Just compare the sharpness of the screen to your iPhone. There, you’ll never unsee it.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Nano-texture iMac is awesome
- Thread starter bigcat
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Just compare the sharpness of the screen to your iPhone. There, you’ll never unsee it.
Anyone who has ever used a matte display should understand that its not going to be as sharp as a glossy display but the Nano screen comes as close as possible and is the best iteration of this on the market by far.
I'm guessing you haven't bought one. I have and compared side by side with my iMac Pro. Both look great but now I want an iMac Pro with nano-glass and am willing to open up my wallet to buy one if Apple updates the iMP.
Guess what? Neither of them look my iPhone 11 Pro. Are you surprised? I'm not—wasn't expecting them to. Neither of them look like my Prius, either.
Any more false equivalency nonsense to share with the class?
Move along. There's nothing to "unsee" here, folks.
I opened my nano texture iMac last night after cancelling my first order in favour of adding the nano option (I work in a bright room, and I always preferred the matte powerbook screen back in the day). I was insanely naive. A week later I saw the first negative posts about the nano textured screen, and had a tinge of dread.
The screen is heinously unsuitable for content generation imo.
If you are relying on your monitor for anything pro publishing or image/video based work, you won't be able to work in a team, and you won't be able to produce anything that is color accurate.
Mine is going back today.
The screen is heinously unsuitable for content generation imo.
If you are relying on your monitor for anything pro publishing or image/video based work, you won't be able to work in a team, and you won't be able to produce anything that is color accurate.
Mine is going back today.
The color is what I noticed most – I'd love a matte display, but sadly the nano colors are washed out in comparison to a regular screen. You can see it fairly clearly in your pics with the grey.
Why did you like the PowerBook matte display and not like the Nano display? It’s MILES better than those matte screens were on the PowerBook display. Just curious.
If doing heavy dut,y precision AV work, why in the world did you order a consumer machine?
Apple makes Mas for those uses. That's what Mac Pros and iMac Pros are for. Seriously…
I wasn't a pro user then - I was at college, and it was the late 90s/early 2000s.
I think the one assignment we did that would have brought it into play was a website editing assignment. But again, that was a long time ago.
There was pretty much no online world to deal with, and I wasn't using Indesign and submitting files to printers.
I'm kind of gob smacked to be honest. Despite the protests from one guy above, it's pretty clear cut. The thing is inadequate.
I'm not doing heavy duty AV work. But I am producing pro quality work at the entry level.
I also edit and write image heavy books using Indesign. They need to go to layout guys and the printers, the nano textured screen wasn't designed for this imo.
Checkout that screen shot in this thread a page or two back. Look at the grey – this was my experience. It's not even close to being accurate because of the textured surface.
[automerge]1599934224[/automerge]
What are you using your's for?
I do a ton of video editing for a production company as a side job. It started as a hobby for me but has grown into a nice little side business. I’m not disagreeing with you that it isn’t quite as sharp as the glossy screen. But I don’t find it inadequate at all for color representation, it’s just not quite as punchy from a vibrancy standpoint, but for me it’s worth that very slight trade off to have no glare in my office which has huge windows in it.
Sharpness wasn't the issue for me so much.
But for print in particular, I can't use this machine. It makes PMS useless.
The video content I'm doing isn't super reliant on color correct content. It's for in-house commercial use, and honestly I've even shot footage on my iPhone Xs Max that has wound up on Netflix, so I'd agree that you can definitely fudge it for some pro video.
For print though you are literally getting back exactly what you file.
The nano texture is hopelessly inadequate for this, because I was never seeing things as they would be on my colleague's screens or on a regular monitor. The whole point of PMS is to achieve the exact opposite effect.
If a user is working in higher end film production though, it wouldn't cut the mustard either.
But I'm sure for some applications it's OK.
But for print in particular, I can't use this machine. It makes PMS useless.
The video content I'm doing isn't super reliant on color correct content. It's for in-house commercial use, and honestly I've even shot footage on my iPhone Xs Max that has wound up on Netflix, so I'd agree that you can definitely fudge it for some pro video.
For print though you are literally getting back exactly what you file.
