New iMacs- 20" TN 6-bit panels?

[anupamgarg]

Yeah, I have used both and went for the 20" because it fit my space better and I use dual displays anyways so I didn't really need the extra space.

20" is plenty and suits most the needs of most people. I am typing this on a 20" 2.4 Ghz right now and I have no complaints with the screen (I do a little photo editing, but not much). However, I can understand that intense photo editors may have some complaints about the screen. Whether or not Apple should have used the TN display is a completely different issue though.

 

[Hackcomic.com]

I went to the Apple Store today. The new 20" is no doubt an inferior screen to the new 24"

It still looks good- but when you look at them side by side- you can see there is a big difference.

Oddly enough though- they don't have them side by side- only across from each other.

When I asked the salesperson if there is a difference in screen- he said no. I then told him that apparently there is- as its all over the internet. He thought I was crazy- then he looked at both screens and said "Wow, you're right- the 24" is better."

 

[Agent69]

I have to say that I agree that Apple could be more specific in its labeling of what you are getting when you buy a 20" iMac vs a 24" iMac, but it seems to me that the computer industry as a whole could do a better job where LCD screens are concerned.

 

[inkswamp]

In that case, you are stuck. There is no display technology that doesn't use dithering. An eight bit panel can display 766 different colours, not more. The "millions of colours" are created by dithering. Your printer uses dithering. Even good colour printers have only six colours and use dithering to produce the rest.

You're missing the forest for the trees here. I'm not getting at the fact that dithering per se is bad, but rather any dithering that causes color issues for users or the appearance of fewer colors than advertised is unacceptable. And there is some threshold where it becomes apparent to many people that the dithering method doesn't work. Do you agree with that or do think it's okay for any company to claim "millions of colors" whenever they feel it's justified?

they make loads of $ because they control the OS market and ppl dont know about or want to explore viable alternatives.

You took what I wrote too literally. I wasn't making the case for MS and Vista. I was pointing out a counter-example to the notion that if a company is doing well from a business perspective, then the products must be great and well-received by most users. That's demonstrably untrue.

 

[jjahshik32]

Good god, I can't believe people keep falling back on that "low end" nonsense argument. No computer over $1000 can call itself low end, thus my annoyance that Apple is selling the 20" iMacs for an exorbitant price.

I'm not rich but I see the imac 20" as a lower end. And at $1199 + a student discount I think even with a TN panel + the specs of the 20" imac for that price is a very good deal.

Why not just buy a 20" ACD and hook it up to the lowest end imac and use the 20" ACD (with the S-IPS panel) as the main screen and 20" imac's TN screen as a 2nd monitor used in a dual monitor mode?? It will still be cheaper than buying one 24" imac and you get to use 2 screens.

 

[ukmacmonster]

I own a G4 iMac at home that has been humming along for 6 years now, everything working together the way they should. The display has been a thing of beauty from day one. And this was the "low end" iMac at the time I bought it. Back then, the iMacs were all pretty much the same machine. The price difference brought you a better graphics card, faster processor, a bigger screen, combo/superdrive or more RAM. It wasn't a matter of trading off quality of the components for the lower price.

I owned a 17" G4 iMac for 3 years. Firstly the low end version was originally 15" 4:3 aspect ratio. My 17" was top end at the time. Secondly the display was TN - ok perhaps acceptable at the time - but not exactly a thing of beauty. The backlighting on mine was not very consistent, suffering from quite bad vignetting in the corners. I really noticed this when comparing directly against my later 20" G5 iMac. Thirdly G4 iMacs were extremely expensive across the board. From memory I think mine was around £1650 (yes that's UK pounds in 2002).

I upgraded to an early 20" G5 iMac, which did have a fantastic display, miles better than the G4. Again this was a top end iMac at the time, with the low end being 17". Now did the 17" G5 still have a TN panel? I wonder.... (EDIT: other threads suggest the 17" G5 did indeed have a TN panel, which means it's nothing new for Apple to be using cheaper displays in their low end iMacs)

Now I've just upgraded to a 24" Alu iMac, which also has a great (EDIT: high quality H-IPS) display. Again it's a high end model and it's also the least expensive iMac I've ever bought. I don't see any problem with the evolution of iMacs over the last decade.

