Let me tell you how good the 24" screen is...

[docprego]

I bought a Panasonic DMC-TZ1 digital camera about 9 months ago. I was moderately pleased with it, but always thought the pictures were just a bit short of very sharp. They looked slightly out of focus to me and I felt the same way about the video it shot. Note the computer I was using was connected to a 20" Dell CRT, and I thought it had a nice picture.

Well I got a 24" iMac and transferred some of my photos over to iPhoto. I was shocked at what I saw. Immediately upon viewing the first image I was flabbergasted by the sharpness of the images. The same camera that I thought was merely OK was obviously being hampered by a substandard CRT monitor that I had been viewing the images with prior to getting my iMac. The videos also looked stellar. The iMac gave new life to my digital camera, in fact I am absolutely thrilled with my camera now.

With all the complaining I hear about iMac screens (admittedly mostly about the 20") I thought it might be useful to talk about how great the 24" screen is.

 

[Killyp]

Oh they're definitely very 'crisp', like all LCDs. An LCD can't be 'blurry' unless you run it at the wrong resolution or connect it via a VGA cable. What people complain about with the iMac is it's colour reproduction. It overdoes the colours quite a bit, and while this makes everything look much nicer, it's bad for photographers because it doesn't allow them to see the image as it's meant to be.

It's like in recording studios, they always use speakers which don't modify the sound at all, so they can really make sure that what they're hearing is exactly as the recording sounds. Normal home-stereos make the music sound much 'nicer', but this would be useless for a studio engineer because everything would sound very good (even if the recording is bad).

It's kinda the same thing with the iMac.

TBH though, I think overall the new iMac screen is better for consumers overall, most people are going to want their images to look as pretty as possible (they aren't serious photographers) and therefore the display gives them advantages.


Glad to see you're enjoying your new Mac btw! I'm thinking of getting myself one (20") around xmas time

 

[SaSaSushi]

Oh they're definitely very 'crisp', like all LCDs. An LCD can't be 'blurry' unless you run it at the wrong resolution or connect it via a VGA cable. What people complain about with the iMac is it's colour reproduction. It overdoes the colours quite a bit, and while this makes everything look much nicer, it's bad for photographers because it doesn't allow them to see the image as it's meant to be.

Pardon me for asking but if you don't actually own a new 24" iMac what are you basing this theory of "overdone colors" on? Like any other screen to attain the best possible image it requires some color calibration.

As for photographers its just a matter of accurately producing the colors period, not that it looks nicer on lower quality screens.

It's like in recording studios, they always use speakers which don't modify the sound at all, so they can really make sure that what they're hearing is exactly as the recording sounds. Normal home-stereos make the music sound much 'nicer', but this would be useless for a studio engineer because everything would sound very good (even if the recording is bad).

Sorry, but I don't follow this analogy at all. I don't think studio engineers believe that home stereos make music sound "much better" at all.

TBH though, I think overall the new iMac screen is better for consumers overall, most people are going to want their images to look as pretty as possible (they aren't serious photographers) and therefore the display gives them advantages.

This I can agree on at least. The iMac is a consumer machine, not a high end photo editing workstation. It's an all-in-one primarily designed for the home user.

That said, I actually own a 24" mid-2007 iMac and I agree 100% with DocPrego. The quality of the panel on this machine far exceeds the panel on my former 20" iMac Core Duo and after careful calibration (as careful as I can get without a Colorimeter anyway) the colors are also very faithfully reproduced from my photos.

Oh, and I don't have a gradient issue, any yellow tint nor any dead pixels and I like the glossy screen better than the matte on my old machine too.

Glad to see you're enjoying your new Mac btw! I'm thinking of getting myself one (20") around xmas time

I hope you do. The new iMacs are great.

 

[Bigtree]

Same here. I was going to give up on my Canon 20D, until my I saw it's images on my iMac!

 

[docprego]

Same here. I was going to give up on my Canon 20D, until my I saw it's images on my iMac!

Out of curiosity what were you previously viewing the 20D pictures on?

 

[Killyp]

Pardon me for asking but if you don't actually own a new 24" iMac what are you basing this theory of "overdone colors" on? Like any other screen to attain the best possible image it requires some color calibration.

