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.
who DIDN'T get a dud aluminum imac??
- Thread starter lechon
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think you need to go back and check what "not have any" means, when you go on to say that it will have some. You ridicule others for using similar language, and then do it yourself. Too funny.
The microscopic part is your opinion and guess. It seems to me that the microscopic effect will get larger as the angle gets bigger. When people are taking photos from just a few feet away with such a large screen, that angle is large.
I'm willing to consider the effect may be minor, but not with the highly subjective and opinionated answer you gave. If you are so sure you're right, show us with something other than your opinion and guesses.
Besides refraction, are you also claiming that the glass will have a microscopic effect in all regards on the ability of a photo to accurately capture the screen luminosity? It seems like there would be other effects resulting from capturing an image of light generated behind a piece of glass.
So I just conducted an experiment. Using the same settings on the camera (bumping the exposure down 1 notch per Leon's instructions), I took another photo at a closer distance to the screen so the monitor took up the full frame. See images below of one from 6 feet away, and the one from about 2 feet away. Notice the distortion in the 2nd one.
Are you still going to claim that there is no distortion introduced from the glass, the camera, or some other effect, that gets much worse depending on the camera distance and resulting angle to the edges of the screen? There is something going on. If anyone is in denial around here regarding the screen it is Leon. Denial that most screens are probably just fine. Denial that the method of photographing a screen can have a significant effect on how the screen looks in a photo.
I'd love to see you blame it on the screen itself too. I suppose next you are going to claim that my monitor really looks like that when I sit 2 feet from it.
Are you still going to claim that there is no distortion introduced from the glass, the camera, or some other effect, that gets much worse depending on the camera distance and resulting angle to the edges of the screen? There is something going on. If anyone is in denial around here regarding the screen it is Leon. Denial that most screens are probably just fine. Denial that the method of photographing a screen can have a significant effect on how the screen looks in a photo.
I'd love to see you blame it on the screen itself too. I suppose next you are going to claim that my monitor really looks like that when I sit 2 feet from it.
It's called "aliasing" -- and has absolutely nothing to do with "refraction"
or "magical photons" acting differently for glass versus protein lenses.
You picked a distance where the pixel-spacing of the screen-image at
the camera's focal plane almost matches the pixel-spacing of the
camera's CCD (or a small integer multiple thereof).
Solution: Don't do that! Soften the focus and/or move the camera 2".
...we now return you to the "photography is a sham" thread,
LK
Leon, I would love to hear your professional opinion about the effect that the black border has on our perception of a gradient. I know there are many other factors that have changed between the previous 24in iMac and this one, but the black vs. white border could be a bit influence on this perception. Personally, I think you've got an opponent process thing going on, which tends to play havoc with the light receptors in the eye. Look up the term "lateral inhibition" and see if it helps explain things.
The physiology of "image processsing" in the brain is way outa my ballpark;
but it's hard to imagine how a symmetrical black border around the entire
screen could cause perceived top-to-bottom or left-to-right non-uniformites.
A "border effect" would be a 'more comfortable' explanation if the perceived
non-uniformities had a predominantly radial (center-to-edge) character. I'm
not dismissing that possibility -- just sayin' a non-symmetrical illusion would
be a surprise.
Wll do. That sounds very interesting, thanks for the pointer.
LK
Quote:
Personally, I think you've got an opponent process thing going on, which tends
to play havoc with the light receptors in the eye. up the term "lateral inhibition"
and see if it helps explain things.
Wow, there's a first!
Here, allow me to assist:
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/latinhib.html
Fascinating stuff, DerKommissar. Thank you.
Personally, I think you've got an opponent process thing going on, which tends
to play havoc with the light receptors in the eye. up the term "lateral inhibition"
and see if it helps explain things.
Wow, there's a first!
Here, allow me to assist:
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/latinhib.html
Fascinating stuff, DerKommissar. Thank you.
Stand in front of an ordinary glass window and gaze out upon your planet.
Is it dark around the edges? ...any noticable vignetting?
...sheesh!
LK
no, and neither is my screen, but when you take a photo of it, things change. You got a problem with forming theories for discussion? Sheesh.
Wow - so the method with which the photo is taken can affect the photo. Glad to hear you finally admit it after what must be by now 100's of posts by you to the contrary.