 

[dantay]

I owned a 17" G4 iMac for 3 years. Firstly the low end version was originally 15" 4:3 aspect ratio. My 17" was top end at the time. Secondly the display was TN - ok perhaps acceptable at the time - but not exactly a thing of beauty. The backlighting on mine was not very consistent, suffering from quite bad vignetting in the corners. I really noticed this when comparing directly against my later 20" G5 iMac. Thirdly G4 iMacs were extremely expensive across the board. From memory I think mine was around £1650 (yes that's UK pounds in 2002).

I upgraded to an early 20" G5 iMac, which did have a fantastic display, miles better than the G4. Again this was a top end iMac at the time, with the low end being 17". Now did the 17" G5 still have a TN panel? I wonder....

Now I've just upgraded to a 24" Alu iMac, which also has a great display. Again it's a high end model and it's also the least expensive iMac I've ever bought. I don't see any problem with the evolution of iMacs over the last decade.

So no bleed on your 24" then?

 

[ukmacmonster]

So no bleed on your 24" then?

I don't know, it hasn't arrived yet. I'll let you know if I think it's rubbish. By "great" screen I really meant high quality panel. If there are QC problems with the latest 24" iMacs, that's another debate.

 

[dantay]

I don't know, it hasn't arrived yet. I'll let you know if I think it's rubbish. By "great" screen I really meant high quality panel. If there are QC problems with the latest 24" iMacs, that's another debate.

Oh i see.....its was the way you said it had a great screen as if you had one...well do post when you get it and let us all know if you find the needle in Apple's hay stack

 

[gnasher729]

You're missing the forest for the trees here. I'm not getting at the fact that dithering per se is bad, but rather any dithering that causes color issues for users or the appearance of fewer colors than advertised is unacceptable. And there is some threshold where it becomes apparent to many people that the dithering method doesn't work. Do you agree with that or do think it's okay for any company to claim "millions of colors" whenever they feel it's justified?

Let me go back to where this whole discussion comes from. Some bunch of lawyers is currently trying to get money from Apple by claiming that Apple is selling monitors as capable of displaying "millions of colors" that are not capable of doing so. The fact that hundreds of monitors from other companies use exactly the same technology and are sold as "millions of colors" doesn't matter to them, what matters is that Apple has $18 billion in the bank, and they want some of that.

If they can convince a judge that Apple's 20" monitors have lower quality than the 24" monitors, that won't get them anywhere. What they have to convince a jury of is that these panels do _not_ display millions of colors. Note that Apple doesn't say "16 million colors". What most monitors show in their advertisements is "16.7 million colors" if they are 8 bit, and "16.2 million colors" if they are 6 bit + 2 bit created by dithering (the dithering creates only 253 possible values for each of red, green and blue instead of 256). Clearly, six bit plus dithering will create "millions of colors". Obviously some monitors have higher or lower quality than others, that's what you pay for.

The question is: Does it display "millions of colours"? The other question is: Do you think you can show _any_ monitor that is sold has having "262,000 colors"? I have never seen one.

 

[inkswamp]

Let me go back to where this whole discussion comes from.
[...]
The other question is: Do you think you can show _any_ monitor that is sold has having "262,000 colors"? I have never seen one.

We're coming at this from different angles. I don't specifically disagree with anything you just said, but the issue here isn't the technicalities behind it all, but rather Apple's marketing of the features which created expectations for customers that were not fulfilled. Thus my comment that you're missing the forest for the trees.

Apple has a large user base that is involved in graphic design and print production. To those people, the phrase "millions of colors" has a specific qualitative connotation regardless of the technical specs behind it. Do you see what I'm getting at? In a way, Apple has created this mess for themselves by offering customers a fairly consistently high quality display over the years. They've gathered a user base with a more discerning eye--a user base that has expectations attached to the "millions of colors" marketing phrase.

If Apple goes with a cheaper display panel that technically can achieve millions of colors via a low-quality dithering method that causes those people to cock their head and say "Whoa, something's wrong with this display" then something is wrong, even if that something isn't technical in nature. I think technically, then, it's fine for Apple to say "millions of colors" but it's also perfectly understandable for designers and artists to react the way they have. The technical description may be accurate (albeit still subjective) but the marketing wasn't.

So again, I say that Apple should have attached a footnote to the "millions of colors" phrase on their site and offered a brief clarification of how that pertains to the 20" display. In the minds of many of their customers, that phrase meant something that wasn't delivered.

