New iMacs in retail system; 3G iPhone redesign rumor; 3G's "D-Day"

1246

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 102
    abster2coreabster2core Posts: 2,501member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Let me add a few things to this.



    The first is that very few people are actually bothered by the glare (usually very small) that may occur from a glossy screen. Once the screen is turned on, most of the glare is washed out from the even brighter image.



    Secondly, usually a small reposition of the computer will eliminate most, or all of the glare. Some people insist that it must be exactly in the position they want it to be, and refuse to adjust, even a little bit. That's bad. Some accommodation should be made, if required.



    Thirdly (is that a word?). Those of us who have done major color correction over the decades really prefer a glossy screen, though it's more difficult to get one today, because there are no longer small manufacturers who make their own as we had in the days of the crt monitor. Any photo work should be done with the lights down, or even off anyway. If not, then a shield around the monitor is a must, EVEN WITH A MATTE SCREEN!!! Sorry for the caps, but that emphasis is required.



    The reason is the matte screens are even MORE affected by ambient light than are gloss screens, people just don't realize it.



    Oh, and the information in the article about polarizing matte screens is basically wrong. Very few matte screens are anything but. They are just matte. But many glossy screens have anti glare coatings. There're thinking about the old days, when we could get a separate screen that would fit over the glossy glass, and would have some sort of polarizing surface.



    Concur 100%!
  • Reply 62 of 102
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,475member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post


    Concur 100%!



    At least that's one!
  • Reply 63 of 102
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    I'm pretty sure most prospective iphone buyers already have an ipod, making that argument moot. Even though the iphone is a fantastic device and well worth the money, it is still a lot of money.



    I don't think the argument is moot. Only if they've bought an ipod recently (in which case they are fairly cavalier with their money) is the argument moot. If you buy an iphone, you can hold off buying another ipod for the duration that the phone works.
  • Reply 64 of 102
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Let me add a few things to this.



    The first is that very few people are actually bothered by the glare (usually very small) that may occur from a glossy screen. Once the screen is turned on, most of the glare is washed out from the even brighter image.



    The assertion that a glossy screen makes the image brighter doesn't make much sense.



    As far as I'm concerned, desktop displays are more than bright enough anyway.
  • Reply 65 of 102
    inkswampinkswamp Posts: 337member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Let me add a few things to this.



    The first is that very few people are actually bothered by the glare (usually very small) that may occur from a glossy screen. Once the screen is turned on, most of the glare is washed out from the even brighter image.



    People love to say that, but history contradicts what you're asserting. There was once an entire side industry producing monitor hoods and anti-glare coatings and the like in the mid-90s. And in fact, toward the end of the CRT days circa 2000, the screens were produced with anti-glare finishes which reduced glare but didn't even come close to the lack of glare on matte screens. To insist that "very few people" are bothered by glare and reflection is to ignore a significant problem in the history of computing.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Secondly, usually a small reposition of the computer will eliminate most, or all of the glare. Some people insist that it must be exactly in the position they want it to be, and refuse to adjust, even a little bit. That's bad. Some accommodation should be made, if required.



    Great for laptops, not so great for desktop machines. And since when did Apple start producing products that forced the user to work its way instead of the other way around? I don't have that short a memory. That was once a big bragging point for Mac users which is that the machine and OS were designed to stay out of your way. But now, the defense is that you must reposition a machine to get around its shortcomings. Huh.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Thirdly (is that a word?). Those of us who have done major color correction over the decades really prefer a glossy screen, though it's more difficult to get one today, because there are no longer small manufacturers who make their own as we had in the days of the crt monitor. Any photo work should be done with the lights down, or even off anyway. If not, then a shield around the monitor is a must, EVEN WITH A MATTE SCREEN!!! Sorry for the caps, but that emphasis is required.



