Dude. Does anyone know the term "gamut"? There is defdinitely room for improvement in the color gamut of the current iMac display. Anyone have a better diagram than the one below? I'd read about it. Stoked for an iMac with better range of colors.
I tried the 27 incher in the Apple store and I really had to move my head in an awkward position to avoid staring in the humongous screen. Not so much with the 21.5 inch display.
I tried the 27 incher in the Apple store and I really had to move my head in an awkward position to avoid staring in the humongous screen. Not so much with the 21.5 inch display.
It sounds like you're wanting the iMac to be treated as a professional-level machine, when in reality it is not, and never has been. Your issues with it are exactly what the Mac Pro is meant to address.
Most iMac users will never crank-up their machines to fan-blasting levels consistently. Sure, there may be the occasional one, but should Apple engineer the systems to address the 1-2% of those times? I don't think so.
I agree. Use the Mac Pro.
I did some global illumination calculations in a 3D package, and it lit up all the cores like a Christmas tree, and still took several hours to finish. Also, FCPX will use the cores & GPU during edits and transitions requiring rendering, as well as transcoding. The Mac Pro is the right tool for those jobs, and then some.
It sounds like you're wanting the iMac to be treated as a professional-level machine, when in reality it is not, and never has been. Your issues with it are exactly what the Mac Pro is meant to address.
I occasionally get the fans going on my 2009 iMac when I'm working on some serious photography edits in Lightroom and Photoshop. That's maybe once every week or two. All the other times, it's used as my workstation for coding. Completely acceptable to me. On those rare occasions I play a video game on it (rare), it takes quite a bit to get those fans going. At least Apple makes a concerted effort to make the fans as quite as possible.
You do realize that your 2009 iMac is a lot thicker and has a lot more cooling room than the current model right? Because you use your iMac almost exclusively for coding and have no heat issues means everyone else has the same use case scenario? You could use an iPad or the new MacBook for coding. Also, "getting the fans going" while using Lightroom or Photoshop isn't really a glowing endorsement for the iMacs heat dissipation. Just saying.
It is related to peripheral vision. Although offering a less immersive experience than the 27 inch iMac, the smaller iMac is gentler to your vision because you have the borders (of the screen) in your view. 23 inch would be the max.
Dude. Does anyone know the term "gamut"? There is defdinitely room for improvement in the color gamut of the current iMac display. Anyone have a better diagram than the one below? I'd read about it. Stoked for an iMac with better range of colors.
"Your Spyder measurements indicate that the Color Gamut is close but not accurate enough for video production. The most likely reason is that the Spyder is inaccurate because Apple most likely did a better job of accurately calibrating the monitor. The 1931 CIE Diagram that you use is highly non-uniform and obsolete," Soneira said."
The topic of wide-gamut displays recently came up again in one of the photography blogs I follow. While I personally love working on one as do many of my clients, you still have to proof images using sRGB (web) and especially CMYK for print. If printing to an 8 color printer you can be prepared to be amazed.
Depending on the majority of the work that you do and where your work will be most often consumed, you may be much better off with a properly calibrated monitor to sRGB standards D65 2.2 gamma.
Dude. Does anyone know the term "gamut"? There is defdinitely room for improvement in the color gamut of the current iMac display. Anyone have a better diagram than the one below? I'd read about it. Stoked for an iMac with better range of colors.
It won't make as much of a difference as you might hope. First off displays that are marketed as being similar in gamut to Adobe RGB have been around for roughly 5 years at this point and 2-3 in LED backlighting with one ancient LED example that goes back much further. If you don't see a loss of detail, then it's more about how close a meaningful test comes to the intended target colors and how well it preserves steps from black to white.
Think of it this way. Gamut describes your boundary points. It doesn't tell you how far measured values deviate from intended values regardless of whether they fall in or out of range.
I'll add that all of the wide gamut displays use significant dithering without exception. Some of them just do a better job and make it less noticeable.
"Most iMac users will never crank-up their machines to fan-blasting levels consistently" may not be as correct as you think. All of the people that I work with and hang with crank-up their machines all of the time. Some are playing games, others like you, are using it for Lightroom and Photoshop, others like me use it for FCPX and other software for creating DVD's and the like. Yes Martha, the DVD is far from dead. Others are multi tasking and giving their iMacs a work out. For the money, the iMac is a great professional machine for small shops like mine. I am all about cutting fan noise and I can always use additional power and better displays. I just don't see many Mac Pros at all.
True. I don't know anyone who has one, and I know at least a dozen people who in the past had PM G4/G5s.
I always assumed that because Apple didn't intro a complete system (an updated monitor to go with the canister) that a lot of businesses went with the iMac for graphic design. Video pros need the raw power but Adobe suite publishers and illustrators can get away with the iMac.
Other members already contributed to this topic, but here is my idea: how about 10-bit color? Correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I know OS X still does not support (gasp!) 10-bit color internally, while the hardware got there years ago (which means that there is already software support for it - from Windows).
I don't know why it takes Apple so long to implement the obvious for photo/video professionals (and we know iMacs are very popular among photographers), but let me dream a little.
Other members already contributed to this topic, but here is my idea: how about 10-bit color? Correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I know OS X still does not support (gasp!) 10-bit color internally, while the hardware got there years ago (which means that there is already software support for it - from Windows).