 

[czachorski]

We're coming at this from different angles. I don't specifically disagree with anything you just said, but the issue here isn't the technicalities behind it all, but rather Apple's marketing of the features which created expectations in the customers that were not fulfilled. Thus my comment that you're missing the forest for the trees.

Apple has a large user base that is involved in graphic design and print production. To those people, the phrase "millions of colors" has a specific qualitative connotation regardless of the technical specs behind it. Do you see what I'm getting at? In a way, Apple has created this mess for themselves by offering customers a fairly consistently high quality display over the years. They've gathered a user base with a more discerning eye--a user base that has expectations attached to the "millions of colors" marketing phrase.

If Apple goes with a cheaper display panel that technically can achieve millions of colors via a low-quality dithering method that causes those people to cock their head and say "Whoa, something's wrong with this display" then something is wrong, even if that something isn't technical in nature. I think technically, then, it's fine for Apple to say "millions of colors" but it's also perfectly understandable for designers and print shop folks to react the way they have. The technical description may be accurate (albeit still subjective) but the marketing wasn't.

So again, I say that Apple should have attached a footnote to the "millions of colors" phrase on their site and offered a brief clarification of how that pertains to the 20" display. In the minds of many of their customers, that phrase meant something that wasn't delivered.

Then they should have done the same thing with the 17" years ago, and we should have seen similar complaints about the disclosure on the 17" screen. It is my understanding that they used to disclose it in the video developer notes, but not in the main iMacs specs page. When you drill down into the details on this (as we have done in other threads), that is really all that has changed - Apple no longer discloses the dithering in the detailed video developer notes. The disclosure on the main iMac specs sheet is the same now for the 20" as it was for the 17" for years.

 

[ukmacmonster]

We're coming at this from different angles. I don't specifically disagree with anything you just said, but the issue here isn't the technicalities behind it all, but rather Apple's marketing of the features which created expectations for customers that were not fulfilled. Thus my comment that you're missing the forest for the trees.

Apple has a large user base that is involved in graphic design and print production. To those people, the phrase "millions of colors" has a specific qualitative connotation regardless of the technical specs behind it. Do you see what I'm getting at? In a way, Apple has created this mess for themselves by offering customers a fairly consistently high quality display over the years. They've gathered a user base with a more discerning eye--a user base that has expectations attached to the "millions of colors" marketing phrase.

If Apple goes with a cheaper display panel that technically can achieve millions of colors via a low-quality dithering method that causes those people to cock their head and say "Whoa, something's wrong with this display" then something is wrong, even if that something isn't technical in nature. I think technically, then, it's fine for Apple to say "millions of colors" but it's also perfectly understandable for designers and artists to react the way they have. The technical description may be accurate (albeit still subjective) but the marketing wasn't.

So again, I say that Apple should have attached a footnote to the "millions of colors" phrase on their site and offered a brief clarification of how that pertains to the 20" display. In the minds of many of their customers, that phrase meant something that wasn't delivered.

Apple have been using TN displays in their base model iMacs for years, ever since the original G4. The base model G5 had a 17" TN panel, now the current base model Alu iMac has a 20" TN panel. The only real difference is that the panels are getting larger. Remember the G4 iMac started off with 15" and 17" options. So the only real issue regarding iMac H-IPS panels is that they're now too big for some people, who are totally insistent on having a 20" H-IPS option. Once you get over the fact that iMac screens are getting larger, the TN problem is not a big deal. Just choose the 24", it's not any more expensive than the old 20". Also note there are plenty of cries on this forum for a 28" or even 30" iMac.

 

[inkswamp]

Apple have been using TN displays in their base model iMacs for years, ever since the original G4. The base model G5 had a 17" TN panel, now the current base model Alu iMac has a 20" TN panel. The only real difference is that the panels are getting larger.

Maybe that's the reason people are noticing things now that they didn't before. Maybe this quality of screen is less a problem for people at smaller sizes. Curious. Or maybe designers weren't buying iMacs prior to them becoming 20" at the smallest size.

Then they should have done the same thing with the 17" years ago, and we should have seen similar complaints about the disclosure on the 17" screen. It is my understanding that they used to disclose it in the video developer notes, but not in the main iMacs specs page. When you drill down into the details on this (as we have done in other threads), that is really all that has changed - Apple no longer discloses the dithering in the detailed video developer notes. The disclosure on the main iMac specs sheet is the same now for the 20" as it was for the 17" for years.