    That's absolutely laughable. I've never seen anyone with anti-glare products on a matte screen. Have you? And I can only assume you've never done color correction in a professional or production environment then--or your had very low standards where you worked. The glossy screens are over-saturated by design. Someone with the right background can color correct by the numbers, but there's simply no replacement for accurate on-screen color reproduction. And your logic is weird. Yes, matte screens are worse for color accuracy than the old CRTs (although they've made huge strides in the last couple years) but that wasn't because of the glossy finish on the CRTs. I hope that's not what you're saying because that's ludicrous.
  • Reply 66 of 102
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,475member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    The assertion that a glossy screen makes the image brighter doesn't make much sense.



    As far as I'm concerned, desktop displays are more than bright enough anyway.



    I didn't say it makes it brighter.
  • Reply 67 of 102
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,475member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by inkswamp View Post


    People love to say that, but history contradicts what you're asserting. There was once an entire side industry producing monitor hoods and anti-glare coatings and the like in the mid-90s. And in fact, toward the end of the CRT days circa 2000, the screens were produced with anti-glare finishes which reduced glare but didn't even come close to the lack of glare on matte screens. To insist that "very few people" are bothered by glare and reflection is to ignore a significant problem in the history of computing.



    It doesn't contradict anything I was saying.



    For high end color and prepress work, what I said was, and is, true.



    For everyday work in an office environment, the situation is different. There, you have large scale overhead fluorescent lighting that can't be managed. Anything done to minimize that problem was done. contrast, saturation, etc wasn't an issue. no one cared. It wasn't important.



    Quote:

    Great for laptops, not so great for desktop machines. And since when did Apple start producing products that forced the user to work its way instead of the other way around? I don't have that short a memory. That was once a big bragging point for Mac users which is that the machine and OS were designed to stay out of your way. But now, the defense is that you must reposition a machine to get around its shortcomings. Huh.



    I think that it's interesting that glossy monitors have become much more popular than matte ones. Where ther are choices in the PC world, many more people are choosing the glossy.



    Apple, as usual, is going the way they think the majority of their customers will go.



    Repositioning a machine was ALWAYS required, matte, or glossy, if you wanted the best situation. If you don't, then don't.



    But I'm talking about better amateur, or professional, work habits. Those are different from the average person, who just wants to see the screen without too much of a problem.



    Quote:

    That's absolutely laughable. I've never seen anyone with anti-glare products on a matte screen. Have you? And I can only assume you've never done color correction in a professional or production environment then--or your had very low standards where you worked. The glossy screens are over-saturated by design. Someone with the right background can color correct by the numbers, but there's simply no replacement for accurate on-screen color reproduction. And your logic is weird. Yes, matte screens are worse for color accuracy than the old CRTs (although they've made huge strides in the last couple years) but that wasn't because of the glossy finish on the CRTs. I hope that's not what you're saying because that's ludicrous.



    What are you talking about? You're speaking junk here. I didn't say what you've just said. I DID say that matte screens have NO antiglare coatings other than the matte. But, I still do have a slip-on screen for my old Barco (which is gone), that has an anti-glare surface on the front, with coatings on the rear as well. It was only to be used for specific purposes, not for color correction.



    You question my background, but from what you're saying, it doesn't even seem as though you have one, perhaps you've read a few things about it?



    Yes, we can correct by the numbers, and sometimes that was a requirement, but not normally. A proper profiled monitor IS a requirement.



    There's also why PS, and other color correction software have setting to allow one to lower the saturation of the screen. Think about it. It will come to you.



    I've been doing soft proofing for quite a while. Too bad that today, even the best monitors lose something there.



    But, then, even the best LCD's are terrible anyway.
  • Reply 68 of 102
    abster2coreabster2core Posts: 2,501member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    IBut, then, even the best LCD's are terrible anyway.



    Keep hanging in there. Although I am not sure how one can ever argue with those that just argue for arguments sake, and can't read to boot.



    However, I would suggest that the best LCD's, of which Apple's are, are pretty damn good. Best CRT we had were by Radius (Precision Color, I think) which if I recalled were near the 4 grand each. Bought my first Radius, i.e., Full Page Dispay in 1987 for my Mac Plus. Bought a few more right up to System 6 or 7 which wouldn't drive the Pivot.