The nano texture is hopelessly inadequate for this, because I was never seeing things as they would be on my colleague's screens or on a regular monitor. The whole point of PMS is to achieve the exact opposite effect.
If a user is working in higher end film production though, it wouldn't cut the mustard either.
But I'm sure for some applications it's OK.
Last edited by a moderator:
Edited: I'm sure you play lots of nice games, and use iPhoto and it's all good. Congrats on your purchase.
The sharpness comparison is completely relevant and on point. Denying that is ridiculous at best.
Do you have an iDisplay Pro? I’m curious if the colors can at least be calibrated back to normal.
And yeah, sorry you had that experience. That’s exactly what I’ve been trying to point out to the less experienced among us. I truly do not understand those saying they cannot see a difference. The difference is IMMEDIATELY visible.
I guess for lack of a better analogy, I’d compare the nano-texture display to off road tires. You wouldn’t use them on just any old car. You put them on because they are more suitable for a specific purpose.
Honestly you really shouldn't comment on it unless you've actually used one. It would be like me stating how glorious a glossy display it despite only having used matte screens all my life. Watching YouTube videos and seeing pictures of it isn't the same as actually using one is what I mean. You keep making these grand statements about it but don't have any experience using one so I'm not sure you're really qualified to make those types of judgements on it outside of "I don't think it would be suitable for me."
Honestly, as someone whose code serves a significant portion of the Internet's images today, who has run encoding pipelines at the largest streaming companies in the world, and has seen both displays in person at a flagship store, I am eminently qualified to comment on this. Honestly.
Everything I've said is accurate. I use matte screens, but I don't use them where I don't need to because they hurt image quality, and I don't think it takes a trained eye to see the difference. Simple as that.
If someone asks me why I have a matte film on my iPad, I tell them it's because I often don't have a choice where I use it when I travel, and I really like using it near the bright window at my dinner table. But yeah, it doesn't look quiet as good as the iPad without the film next to it in normal areas. That's a simple and honest answer.
More to the point, don't tell people there isn't a difference. There is one. Anyone emotionally offended by the factual degradation in quality is having cognitive dissonance with their 500 dollar upgrade. Buying a nano-texture iMac only to have to return it is a huge waste of time ... and, as visual quality is something I think about every day, I'd like for folks to go into it with their eyes open.
Lol I’m not sure how your job description makes you “eminently” qualified. I would consider someone who owns and has used both EMINENTLY more qualified but whatever.
This is the first time you’ve ever referenced even seeing one, and I really don’t think a few minutes in an Apple store that has almost zero glare and perfect lighting is a really good way to measure how good a screen is, especially for someone who is in a room that has a ton of natural light coming in.
Also, I’ve never once been disappointed in my purchase or tried to sway someone into buying one of these screens. I’ve said there is a slight loss in quality, but not enough of a noticeable one to deter me from keeping it and MILES better than any other matte display on the market. I could easily return mine if I wanted to, but there is no way I would.
Your statements are in complete absolutes that this display is a huge loss in quality and that it looks terrible, and thats simply your opinion and not fact. So while you continue to comment on these screens to help buyers it’s probably worthwhile to put the disclaimer “I don’t own one of these types of iMacs but looked at one in a store for a few minutes and here is my opinion” after all of your statements.
You don't see how someone responsible for the visual quality of images and video is qualified to comment on the quality of a display?
Actually, the outdoor lit flagship store was probably the perfect use case for the nano-texture display.
Good for you. You should be happy with your purchase. I am not trying to sway people away from going nano-texture per se, only trying to get them to understand the tradeoffs involved.
I have never said there is a HUGE loss in quality. That's the way you read it because you are emotionally wrapped up in justifying your 500 dollar spend. What I said was that the difference is clearly visible to the naked eye. Which it is. And I know people well enough to know that a lot of people aren't going to like it, especially when it costs MORE and isn't just a free choice.
I wouldn't have to be so pointed about it if Apple clearly stated the tradeoffs necessary for the matte display, but of course they aren't going to do that.
No, your job description adds nothing to your qualifications here. Someone who edits photos at home for fun that actually owns one of these is more qualified than you in my opinion.