That is correct, but you need support from the display, gpu, and software. The number of people who actually use it on Windows may not be that high due to the number of requirements. Apple has a greater degree of control there due to a more limited array of hardware. They haven't shown any interest in supporting it.
Why, exactly? I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm genuinely curious. I mean, you're spending over $2,000 minimum for one of these things, but the $80 SuperDrive is going to somehow break the bank?
Comments
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2014/10/why-is-the-new-imac-5k-instead-of-4k-its-all-about-the-video-baby/
Surely you jest.
I'd love to see a 21:9 iMac with the same 13" (+/-) image height of the 27" model (but I'm just dreaming).
Well, sometimes I'd like to look away from the screen when I am in a contemplative mood. It helps me to imagine better solutions, quicker.
I tried the 27 incher in the Apple store and I really had to move my head in an awkward position to avoid staring in the humongous screen. Not so much with the 21.5 inch display.
Well, sometimes I'd like to look away from the screen when I am in a contemplative mood. It helps me to imagine better solutions, quicker.
I tried the 27 incher in the Apple store and I really had to move my head in an awkward position to avoid staring in the humongous screen. Not so much with the 21.5 inch display.
Close your eyes?
I agree. Use the Mac Pro.
I did some global illumination calculations in a 3D package, and it lit up all the cores like a Christmas tree, and still took several hours to finish. Also, FCPX will use the cores & GPU during edits and transitions requiring rendering, as well as transcoding. The Mac Pro is the right tool for those jobs, and then some.
You do realize that your 2009 iMac is a lot thicker and has a lot more cooling room than the current model right? Because you use your iMac almost exclusively for coding and have no heat issues means everyone else has the same use case scenario? You could use an iPad or the new MacBook for coding. Also, "getting the fans going" while using Lightroom or Photoshop isn't really a glowing endorsement for the iMacs heat dissipation. Just saying.
Close your eyes?
It is related to peripheral vision. Although offering a less immersive experience than the 27 inch iMac, the smaller iMac is gentler to your vision because you have the borders (of the screen) in your view. 23 inch would be the max.
source: wikipedia
I think you only looked at the picture(s).
If you would've read the article however:
"Your Spyder measurements indicate that the Color Gamut is close but not accurate enough for video production. The most likely reason is that the Spyder is inaccurate because Apple most likely did a better job of accurately calibrating the monitor. The 1931 CIE Diagram that you use is highly non-uniform and obsolete," Soneira said."
The topic of wide-gamut displays recently came up again in one of the photography blogs I follow. While I personally love working on one as do many of my clients, you still have to proof images using sRGB (web) and especially CMYK for print. If printing to an 8 color printer you can be prepared to be amazed.
Depending on the majority of the work that you do and where your work will be most often consumed, you may be much better off with a properly calibrated monitor to sRGB standards D65 2.2 gamma.
Dude. Does anyone know the term "gamut"? There is defdinitely room for improvement in the color gamut of the current iMac display. Anyone have a better diagram than the one below? I'd read about it. Stoked for an iMac with better range of colors.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2014/10/why-is-the-new-imac-5k-instead-of-4k-its-all-about-the-video-baby/
It won't make as much of a difference as you might hope. First off displays that are marketed as being similar in gamut to Adobe RGB have been around for roughly 5 years at this point and 2-3 in LED backlighting with one ancient LED example that goes back much further. If you don't see a loss of detail, then it's more about how close a meaningful test comes to the intended target colors and how well it preserves steps from black to white.
Think of it this way. Gamut describes your boundary points. It doesn't tell you how far measured values deviate from intended values regardless of whether they fall in or out of range.
I'll add that all of the wide gamut displays use significant dithering without exception. Some of them just do a better job and make it less noticeable.
I have a 64K Apple II, pushed up to that 64 level w/after market accessories.
Ran my Company of 115 employees and 3,500 customers a day with it.
Is there any chance of a 23 inch iMac with retina display?
21.5 inch is a tad too small, 27 inch way too big.
I still have my 24 inch iMac from 1999 for this very reason.
I just don't see many Mac Pros at all.
True. I don't know anyone who has one, and I know at least a dozen people who in the past had PM G4/G5s.
I always assumed that because Apple didn't intro a complete system (an updated monitor to go with the canister) that a lot of businesses went with the iMac for graphic design. Video pros need the raw power but Adobe suite publishers and illustrators can get away with the iMac.
I still have my 24 inch iMac from 1999 for this very reason.
What are you talking about? iMacs at that time were only 15".
How do you get "much better" than a 5K display?
Other members already contributed to this topic, but here is my idea: how about 10-bit color? Correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I know OS X still does not support (gasp!) 10-bit color internally, while the hardware got there years ago (which means that there is already software support for it - from Windows).
I don't know why it takes Apple so long to implement the obvious for photo/video professionals (and we know iMacs are very popular among photographers), but let me dream a little.
Other members already contributed to this topic, but here is my idea: how about 10-bit color? Correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I know OS X still does not support (gasp!) 10-bit color internally, while the hardware got there years ago (which means that there is already software support for it - from Windows).
That is correct, but you need support from the display, gpu, and software. The number of people who actually use it on Windows may not be that high due to the number of requirements. Apple has a greater degree of control there due to a more limited array of hardware. They haven't shown any interest in supporting it.
I want a new iMac c/w built in dvd optical drive.
Why, exactly? I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm genuinely curious. I mean, you're spending over $2,000 minimum for one of these things, but the $80 SuperDrive is going to somehow break the bank?