    Here is a great article (http://www.screentekinc.com/pixelbright-lcds.shtml) that everybody should read.



    Again, I will be going back to gloss. It give me the best of both worlds, i.e., beauty and practicality. I can always adjust the glare or reflection one way or another. Can't do that with a matte finish.
  • Reply 69 of 102
    mzaslovemzaslove Posts: 519member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post


    were by Radius (Precision Color, I think) which if I recalled were near the 4 grand each. Bought my first Radius, i.e., Full Page Dispay in 1987 for my Mac Plus. Bought a few more right up to System 6 or 7 which wouldn't drove the Pivot.



    Man, those Radius monitors were killer (and the Pivot was particularly fun). I haven't thought about those in years!
  • Reply 70 of 102
    abster2coreabster2core Posts: 2,501member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mzaslove View Post


    Man, those Radius monitors were killer (and the Pivot was particularly fun). I haven't thought about those in years!



    Yep. Another great product by the guys from Apple.
  • Reply 71 of 102
    inkswampinkswamp Posts: 337member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post


    Keep hanging in there. Although I am not sure how one can ever argue with those that just argue for arguments sake, and can't read to boot.



    You know, I try my best to steer clear of ad hominem comments when discussing this subject both here and on MacRumors, and it's amazing how often people come back with personal or insulting comments in response. I guess criticizing Apple on an Apple site is just unacceptable and everything they do is 100% perfect every single time.
  • Reply 72 of 102
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,475member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post


    Keep hanging in there. Although I am not sure how one can ever argue with those that just argue for arguments sake, and can't read to boot.



    However, I would suggest that the best LCD's, of which Apple's are, are pretty damn good. Best CRT we had were by Radius (Precision Color, I think) which if I recalled were near the 4 grand each. Bought my first Radius, i.e., Full Page Dispay in 1987 for my Mac Plus. Bought a few more right up to System 6 or 7 which wouldn't drive the Pivot.



    Here is a great article (http://www.screentekinc.com/pixelbright-lcds.shtml) that everybody should read.



    Again, I will be going back to gloss. It give me the best of both worlds, i.e., beauty and practicality. I can always adjust the glare or reflection one way or another. Can't do that with a matte finish.



    The problem with LCD's, and the problem that I mean when I say they're terrible, is the viewing angle.



    Even the best have a very narrow angle. All this nonsense about 170 or 178 degrees is wrong.



    What they mean is not that the color, or contrast, or density, doesn't change over that angle, but that for most people looking at the screen for no critical purpose, it will be *ok*.



    Look at your monitor from the very center, and then look to the sides without moving your head. You'll see the sides become increasingly darker, and usually more yellow. Not good for color work at all. You have to move your head from side to side to keep the area you're looking at at a 90 degree angle to your head.



    Problems vertically as well. And it varies from the top to the bottom of the screen.



    This is true even for the best units we commonly use. Even the Ezio, and other expensive models, have this problem.



    The bigger the monitor, the worse it is. Apple's 30" model is very bad in this respect, but it can't be helped because all LCD's use polarization to function.



    We never had these problems with CRTs.



    I just can't wait for OLEDS.



    OOPS!



    I just looked at the article. Yes, it's pretty good.



    I was going to mention the diffusion from INSIDE the screen, but I see they did so. This is part of the problem of matte screens that most people don't know about.



    Everyone has seen plastic rods that glow with light that's entering from one end. The sides of the tubes are matte, and glow from the light diffusing through that matte surface. But, take a polished tube instead, and there is no light coming out the sides except for the little that bounces off the dirt and imperfections.



    That's what happens with monitors also.
  • Reply 73 of 102
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,475member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by inkswamp View Post


    You know, I try my best to steer clear of ad hominem comments when discussing this subject both here and on MacRumors, and it's amazing how often people come back with personal or insulting comments in response. I guess criticizing Apple on an Apple site is just unacceptable and everything they do is 100% perfect every single time.