And what do ya know - that effect happens to occur at just about the distance where the screen fills the photo frame - probably the most common distance that people are going to take a photo from of their screen. What an amazing coincidence. So there just might be a huge bias when it comes to taking photos of the screen. Gee - that's been my point for about 3 months now. Welcome to October, Leon. This wouldn't be quite so sweet for me, if not for the huge ass you have made of yourself these last 3 months as we were exploring different theories to explain it.
Now back to the "everything Leon says is sham" thread.
What's funny about the situation you have put yourself in is that you obviously have the knowledge about cameras, sensors and lenses to know that this bias exists in photos and exactly what causes it, but you never pointed it out because you knew it would make your claim that all iMacs have bad screens fall right apart. Gee Leon, I wonder why you were calling for one single person to post a photograph of an iMac with a good screen a few months ago to "prove" that all iMacs have bad screens???? Could it be because you knew that this effect would cause a significant bias in most photos and artificially make the screens look worse than they are, just to "prove" your claim, and spread fear, uncertainty and doubt without merit regarding the screens? You have made yourself and your claims look like a sham.
Now the truth finally gets smoked out and all that's left that you can do is try to make it out like the rest of us have made up some "phantastical photo-phobic photons" when the real effect was known by you all along, and you just refused to point it out, in order to advance your agenda.
You're the only one skewing the truth around here. Your last post proves it and how desperate you have gotten in your claims. You are the worst kind of Troll.
Devlishly clever of all them camera makers to build-in aluminum
iMac detection systems. They even switch the "inaccuracy mode"
from horizontal to vertical depending on the iMac model number.
Gyro-stabilized, too! No matter which way you turn the camera,
they maintain a rock-steady gradient orientation and intensity.
...very cool!
LK
No, the 20" vertical gradient is real - the quality of the panel seems to create this in every 20" if you know what to look for. The 24" horizontal gradient issue does not exist on every one - it exists on some. The only place where it exists on every one is your head.
Come on - you seem to know everything. Seems like you would be able to figure this out by now.
Just got on these boards to find out what to do about the tinted screens.
Unfortunately, my new Imac24 also has a very bad tint in the center of the screen and a noticable left to right gradient. I am going to have it replaced with a new machine. I called AC and officially they don´t know anything about the issue, told me to reset Pram.Great.
Unfortunately, my new Imac24 also has a very bad tint in the center of the screen and a noticable left to right gradient. I am going to have it replaced with a new machine. I called AC and officially they don´t know anything about the issue, told me to reset Pram.Great.
I don't know about 'worst'. He's definitely the most prolific, sarcastic, annoying, self-important, pompous and verbose troll.
OK, he's the worst.
However, rest assured as delusional as he is he is not winning many fans nor any arguments outside of his own fantasy world.
Our 2GHz Al iMac in the TV Production lab has had no problems so far, coming up on 4 months old.
I'd love to see a real constructive version of one of these threads, instead of the usual "Leon spots it, wades in and starts ranting, and it turns into a flamewar" pattern I think that's probably why people are sick of them.
Anyway.
20" here, no problems.
It does have a TN panel, which are all known to be a little more washed out towards the bottom for very light colours (such as some of the boxes on this forum software or the blue lines in iTunes). It's a little more noticeable due to the glossy screen. But, hand on heart, it actually seems to have evened out over the first 30 days or so, and I VERY rarely notice it unless actually looking for it. It's a characteristic anyway, not a flaw, though I must admit it wasn't the ideal choice by Apple.
Other than that, which is not a fault, it's flawless It's never frozen once, works brilliantly.
Edit: There is a graphical interference fuzz (feint diagonal moving lines) and slight pinstripe effects under Windows and Linux on certain colours only. God knows why. It works fine in OS X, so definitely a firmware/driver thing IMO.
I think that's probably why people are sick of them.Anyway.
20" here, no problems.
It does have a TN panel, which are all known to be a little more washed out towards the bottom for very light colours (such as some of the boxes on this forum software or the blue lines in iTunes). It's a little more noticeable due to the glossy screen. But, hand on heart, it actually seems to have evened out over the first 30 days or so, and I VERY rarely notice it unless actually looking for it. It's a characteristic anyway, not a flaw, though I must admit it wasn't the ideal choice by Apple.
Other than that, which is not a fault, it's flawless
It's never frozen once, works brilliantly.Edit: There is a graphical interference fuzz (feint diagonal moving lines) and slight pinstripe effects under Windows and Linux on certain colours only. God knows why. It works fine in OS X, so definitely a firmware/driver thing IMO.