See, it's this weird evasive behavior that is going to get Apple into trouble. I'm not saying they're doing it on purpose, but it sure does look intentional. It just looks like they're intentionally obfuscating the issue for marketing purposes. I don't understand why they don't include the full specs about the displays on the iMac pages.

 

[Clix Pix]

Everyone is going to have different needs and different expectations. Nearly three years ago a friend and I each bought the 20" G5 rev B iMac. For her it was the "end-all, be all" machine. For me it was a machine to use in a "holding pattern" while I waited for the eventual arrival of the intel-based machines, specifically the Mac Pro. It fulfilled that role very nicely. We had different needs then and we have different needs now. Come time to replace her 20" iMac, my friend will undoubtedly go with the 20" version that is available at the time she's ready. She has limited desk/workstation space, she doesn't need a zillion colors because of doing photographic or other graphics-intensive work on the machine, and for her the current 20" offering or whatever is available at the time she's ready to replace her G5 iMac will undoubtedly fulfill her needs quite nicely.

Me? I've got my Mac Pro for my digital imaging projects but if I were in the market to replace my G5 iMac I would be looking at that 24" because of the difference in the monitor. I wouldn't be doing a lot of digital imaging on that machine but if for some reason I had the urge to do some post-processing on a few images and for whatever reason could not or chose not to use my Mac Pro, it would be important to me to be able to do some photographic editing on an iMac that at least had the colors.... However, a major sticking-point for me would still be that glossy screen. Right now as I'm writing this post, I'm sitting out on my deck enjoying the nice weather and typing on my glossy-screen MacBook Air....however, my primary use of this machine is not for post-processing of digital images. To me the glossy screen can make a significant difference when trying to accurately edit photographic images.

I'm sitting back and watching to see what happens with the Mac Mini and then I'll make a decision about where I'm going to go next in terms of having a computer and monitor which meet my needs at the times that I cannot use my Mac Pro..... When my beloved G5 iMac dies I may end up replacing it with another iMac or with a combo of Mac Mini and ACD or with a combo of MBP and ACD.....while the primary purpose would be for everyday websurfing, email, etc., I still want that flexibility and reasonable accuracy if for some reason I need to use something other than my Mac Pro and 30" monitor to post-process/edit the digital images coming out of my cameras.

We all have different needs and expectations. For my friend, a new 20" iMac would fit the bill. For me it would not....

 

[ukmacmonster]

Maybe that's the reason people are noticing things now that they didn't before. Maybe this quality of screen is less a problem for people at smaller sizes. Curious. Or maybe designers weren't buying iMacs prior to them becoming 20" at the smallest size.

There may be something in this. I think a lot of people were caught out "upgrading" from 20" high end white iMacs to 20" low end Alu iMacs. They naturally presumed the panel would be the same and were happy with the price drop until they realised what had actually happened. Nearly caught me out too, but I checked before buying as anyone should when spending that kind of money. But I think this is the reason for so many 20" TN complaints right now.

 

[theBB]

"Dithering" is not really showing colors argument is bogus. You might as well sue movie theaters and TV manufacturers or broadcasters, as what they are showing is only the illusion of motion while they are actually displaying just 30 disjointed pictures a second or so and your brain gets fooled into "seeing" the motion. As long as your brain can get fooled into seeing these colors or the motion without giving you a headache, it does not matter.

For me, it is not the dithering that makes these 20'' iMacs worse than the previous generations or the new 24'' ones. The new 20'' ones have noticeable color shift when you move your head up or down slightly and gets worse as that angle changes more. (Somehow looking from the side does not make any difference.) The white iMacs were very good. The colors did not shift at all when viewed even from extreme angles. That means when the user is editing a picture, somebody standing up next to me will see different and lighter colors. I'd prefer matte screen, but reflective glass would be OK if the colors were not changing so much.

 

[jmmtn4aj]

And arent you both trying to regulate what Im saying in the thread? Hypocrisy at its best.

Thank god you don't write the law system of any government :O

Every government that advertises individual freedom also imposes controls that stop the inhibition of freedom by a person or persons on another person or persons, you might have heard of it, it's called the justice system. And the people who break these freedoms may be recognisable to you too, rapists, murderers, wife-beaters and so on.. In a way, it wouldn't be democratic at all to punish someone and inhibit his freedom to do whatever it is he or she is doing, until you take into consideration the effect that action has on others. And that makes it justifiable to limit certain freedoms. An example is putting a man in jail for keeping a slave in his basement, i.e removing or limiting the freedom of one party to grant the freedom of another. Would you call the justice system hypocritical?