Again, never once did you reference actually seeing on of these displays until I called you out on it. But I’ll take your word for it (wink wink).
Lol I couldn’t be less emotionally wrapped up in my purchase. I could easily box this up, walk into an Apple store today, and get the exact same mode I own now with a glossy display. You’re forgetting that the title of this thread is “the Nano display is awesome” so I don’t need to come into a thread praising what I purchased to “emotionally justify” anything. You on the other hand feel the need to come into a thread and basically tell people who like the display or are interested in buying it that they are wrong because YOU feel the quality drop off is too large. Why even come in here in the first place?
Lolol you don’t know anyone well enough to know that they won’t like it. Again, you are talking in absolutes. What else will people like and not like? You are eminently qualified and know people well enough that you should make grand judgements on everything that people are interested in buying.
And finally, Apple’s description of their display is spot on. It isn’t just a matte display. Anyone who says so is flat out wrong. It’s the best looking matte display that is out there. The loss in quality is MILES AND MILES less than any other matte screen out there. So you having a matte screen on your iPad doesn’t come close to what the matte screen on the iMac looks like.
Well you have a terrible opinion then.
I have referenced seeing this display on other threads and in fact was super interested in seeing it in person, which I did. I don’t need to cater to you to justify my opinions as the FACTS speak for themselves. There was and is nothing for you to “call me out“ on as nothing I ever said was in question.
Basically to warn people that nano texture isn’t a strict upgrade, to be careful about the people in here proclaiming it’s the best display since sliced bread, and hopefully save some people wasting a lot of time on a display they won’t like.
Yes, I do know this because Apple removed matte screens from their lineup for nearly a decade. Not the other way around. The vast majority of buyers want glossy displays and nano texture did not make the problems with matte display disappear. Simple as that. Not so smart now, are you?
Yeah, that’s a lie. There’s a drop in quality and they upsell it as if there isn’t. People should know the facts so they can make an informed purchase.
Lol ok. I would think that with your statements you’ve made in here that you would have mentioned seeing it, but i believe you (wink wink). Please point me to a non edited thread where you discuss viewing it at length and giving your opinion on it.
Again; no one is claiming it’s the best display since sliced bread. You are just making broad assumptions about a display that in your opinion is way worse than glossy in a thread that was created for people who like it to discuss it. Why don’t you start a thread called “I don’t own a Nano display but looked at one in a store and don’t like it.” That would be perfect for you.
You do realize this isn’t the same matte display that Apple removes from their PowerBooks right? It’s not even close to the same thing. So even bringing that up very much proves that you don’t really have a good idea what this display looks like.
You are calling my opinion a lie. Makes sense. Good one. Yes, people should be able to make an informed purchase. But you aren’t the voice of the people (i don’t think...) and shouldn’t be proclaiming something as bad or as worse quality when you don’t own one and your point of reference is a matte screen protector and bringing up matte displays that Apple used to use.
It’s absolutely not a lie to say that the loss in quality is minimal and i can’t point you to dozens of reviews that say the same thing. Is it enough for some people to not like it? Sure. Is it also so small that many people will love it? Absolutely. That is fact, and anything other than that is just your opinion which should be taken with a grain of salt even with your amazing job you have that makes you eminently qualifies lol.
I know you're trying to insult me, but all you are doing is reflecting poorly on yourself.
I'm stating facts and observations backed up by decades of industry expertise, and here you are trying to act like I've never even seen the damn thing because you have no substance to your arguments. Grow up. I guess anyone reading this thread will just have to decide for themselves who to believe.
I never insulted you. I just spat back out at you what you said to me. And you called me a liar, so who needs to grow up? I never said one thing to you that was insulting and I could actually make that claim against you, but I won't because I don't really care what your opinion is of me.
And that was my entire point in the first place. You should let people decide on their own and not just state that they will hate it because you "know people" and are "eminently qualified to make these statements." You have no idea if someone will like this display or not. You don't and that's fine, but you don't speak for everyone and certainly don't speak for me. I happen to love it and there are others that will also love it. The end.
"And finally, Apple’s description of their display is spot on."
That's a lie. Claiming I never saw the display in person is a lie. You said it, own it. As are the rest of your distortions of what I actually said.