Nano-texture iMac is awesome

[Donnation]

"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.

In my opinion their description is spot on. You don’t think it is. That doesn’t make my opinion a lie. The loss in quality is extremely minimal and is so much better than a traditional matte display that it is comical to even compare the two.

Again, show me the unedited thread where you claimed to have seen it in a store. All I said was that you had a pretty strong opinion of the display and you didn’t own one and never said that you had even seen one.

 

[rkuo]

In my opinion their description is spot on. You don’t think it is. That doesn’t make my opinion a lie. The loss in quality is extremely minimal and is so much better than a traditional matte display that it is comical to even compare the two.

Again, show me the unedited thread where you claimed to have seen it in a store. All I said was that you had a pretty strong opinion of the display and you didn’t own one and never said that you had even seen one.

Learn to use the forum search if you care so much. I’ll not engage with you and derail this thread further ... my posts speak for themselves, as do yours.

 

[Donnation]

Learn to use the forum search if you care so much. I’ll not engage with you and derail this thread further ... my posts speak for themselves, as do yours.

Agreed. Cheers!

 

[mikehalloran]

I'm sure you play lots of nice games, and use iPhoto and it's all good. Congrats on your purchase.

Nope. Not a gamer. My wife is a school teacher teaching online and the 2020 iMac is perfect for her. Had you actually read enough of this thread, you would have known that.

Apparently you did not understand my post. Neither did you look at my signature. It should have been easy for you to figure out that my iMac is a 14 Core iMac Pro.
[automerge]1599975787[/automerge]

 

[mikehalloran]

The sharpness comparison is completely relevant and on point. Denying that is ridiculous at best.

My 3rd grade teacher did not accept false equivalency as an argument and neither do I. Comparing with my iMac Pro is equivalent; with an iPhone is not—unless I was editing AV on my 11 Pro which I do not; that would be silly.

Still nothing to "unsee" here.

 

[Freida]

Which store you have seen it in person? Please do tell

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.

 

[rkuo]

My 3rd grade teacher did not accept false equivalency as an argument and neither do I. Comparing with my iMac Pro is equivalent; with an iPhone is not—unless I was editing AV on my 11 Pro which I do not; that would be silly.

Still nothing to "unsee" here.

My friend, we are comparing sharpness, not size. Try to understand the problem, as I'm sure your third grade teacher would tell you.

 

[rkuo]

Which store you have seen it in person? Please do tell

SF Flagship. They had/have both Pro Display XDR versions on display.

 

[LadyNinja]

Sad to say, but im not liking the nano for images. But I still stand that for regulare use, its ok. I cant stand the noise/grain look to it to the out of focus areas. I have invested a lot of money to get smooth background rendition. It only gets irritating when scrolling/panning around. Then you clearly can see the top grainy layer on top, and the image moving underneath. I cant but pay attention to it... Still, it would not be a problem for some ppl that dont need to zom in for high details.
I cant see the problem with the text in sharpness/clarity. Yes it may be a difference, but its comfortable for my eyes, and sharp enough.

What about colors? My two other late 2012 pure white is white, the nano is overall warmer. Kinda sunset feel. I have turned True tone off. Just a regulare web page, but also showing clearly on the top menu bar. Its a warmer grey. Im guessing I have a setting wrong. If not its really not acceptable....

I think my term for the screen would be noise/grain layer. Need to relax with it for a few days before anything else. I find myself not having an issue with it unless i think -lets focus on the grain more than anything other in the image. Thats just not what you do in rl. Im goin to try to actual sit more like a normal person.

 

[LadyNinja]

Both screens running standard white balance at 6509. The older screen is much cooler. Is this normal for a 5k display, or only for the nano?

 

[CE3]

Both screens running standard white balance at 6509. The older screen is much cooler. Is this normal for a 5k display, or only for the nano?

Does the nano have True Tone on?

 

[LadyNinja]

No off

06.50. Her he's turned off the true tone.

That's the same what I'm seeing with an image. It looks colder in s 2012 screen. I thought maybe the nano since it 5k and newer rendered the colors more correct. But it's like the nano won't show true white...