    It isn't a matter of criticizing Apple. I do it all the time.
  • Reply 74 of 102
    nasseraenasserae Posts: 3,153member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    But it's not about replacing the battery when it doesn't accept a charge, although that can be a benefit if you have a defective battery, just turn in the battery and you're not without a phone for a week like you would be with an ipod or iphone. It's about having a spare battery when the charge goes away so you can get your 24 hours of operation with two spare batteries rather than saddling everyone with a 1" thick phone for capacity they don't need like you want here:







    And you'd be able to pop in a spare in a few seconds rather than babysitting a wall charger for an hour.



    I know there are some benefits to having a sealed case too, but I wouldn't ignore what I think should be obvious benefits to having a removeable battery as well.



    You don't have to wait a week for replacing your iPhone battery. Apple will provide you with a loaner iPhone until you get yours back. I think it is much easier to carry AA battery operated USB charger or battery life extender. You don't have to shutdown you phone, open your battery cover, remove the battery, put new battery, place the cover again, turn on your phone, wait for signal. Furthermore, loose batteries in your pocket is not a good idea.
  • Reply 75 of 102
    sybariticsybaritic Posts: 340member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by inkswamp View Post


    The glossy screens are over-saturated by design.



    I agree with inkswamp. And this is precisely the strength of?and problem with?the glossy screens on the current iMac lineup. As I have said elsewhere, the screens make for great eye-candy?and they make for wonderful presentations?but they are difficult to use (in comparison with high quality CRTs and high quality matte screens) for accurate color output for print.



    I am not alone in making this assessment. Similar remarks abound from people within the design industry. For this very reason, Apple has kept a matte and glossy option on the high end of the portable line (MBP), but NOT on the Macbook and MBA. I expect that we will see matte return as an option for the iMac simply because many designers love the all-in-one elegance of the iMac but are ambivalent about the glossy screen.
  • Reply 76 of 102
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sybaritic View Post


    I agree with inkswamp. And this is precisely the strength of?and problem with?the glossy screens on the current iMac lineup. As I have said elsewhere, the screens make for great eye-candy?and they make for wonderful presentations?but they are difficult to use (in comparison with high quality CRTs and high quality matte screens) for accurate color output for print.



    I am not alone in making this assessment. Similar remarks abound from people within the design industry. For this very reason, Apple has kept a matte and glossy option on the high end of the portable line (MBP), but NOT on the Macbook and MBA. I expect that we will see matte return as an option for the iMac simply because many designers love the all-in-one elegance of the iMac but are ambivalent about the glossy screen.



    a mid range desktop will be better.
  • Reply 77 of 102
    sennensennen Posts: 1,465member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Joe_the_dragon View Post


    a mid range desktop will be better.



    lol, the answer to everything. oh, and a better graphics card.
  • Reply 78 of 102
    abster2coreabster2core Posts: 2,501member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    That's what happens with monitors also.



    Here is another good article. http://americanprinter.com/mag/lcd_vs_crt_0305_1/



    In my studio we used Radius, LaCie, and Apple (21" plus) CRTs, all glassed plated. Reflection or glare, if any, never a problem that that could not be eliminated by tilting the monitors and/or controlling the light source.



    Heck, all the Blue LaCies had hoods. Talk about a narrow angle of view; great for warding off prying eyes.
  • Reply 79 of 102
    pbpb Posts: 4,233member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by inkswamp View Post


    On top of that, the drop in display quality from the previous generation iMac was readily apparent (at least to my eyes.) It looked like a cheap third-party display. Very sad.



    True for the 20" model but not true for the 24" one. Unless you talk about the iMacs to be soon released and which I have yet to see.
  • Reply 80 of 102
    pbpb Posts: 4,233member
    What's up with you guys today? This rumor is about iMacs too, and after 2 pages we see them barely discussed. OK, I am probably an exception since the i-x-z-Phone means nothing to me. But even so, we are Mac users after all.... Mostly...



    So... any more precise word on what is coming? The iMac specifications are mostly OK with the exception of the GPU that needs some serious kick in the b***. Will Apple give it? That's the question for me.
Sign In or Register to comment.