New 20" iMac w/23" Cinema HD

[Sean Dempsey]

I am a bit concerned with the way everyone is jumping on the OP here and making out like he is being foolish or has too high expectations or something. Since I have the exact same 23" ACD at home, and since I just got a 20" iMac at work yesterday, I think I am more than qualified to comment that that the screen (on the iMac) actually is a fairly "crappy" part.

As background, I am a Mac computer techie at a major University where I live and have years of experience with Apple monitors, screens, laptops etc. The new screen on the 20" iMac *is* most definitely the worst I have seen.

In addition, the computer that I replaced with the new 20" iMac was the previous generation 20" PPC G5 iMac. So for those of you thinking he is wrong to compare the new iMac to the 23" ACD, I can confirm that the new iMac 20" screen is fairly awful even compared to the older iMac screen. I have a suspicion however that it's not so much the part itself, but the glass in front of it and the way it's lit as people are noting similar experiences on the new iPod Touch.

With the older type of (non glass-covered) screens, you can move around in your chair or look at it from many different angles and the colours and lighting remain essentially the same. You can rely on the fact that what you see is actually the colours that are there. Whereas with the new screens, you need some kind of vise to keep your head straight. If you sit directly in front of the new iMac, and tilt the thing exactly so, and adjust the profiles "just so" (about 10 extra points of gamma does it for me), then yes, you will see the correct colours and shades (at least in the very centre of the screen). Any other angle of view, and you will see a variety of darker/lighter saturated/less saturated colours. Even then, if you look up at the top of the screen everything is darker and over-saturated, if you look at the dock, the icons are washed out and under-saturated.

You have to bob your head around all over the place jsut to see the screen properly. I actually got a neck ache yesterday twisting myself around in front of the new iMac trying to see the screen.

This is far from a huge tragedy and considering the price of the computer, nothing to really complain about for the average user, but to me there is no argument that this is most definitely the lowest quality Apple screen ever. This screen is (effectively) hardly any better than what we give to our lowest end users which is a Mac mini attached to some bulk Ben-Q VGA crap. If this was a product I bought with my own money from the store I would be taking it back already.

Self Ranked #1 in Apple Display hyperbole!

 

[HLdan]

To: Sean Dempsey, you having the computer know how that you have I'm a bit surprised that you are expecting so much more from Apple. First off I had the 23" cinema display and it sucked big time! Turning pink, dark vertical band to the left of the center of the screen and yellowing around the top areas. This issue was with many owners of this display, just check out Apple's forums. The latest models had some correction but models before 2006 were frightful. The only thing good about it is the viewing angle.

Secondly, the 23" is $899 U.S and the 20" iMac is $1199 U.S. What do you expect for the $300.00 difference? Yes the cinema display is 3 inches larger but that's it. So we have about essentially a $300 computer tied to a monitor in the iMac. Since Macs don't run at $300 for any model then the price cut will have to go to the display.
Again, your argument is biased towards the pros who the iMac is not made for. Yes the iMac has the power but it's a consumer level LCD screen and any pro should be looking into Eizo LCD monitors.

 

[LeRyman]

Just to clarify ... I think my iMac is looking pretty good head on. I still think that their is no viewing angle.

As soon as you start to move to the side at all ... the monitor starts to change in color and it is total garbage at a 45 degree angle from the front.

I don't care, because I am always sitting right in front of it. I would not be to excited about showing it to a customer that is sitting off to the side.

Would I recommend it to a pro? At this point yes ... unless you have money to burn. I could get 3 iMacs for the price of 1 MacPro and a 23" ACD. Are you getting 3x the performance? You be the judge.

An IMac will run every program that a photographer or graphic designer would normally use ... and run it well ... you just have to accept the monitor for what it is.

 

[Sean Dempsey]

here's an angle from a 45. there's some slight shifting, but looks like MacRumors to me....

 

[Sean Dempsey]

To: Sean Dempsey, you having the computer know how that you have I'm a bit surprised that you are expecting so much more from Apple.

I don't understand this sentence at all... What are you saying?

 

[HLdan]

I don't understand this sentence at all... What are you saying?

You mentioned that you were a computer techie and I was just reiterating that. My choice of words my be a bit off.

 

[mrgreen4242]

I am a bit concerned with the way everyone is jumping on the OP here and making out like he is being foolish or has too high expectations or something. Since I have the exact same 23" ACD at home, and since I just got a 20" iMac at work yesterday, I think I am more than qualified to comment that that the screen (on the iMac) actually is a fairly "crappy" part.

As background, I am a Mac computer techie at a major University where I live and have years of experience with Apple monitors, screens, laptops etc. The new screen on the 20" iMac *is* most definitely the worst I have seen.

In addition, the computer that I replaced with the new 20" iMac was the previous generation 20" PPC G5 iMac. So for those of you thinking he is wrong to compare the new iMac to the 23" ACD, I can confirm that the new iMac 20" screen is fairly awful even compared to the older iMac screen. I have a suspicion however that it's not so much the part itself, but the glass in front of it and the way it's lit as people are noting similar experiences on the new iPod Touch.

With the older type of (non glass-covered) screens, you can move around in your chair or look at it from many different angles and the colours and lighting remain essentially the same. You can rely on the fact that what you see is actually the colours that are there. Whereas with the new screens, you need some kind of vise to keep your head straight. If you sit directly in front of the new iMac, and tilt the thing exactly so, and adjust the profiles "just so" (about 10 extra points of gamma does it for me), then yes, you will see the correct colours and shades (at least in the very centre of the screen). Any other angle of view, and you will see a variety of darker/lighter saturated/less saturated colours. Even then, if you look up at the top of the screen everything is darker and over-saturated, if you look at the dock, the icons are washed out and under-saturated.