As for photographers its just a matter of accurately producing the colors period, not that it looks nicer on lower quality screens.

Sure it requires colour calibration, but even with the colours all 'appropriately' set up, it doesn't render colours as well as it could. BTW My MacBook Pro didn't require any re-calibration out of the box.

Sorry, but I don't follow this analogy at all. I don't think studio engineers believe that home stereos make music sound "much better" at all.

No they really do. There's a reason studios use professional monitors rather than good quality hifis (other than the power handling differences). Pro monitors have what we call a 'flat' sound, they reproduce all frequencies evenly with no 'boost' or 'drops' at any point. Home stereos often tend to 'drop' (roll off) the treble a bit to make things more comfortable to listen to, or boost the bass a bit for a more punchy sound, or overdo midrange a bit to make them sound more 'open' (so many 'audiophiles' think this is a good sound).

Not all home stereos do this though. B&W for example make very 'neutral' sounding speakers...

This I can agree on at least. The iMac is a consumer machine, not a high end photo editing workstation. It's an all-in-one primarily designed for the home user.

That said, I actually own a 24" mid-2007 iMac and I agree 100% with DocPrego. The quality of the panel on this machine far exceeds the panel on my former 20" iMac Core Duo and after careful calibration (as careful as I can get without a Colorimeter anyway) the colors are also very faithfully reproduced from my photos.

Oh, and I don't have a gradient issue, any yellow tint nor any dead pixels and I like the glossy screen better than the matte on my old machine too.

Same, I think the screens got better with the new iMacs, although there are two vendors for the iMac displays and one of them are pushing out bad screens which is where the complaints of dead pixels and uneven lighting come from I believe.

I hope you do. The new iMacs are great.

Can't wait I was looking round a University in Wales yesterday, and there about 10 rooms just full of iMacs (must have been 25+ iMacs in each room). I was so tempted to sneak one out under my jacket, but I think somebody would have noticed...

 

[rotlex]

I love the screen as well. I previously, and still do own, a 20" ACD that I was going to use as a 2nd monitor, but frankly, I like the way the 24" looks better.

I do a LOT of photography work, and frankly, the way I have the 24 calibrated, it's not negative at ALL as far as color reproduction. I pretty much have it set where my prints looks identical, well, at least to my and a few others eyes, to what I get on screen.

This machine has been the best darn investment I ever made. For the price I paid, 2.8Ghz machine, 4GB etc., and the fact that I get this GORGEOUS screen with it, I think it's the best buy on the comp market today! (Oh yeah, and it's a Mac of course).

 

[Leon Kowalski]

... although there are two vendors for the iMac displays and one of them are pushing out bad screens ...

Do you have any information on the "two vendor" theory? I've seen it posted elsewhere,
but none of the 'take-apart' reports or SwitchResX DDC-dumps I've seen on the web show
any evidence of a second vendor. They all identify the panels as:

20" ALU: LG.Philips LM201WE3-TLF1 (6-bit, TN film)

24" ALU: LG.Philips LM240WU2-SLB1 (8-bit, S-IPS)

...just curious,

LK

 

[pubjoe]

Can I just ask, what exactly is the 24" gradient issue I keep hearing about?

I just got a 24" alu imac (2 days ago) and about 1 inch on the very left and right has a slightly yellow/grey tinged gradient which darkens to the very edge of the screen. It's actually there (but very slightly) on the top and bottom too - kind of a pillowy "bevel" effect, as though the backlight is trailing off at the edges.

The main screen (minus the outer edges) is nice and solid, but I have not checked for "banding" on a full screen gradient yet - I will do that soon.

Is the above a "problem screen" or is this normal? As I say it is very slight, so I can't see it being enough to cause all the hysteria and I can't see it being a problem as the screen edges are usually just photoshop icons and even if I am displaying a full screen image - the subject matter would never be affected.

I suspect that my screen is standard. However, if I could replace it for a perfect screen - then of course I would.

 

[Nordichund]

Can I just ask, what exactly is the 24" gradient issue I keep hearing about?


I suspect that my screen is standard. However, if I could replace it for a perfect screen - then of course I would.

If you want to check whether your iMac is suffering from the gradient problem then you can download this file

http://www.sendmefile.com/00589193

I used this download to test my screen. If the white is lighter on the left and darker on the right then your iMac is suffering from the gradient problem. The lower the light in the room the easier to see.

