

 

[benbondu]

Or you can still just get an older mac off of the refurb store, Refurbished iMac 20-inch 2.16GHz Intel Core 2 Duo SuperDrive is now just 1099...

Assuming you only had $1500 and couldn't get a refurb iMac, which would you rather use for photo editing?

iMac 20" with glossy screen
OR
Mac Mini with 24" Dell

 

[Superlat]

Thanks for the tip

Glad you pointed this out to me. Gotta remember to always look at the item in person before purchasing online, which I now wont do. I wasnt that stoked about this offering anyway. I dont like all in ones. Someone at Apple is on real crack, dumping on their growing core business to chase down that frickin iphone. Sounds like Jobs got bored with the same old same old. Typical.

 

[0007776]

The number of 'home' consumers Apple gains by using glossy could very well exceed the number of prosumers (like me) they lose because of it.

I doubt that they would gain many more consumers just because of the glossy, most consumers don't really care about glossy or non glossy.

 

[Willis]

The glossy screens really arent that bad. I dont like them much, but I rarely notice any glare/reflections when looking at it head on. Same for all glossy displays.

Matte screens are nicer though