You have to bob your head around all over the place jsut to see the screen properly. I actually got a neck ache yesterday twisting myself around in front of the new iMac trying to see the screen.

This is far from a huge tragedy and considering the price of the computer, nothing to really complain about for the average user, but to me there is no argument that this is most definitely the lowest quality Apple screen ever. This screen is (effectively) hardly any better than what we give to our lowest end users which is a Mac mini attached to some bulk Ben-Q VGA crap. If this was a product I bought with my own money from the store I would be taking it back already.

Not sure why you quoted me and then wrote all this. I was glad that the OP was able to calibrate his display and make it workable for him. I didn't say or imply he was being foolish or anything like that. He was able to take something that wasn't working the way he wanted and tweak it to get it a point that was acceptable to him, which is what pretty much everyone has said about the 20" iMac... it's got a less than ideal screen, but if you tweak the calibration it's quite nice.

For the record, there's no way this is the lowest quality Apple screen ever. The MacBook screens are much, much worse than this. Also, after looking at all the iMacs from this and the last generation (a white 20" and 24", and an alum 20" and 24") side by side, I can say that they each have their strengths, but are all really nice displays, far above any "value" priced LCD or any laptop, PC or Mac. I felt the 20" alum iMac was just as good as my last display, a 19" Dell Ultrasharp (model 1905), which is a pretty high quality display. The iMac had more color shift, but the colors were richer and more vibrant, and the refresh rate seemed a bit better.

 

[Virgil-TB2]

Not sure why you quoted me and then wrote all this. I was glad that the OP was able to calibrate his display and make it workable for him. I didn't say or imply he was being foolish or anything like that. He was able to take something that wasn't working the way he wanted and tweak it to get it a point that was acceptable to him, which is what pretty much everyone has said about the 20" iMac... it's got a less than ideal screen, but if you tweak the calibration it's quite nice.

For the record, there's no way this is the lowest quality Apple screen ever. The MacBook screens are much, much worse than this. Also, after looking at all the iMacs from this and the last generation (a white 20" and 24", and an alum 20" and 24") side by side, I can say that they each have their strengths, but are all really nice displays, far above any "value" priced LCD or any laptop, PC or Mac. I felt the 20" alum iMac was just as good as my last display, a 19" Dell Ultrasharp (model 1905), which is a pretty high quality display. The iMac had more color shift, but the colors were richer and more vibrant, and the refresh rate seemed a bit better.

Well I didn't mean to single out your post exactly, and I think I suffered from a bit of hyperbole there, but I am still seriously disappointed in this screen. Even though I am a strong Apple supporter I am starting to see what the Windows-ites mean when they talk about "fanboyism." This is a very poor quality screen and I don't see why nobody seems to want to admit it.

I will admit that the Macbook screens are also not so great and for some of the same reasons (mostly to do with the glossy thing), but this one is worse to my eyes. The gradient from the top to the bottom is really just ridiculous and makes it impossible to get accurate colour across the entire screen at the same time. How is that acceptable?

If I am drawing a picture, how am I supposed to know if the colour I am using is the right one, if it's one colour at the top and another at the middle and bottom of the screen? We are not talking subtle shifts here either, we are talking completely different saturation levels and tints.

The biggest argument I have against this screen is that it is a step down from the screen on the immediately previous model. Apple has had some great screens and monitors and some not so good, but in this case they have taken the perfectly acceptable, even "great" screen of the original 20" iMac and replaced it with a part that is clearly not as good. Not by a long shot.

A screen that is only accurate when viewed from one specific angle is just not acceptable to me, even on a cheap computer like the iMac. It shows that Apple is into being "okay" now instead of plain old "great" like it used to be.

Other than some blurry CRT's with convergence problems in the original candy-coloured iMacs I cannot remember when they put out a screen as mediocre as this one.

 

[Virgil-TB2]

here's an angle from a 45. there's some slight shifting, but looks like MacRumors to me....

I know you are a good apologist, but this picture doesn't prove anything.

It doesn't have anywhere near the fidelity needed to show any difference, your desktop is mostly black, and it's taken from the side when the strongest gradient and colour shifting effects reported are from top to bottom.

 

[HLdan]

I am still seriously disappointed in this screen. Even though I am a strong Apple supporter I am starting to see what the Windows-ites mean when they talk about "fanboyism." This is a very poor quality screen and I don't see why nobody seems to want to admit it.

The Windows side is full of fanboys. If not Microsoft wouldn't have 90% of the market running it's OS. I hate that word, it's not owned by the Mac community.

You know why people aren't trying to admit what you want to hear about the iMac screen? It's because just about every consumer LCD display out there has it's issues. I have worked at Fry's, Compusa and the Good Guys all totaling 11 years and I have yet to see even a stand alone LCD of "GREAT" quality.
Some of the users including you are so quick to trash Apple for the current displays on the iMac as if Apple is the only one using them. Apple doesn't make the displays, they just choose to use them. Dell, HP, Sony and Gateway, I have seen all of those companies with inferior LCD's. The only LCD I have seen near perfect is Eizo.
If it bothers you that much why not return it and get a stand alone display and CPU?
If $$$$ concerns are the answer to that question then Apple's displays don't bother you that much.

 

[LeRyman]

Ok ... I got the Spyder2PRO calibrator today and ran it on both of my monitors.

I also found a few high res images HERE and did a head to head (or side by side) comparison.

The only thing that I can say is that the whites on the iMac are still a little bit hot. Thus, giving skin tones on some images a washed out look.

Other than that, images with color are nearly identical and it is hard to decide which one looks better.

The calibrator also took care of the "Yellow" tint I had on the ACD.

My final observation is that the new iMac is a great computer with a really nice monitor that will fit most peoples needs. And that is said after sitting it beside a $900 monitor and doing a detailed comparison.