 

[LadyNinja]

Truetone on right

Off, it shows better in the video.

 

[CE3]

No off

06.50. Her he's turned off the true tone.

That's the same what I'm seeing with an image. It looks colder in s 2012 screen. I thought maybe the nano since it 5k and newer rendered the colors more correct. But it's like the nano won't show true white...

I don't think it's nano related, it's just the difference between the panels. You can find similar warmer and cooler variations in iPhone and iPad displays, with newer models tending to skew more on the warmer side.

 

[rkuo]

No off

06.50. Her he's turned off the true tone.

That's the same what I'm seeing with an image. It looks colder in s 2012 screen. I thought maybe the nano since it 5k and newer rendered the colors more correct. But it's like the nano won't show true white...

It's common/expected for LCD's to drift (often towards blue) over time. You need to recalibrate your old screen. This same issue is a common source of complaints among users buying new iPhones on this forum. They slowly get used to their device's incorrect white balance and when it comes time to upgrade, they don't like the new device, even tho the new device is correctly calibrated!

With that said, that may not be the only reason for the difference. You'd have to calibrate both displays to be sure.

 

[LadyNinja]

Ah that would make sense. Yeah I felt that the old screen was actually to cold. The nano is warmer but more pleasing to watch.
Was reading that the best calibrater was the x-rite. Some say the spyder is a waste of money.. Don't have the funds at this time for the x-rite.
Don't know all that about calibration. Just started to learn. I somehow thought that yes you need to calibrate colors, but white is white. But that may sound stupid I guess. ha, I don't know what I think...
I hoped that I could tweak just a little in the built-in, just a few numbers. But then again, I may be going in the wrong direction. Its standard 6509, to my eyes its more at the range around 6600-+, 67 and its to much.
[automerge]1600022929[/automerge]
but but but, the two in the video are both 2020! - is it nano-related then??

 

[ZacksWorld]

Chiming in again, as someone who works professionally with graphics and text that live either digitally or in print: there is a huge difference in "image quality", in the "look", in the "whatever you want to call it", between the Glossy iMac and Nano iMac. I had both at the same time, I had them side by side, I have good vision: the sharpness difference is clearly noticeable and the "grainy look" is clearly noticeable. The glare-reduction is incredible, yes, but it comes at an expense that is more than simply an additional $500.

There is no arguing it. These are differences between the two screens that can be measured objectively by devices; there is zero subjectivity about the difference in images that they produce.

There -is- subjectivity on whether you think it's suitable for your needs, whether the trade-off is worth it to you, etc.

There -is- subjectivity on whether you think Apple does a good job marketing and explaining the Nano-texture display.

No need to become emotional about a screen. No one is saying one is "a better display" than the other. They are each "better" than the alternative in certain use-cases.

The Nano texture is substantially less sharp than the Glossy display, that cannot be denied. I use the word "substantially" because I would bet money that the whopping majority of "regular people" (if they have normal vision) could look at the displays side by side and point out which one is less sharp – without having to put their face right up to the screen.

If you appreciate the sharpness of a 5K iMac and you're thinking about upgrading to the Nano-texture without having seen one in person, think twice about ordering without seeing the display first. That is rock-solid advice.

 

[mikehalloran]

Hmmm. Ignore this. I was replying to another thread and it keeps posting here and won't let me delete.

 

[mikehalloran]

The Nano texture is substantially less sharp than the Glossy display, that cannot be denied. I use the word "substantially" because I would bet money that the whopping majority of "regular people" (if they have normal vision) could look at the displays side by side and point out which one is less sharp – without having to put their face right up to the screen.

If you appreciate the sharpness of a 5K iMac and you're thinking about upgrading to the Nano-texture without having seen one in person, think twice about ordering without seeing the display first. That is rock-solid advice.

Good points but…

Have you seen the two side by side? Many posting here have not.

As much as I like the nano-glass on my wife's new iMac — and I agree with the title of this thread: it is awesome — my work is too demanding for the consumer grade iMac, even the 10 core.