WARNING if you are happy with your screen do not do this test, you might be disappointed. A bit like doing the pixel test when you didn't think you had any dead pixels.

 

[ceres]

My screen suffers from a rather unpleasant gradient as well.
As it appears the LG Philipps Screens are the deficient ones. Who would be the other manufacturer mentioned in this thread?

 

[gorby]

I was stunned when I first got my iMac and opened a slideshow of my photos in iPhoto.

Gorgeous.

I'm using one of my photos right now for my 24" wallpaper:

(yes, I am running Tiger!)

 

[pubjoe]

If you want to check whether your iMac is suffering from the gradient problem then you can download this file

http://www.sendmefile.com/00589193

I used this download to test my screen. If the white is lighter on the left and darker on the right then your iMac is suffering from the gradient problem. The lower the light in the room the easier to see.

WARNING if you are happy with your screen do not do this test, you might be disappointed. A bit like doing the pixel test when you didn't think you had any dead pixels.

Thanks a lot for that. I'm certain my screen does not suffer the gradient problem as I've been trying to see it for a couple of minutes. The large lcd angle and head position thing makes it hard to get a perfect balanced view of the screen anyway - But it seemed ok to me.

Is the problem easy to notice on the faulty screens?

It made me quite mac happy anyway.

I was stunned when I first got my iMac and opened a slideshow of my photos in iPhoto.

Gorgeous.

I'm using one of my photos right now for my 24" wallpaper:

(yes, I am running Tiger!)

LOVELY photo! Do you have a collection online? I would like to see that tiger at 1920.

 

[docprego]

I was stunned when I first got my iMac and opened a slideshow of my photos in iPhoto.

Gorgeous.

I'm using one of my photos right now for my 24" wallpaper:

(yes, I am running Tiger!)

You wouldn't happen to have a leopard, would you?

 

[TheRuggedLion]

If you want to check whether your iMac is suffering from the gradient problem then you can download this file

http://www.sendmefile.com/00589193

I used this download to test my screen. If the white is lighter on the left and darker on the right then your iMac is suffering from the gradient problem. The lower the light in the room the easier to see.

WARNING if you are happy with your screen do not do this test, you might be disappointed. A bit like doing the pixel test when you didn't think you had any dead pixels.

Yay! I got one of the good screens! Something good for once, especially after having to deal with a freezer for a few months

 

[stoo31]

Colour Reproduction is overated. I am a photography degree student and basically work at a professional level outside of university and before I bought a 24" iMac I was using what probably cost about £10 to manufacture chucked in with a package PC deal, LCD Monitor.

I calibrated it by eye because I was young and never had any printing issues and never had any complaints from any clients, I calibrated it a couple of months ago and it wasn't far off.

I bought an imac and can't see what people are complaining about, if it is calibrated, images look as they should and they match my prints and other output. People seem to look at this far too much and generally they are people who are all about the apparent text book quality but don't actually use their equipment for any sort of high quality output.

 

[gorby]

LOVELY photo! Do you have a collection online? I would like to see that tiger at 1920.

Not yet, sorry! Thanks much for the compliment!

You wouldn't happen to have a leopard, would you?

Hopefully soon! Plan to hit up some zoos around here. This was taken in Seattle, where they have some awesome baby tigers

 

[ceres]

Being rather displeased with my 24in Imac upon first test drive, my first mac computer, that arrived last friday I went to a few local stores to check out the screens of the machines on display. I placed 2 test files on a usb stick and opened them on the various Imacs. Each and every screen had the gradient/inconsistent lighting issue. I talked to a gravis technician and he acknowledged the issue clearly stating that baseline panel quality has degraded using the white 24in white Imac as reference. The new Imac is just too thin. Get a mac pro + cinema display is not the appropriate answer imho. It was all good -screenwise- with the white 24in imacs and a few more mm in thickness would not have hurt anybody. Thus, I don´t feel 100% comfortable with my 2300 Eur investment. Swapping machines or having the panel replaced will probably not get me anywhere.