Basically what I'm trying to say is he took the piss out of you so that you can, in the future, stop taking the piss out of others. Hypocrisy?

 

[theBB]

She has limited desk/workstation space, she doesn't need a zillion colors because of doing photographic or other graphics-intensive work on the machine, and for her the current 20" offering or whatever is available at the time she's ready to replace her G5 iMac will undoubtedly fulfill her needs quite nicely.

I don't know. I infrequently edit photos and I print pictures even more rarely. I am not even that picky. I would not care if the pictures I happen to print were slightly more or less saturated than what I see on screen, but green turning into yellow or gray turning into black bothers me. I want to be able to show a bunch of people some pictures without worrying about them seeing washed out colors if they are standing up.

I hope by the time I want to replace my current iMac, Apple will go back to better screens for 20'' iMacs, as Mini is underpowered and Mac Pro with a good screen combination is too expensive for me.

 

[czachorski]

See, it's this weird evasive behavior that is going to get Apple into trouble. I'm not saying they're doing it on purpose, but it sure does look intentional. It just looks like they're intentionally obfuscating the issue for marketing purposes. I don't understand why they don't include the full specs about the displays on the iMac pages.

I hear what you are saying, but the argument runs a little thin for me, when the quality differences are so obvious, and you can't obfuscate someone looking at the screens in the store.

 

[jmmtn4aj]

The new 20'' ones have noticeable color shift when you move your head up or down slightly and gets worse as that angle changes more. (Somehow looking from the side does not make any difference.) The white iMacs were very good. The colors did not shift at all when viewed even from extreme angles. That means when the user is editing a picture, somebody standing up next to me will see different and lighter colors.

So basically you prefer the 8-bit 178deg MVA/PVA/IPS panels to TNs

 

[ukmacmonster]

I hope by the time I want to replace my current iMac, Apple will go back to better screens for 20'' iMacs, as Mini is underpowered and Mac Pro with a good screen combination is too expensive for me.

I'd be willing to bet my house this is never going to happen. 20" displays are now considered low end (for iMacs at least). In another few years when the top range iMac is 30", you'll be lucky to still see a high quality 24" option and the 20" will probably not even exist. Waiting for a higher quality 20" iMac will be like waiting for them to release a 17" iMac i.e it won't happen. It's like cars, newer generation models get bigger and bigger!

 

[decksnap]

The problem with calling the 20" 'low-end' is that it is only the low-end of the iMac – Apple still positions its brand at the high end of the market as a whole, so a 'low-end' iMac should still be on the higher end of the spectrum overall. And unfortunately these screens are absolute crap.

 

[theBB]

So basically you prefer the 8-bit 178deg MVA/PVA/IPS panels to TNs

I am trying to say that spec numbers are meaningless. Who comes up with these viewing angle values? If these numbers were meaningful, I'd say 178 degrees vs. 168 degrees would not matter at all. Who looks at a monitor at 168 degrees, let alone 178? However, in reality the consistent color range seems more than 100 degrees for 24'' screen and something like 30 degrees for the 20'' now.

I'd be willing to bet my house this is never going to happen. 20" displays are now considered low end (for iMacs at least). In another few years when the top range iMac is 30", you'll be lucky to still see a high quality 24" option and the 20" will probably not even exist. Waiting for a higher quality 20" iMac will be like waiting for them to release a 17" iMac i.e it won't happen. It's like cars, newer generation models get bigger and bigger!

Yeah, that's what I am afraid of. I'd still keep my house out of the bidding, just in case.

I don't need a 24'' screen, and as you said who knows how long it will stay high quality, so it seems I'll be joining the chorus of people begging for headless iMac, aka Apple mini tower. It is a pity, as I like the compact footprint of iMacs.

 

[ukmacmonster]

I don't need a 24'' screen, and as you said who knows how long it will stay high quality, so it seems I'll be joining the chorus of people begging for headless iMac, aka Apple mini tower. It is a pity, as I like the compact footprint of iMacs.

I don't NEED a 24" screen either, but at least the latest 24" is no more expensive than the old white 20". I'm not sure why 20" should be considered an optimum size? I remember thinking the 17" was ideal, but things move on.