If an iMac Pro refresh does not happen that includes a 27" version of the Pro Display XDR, I will upgrade to a Mac Pro 7.1. with the XDR and it will include the nano-glass upgrade. I really do not want to be spending $7K for a monitor including stand, however. I really, really, really don't want to do that.

 

[iDomDotCom]

Rkuo, I find it funny that you say this is "unsuitable" for your professional work due to not being a glossy screen while the majority of the print industry (and video production) almost unanimously prefer matte displays. The best and most color accurate displays are MATTE, not gloss. And as far as I can tell - since I am typing on one - this screen is one of the better matte displays I have ever seen.

Of course it is not the same as a glossy screen - the glass has etching in it in order to diffuse the reflections - if anyone expected zero loss in clarity, they're extremely naive and lack basic common sense. The trade off is that it's slightly "grainer" in exchange for not looking like Snow White's Magic Mirror. What's the problem here?

 

[LadyNinja]

Rkuo, I find it funny that you say this is "unsuitable" for your professional work due to not being a glossy screen while the majority of the print industry (and video production) almost unanimously prefer matte displays. The best and most color accurate displays are MATTE, not gloss. And as far as I can tell - since I am typing on one - this screen is one of the better matte displays I have ever seen.

Of course it is not the same as a glossy screen - the glass has etching in it in order to diffuse the reflections - if anyone expected zero loss in clarity, they're extremely naive and lack basic common sense. The trade off is that it's slightly "grainer" in exchange for not looking like Snow White's Magic Mirror. What's the problem here?

The contrast matte/glossy is different. Cant make up my mind.. Really love the nano screen. But when I add all three things, less sharp, grainy and shift off contrast, i don't know... Could one tell if its actually the nano display that's the correct one with maybe calibration? But I guess the majority of ppl have a glossy?
If I should sharpen an image on the nano to get to the taste of a glossy, then on the glossy it may potentially look over sharpened.
I have gon through each step, and feel like I could live with it, but then I came across the less contrast look..
My concern is image editing. For most other programs, wouldn't be an issue.

 

[rkuo]

Rkuo, I find it funny that you say this is "unsuitable" for your professional work due to not being a glossy screen while the majority of the print industry (and video production) almost unanimously prefer matte displays. The best and most color accurate displays are MATTE, not gloss. And as far as I can tell - since I am typing on one - this screen is one of the better matte displays I have ever seen.

Of course it is not the same as a glossy screen - the glass has etching in it in order to diffuse the reflections - if anyone expected zero loss in clarity, they're extremely naive and lack basic common sense. The trade off is that it's slightly "grainer" in exchange for not looking like Snow White's Magic Mirror. What's the problem here?

It's amazing how many of you keep putting words in my mouth because you just can't interpret a legitimate discussion of the nanotexture display's downsides as anything but pure unadulterated hate.

Can we cool it on the cognitive dissonance? Where did I say it was unsuitable for my work? It would be fine, although I still wouldn't pick it because I don't need the anti glare and I'd rather spend the 500 on something else.

What I have been saying is that it's objectively worse to the naked eye in conditions that don't require heavy anti-glare. Which it is ... and potential buyers should know that. Spending 500 dollars to get a display that is worse, even slightly, in the majority of conditions is not something most people should do.

Enjoy the nanotexture display if it solves your problems. It's fine.

 

[jukkhop]

Saw the nano texture iMac in a store today and it is by far the worst matte screen I've seen. A $200 Dell monitor has better text clarity.

 

[Freida]

Which store was it, please? I would like to see it also

Saw the nano texture iMac in a store today and it is by far the worst matte screen I've seen. A $200 Dell monitor has better text clarity.

 

[mikehalloran]

Which store was it, please? I would like to see it also

Yes! I'd like to see the store showing a $200 Dell monitor side-by-side so we can see it blowing away a 5K Retina display. Goodness knows that my pair of 4K LG monitors don't.

Now fair's fair… I have one of those 27" 4K LG's hooked up to the iMac with the nano-glass and another hooked up to my iMac Pro. I can actually see the differences.

Pretty easy to see, actually, when they're side by side and all.