I will keep my new computer as it still offers the best value in all in one desktops. I particularly like the 2.8ghz processor, 0.2 sone @50% load operation, 4gig of Ram w/o bios issues, bit perfect digital out with great thd and snr and the very intriguing operating system. I will purchase apple care warranty and unload my system on ebay once a quadcore Imac surfaces hoping that apple delivers quality not grade b ware.

 

[DesignerOnMac]

Hmmm useless link for me....

If you want to check whether your iMac is suffering from the gradient problem then you can download this file

http://www.sendmefile.com/00589193

I used this download to test my screen. If the white is lighter on the left and darker on the right then your iMac is suffering from the gradient problem. The lower the light in the room the easier to see.

WARNING if you are happy with your screen do not do this test, you might be disappointed. A bit like doing the pixel test when you didn't think you had any dead pixels.

I get a dos file...huh? only opens in Dreamweaver!

 

[gorby]

The new Imac is just too thin. Get a mac pro + cinema display is not the appropriate answer imho. It was all good -screenwise- with the white 24in imacs and a few more mm in thickness would not have hurt anybody.

I agree, if that is indeed the culprit to (some of) the problems.


I guess it's always good to 'improve', but the thickness of the iMac did not need improving. Anyone who couldn't fit the white iMac on their desk (or where ever) still can't fit the new alu iMac on their desk. It was already scary thin (about 2 in. thick)

So, what did it accomplish really? Thinner just for the sake of being thinner? Until whichever generation the iMac becomes just thin as a sheet of glass (is that practical?), they should stop shaving it just for the sake of doing it.

 

[Leon Kowalski]

So, what did it accomplish really? Thinner just for the sake of being thinner?

They didn't even accomplish that -- they only thinned the EDGES;
overall thickness of the cabinet changed very little -- and the total
front-back dimension, including the pedestal, didn't change at all.

Could have achieved much the same visual effect with nothing more
than a band of dark color -- exactly as they did to 'shrink' the chin.

...yet another iPyrrhic victory of form over function,

LK

.

 

[Senor360]

Hmm...

So as a potential new iMac buyer, what I'm reading is that I should avoid the 20" and go for the 24"? Yikes.. $300 more bucks.. gonna be hard to explain that one to the misses.

 

[SaSaSushi]

So as a potential new iMac buyer, what I'm reading is that I should avoid the 20" and go for the 24"? Yikes.. $300 more bucks.. gonna be hard to explain that one to the misses.

I don't know if one should "avoid" the 20". I think it's a fine machine. I am really glad I spent the extra $300 for the 24" myself though.

Another way to look at it is that the new 24" aluminum iMacs are about $300 less than what the previous white 24" iMacs were. I paid just about the same for my previous 20" Core Duo iMac that I did for my new 24".

If you can swing it I don't think you'd regret going for the 24" one bit.

 

[Senor360]

Hmm..

I don't know if one should "avoid" the 20". I think it's a fine machine. I am really glad I spent the extra $300 for the 24" myself though.

Another way to look at it is that the new 24" aluminum iMacs are about $300 less than what the previous white 24" iMacs were. I paid just about the same for my previous 20" Core Duo iMac that I did for my new 24".

If you can swing it I don't think you'd regret going for the 24" one bit.

Well.. I'm all for a larger display, just wanted to see if the 20" was terrible by comparison. I have a friend that works for the city and gets a 10% discount on Apple purchases, and a co-worker who's sister works for an Apple store and I believe they get 10% off also. Hmm.. wonder if I could get those 2 to talk to each other and get 20% off my purchase..

 

[AlexisV]

I agree, if that is indeed the culprit to (some of) the problems.


I guess it's always good to 'improve', but the thickness of the iMac did not need improving. Anyone who couldn't fit the white iMac on their desk (or where ever) still can't fit the new alu iMac on their desk. It was already scary thin (about 2 in. thick)

So, what did it accomplish really? Thinner just for the sake of being thinner? Until whichever generation the iMac becomes just thin as a sheet of glass (is that practical?), they should stop shaving it just for the sake of doing it.

I don't agree. You've got a beautiful looking machine, but it's become a bit long in the tooth and needs updating. You don't want to fix what's not broken, but need to improve things visually.

What do you do?

Go thinner, use new materials, but keep the same overall design.

Perfect. What else did you expect them to do? The white iMac is a design classic, and the alumnium one just moves things on.