I have to say for a "defective" screen, this thing is gorgeous. It makes my old 2001FP look like dirt next to it (nothing like a new monitor to make you realize how dim your old one was!).
Using this machine I doubt anyone would notice the backlight isn't even - I just did a couple Aperture tutorials and I wouldn't actually know if I hadn't checked the screen previously. It is actually really easy on the eyes - it is amazingly bright, but stays nice at dimmer levels. It is crystal clear which is something the glossy screen really highlights.
I'm really happy with my purchase overall - can't wait to actually do some work on it.
Calling the 24" defective is a bit hyperbolic. It's a very good screen and if I buy an iMac it's certainly going to be a 24" for the IPS screen.
I don't think i'm all that excited about OLED. I think if it had promise as a larger format TV it would have been here by now. I'm hoping Sony can turn FED into the next Trinitron
I have to say for a "defective" screen, this thing is gorgeous. It makes my old 2001FP look like dirt next to it (nothing like a new monitor to make you realize how dim your old one was!).
Using this machine I doubt anyone would notice the backlight isn't even - I just did a couple Aperture tutorials and I wouldn't actually know if I hadn't checked the screen previously. It is actually really easy on the eyes - it is amazingly bright, but stays nice at dimmer levels. It is crystal clear which is something the glossy screen really highlights.
I'm really happy with my purchase overall - can't wait to actually do some work on it.
Are people who are dismissing the whole "defective" screen issue using 20-inch iMacs?
I know that the issue has been more prevalent with the 20-inch models than 24-inch models, and I really do hope that the "defects" are not as noticeable as the angry guys on other forums are claiming to be. I live abroad where test driving a Mac is a rare luxury, so I haven't been able to see for myself what kind of screen the 20-inch iMacs are sporting.
I guess going from a 3year-old iBook to a brand new iMac will be an amazing upgrade for me, but I am a student and the purchase is right from my pockets, so the amount is pretty hefty for me. Needless to say, I am trying to get everything to be perfect if I am going to shell out a major sum.
When do you guys rekon the next refresh for iMac will take place? I heard November is the month. Do you think it will be worth the wait, though?
Are people who are dismissing the whole "defective" screen issue using 20-inch iMacs?
I know that the issue has been more prevalent with the 20-inch models than 24-inch models, and I really do hope that the "defects" are not as noticeable as the angry guys on other forums are claiming to be. I live abroad where test driving a Mac is a rare luxury, so I haven't been able to see for myself what kind of screen the 20-inch iMacs are sporting.
Problems are *never* as bad as angry people on internet forums make them out to be.
Perhaps if you had read my post, then you'd have realized that I recognize the uneven backlights as a separate problem to the glossy screen, not related.
Apple's display, has had a number of problems including uneven backlighting, dead pixels, washed-out colors, as well as a cheap gloss without any anti-glare coating or an option to at least drop the gloss for the end-users.
Apple had said somewhere that the screens had an anti-glare coating.
But on a glossy screen, this won't cut the reflections as much as it would with a matt screen. It doesn't bother most people though.
All manufacturers have screens with some dead pixels, even some of the most expensive monitors can have them. Most monitors have edge brightness problems where the backlight leaks around the edge of the LCD panel. The 24" screens definitely do not have washed out colors. You're just saying that to be more dramatic.
The only real problem is that some of these have the side to side brightness problem.
Calling the 24" defective is a bit hyperbolic. It's a very good screen and if I buy an iMac it's certainly going to be a 24" for the IPS screen.
I don't think i'm all that excited about OLED. I think if it had promise as a larger format TV it would have been here by now. I'm hoping Sony can turn FED into the next Trinitron
Samsung showed almost a couple dozen 31" OLED Tv screens at CBIT this year. that's the first time a manufacturer has shown more than one, unfinished, large panel that wasn't a laboratory sample. I do think we will see larger displays. But remember how long it took for the LCD to move from indicator size to a 14" monitor.
Are people who are dismissing the whole "defective" screen issue using 20-inch iMacs?
I know that the issue has been more prevalent with the 20-inch models than 24-inch models, and I really do hope that the "defects" are not as noticeable as the angry guys on other forums are claiming to be. I live abroad where test driving a Mac is a rare luxury, so I haven't been able to see for myself what kind of screen the 20-inch iMacs are sporting.
I guess going from a 3year-old iBook to a brand new iMac will be an amazing upgrade for me, but I am a student and the purchase is right from my pockets, so the amount is pretty hefty for me. Needless to say, I am trying to get everything to be perfect if I am going to shell out a major sum.
When do you guys rekon the next refresh for iMac will take place? I heard November is the month. Do you think it will be worth the wait, though?
Sunday night I ordered two 3.06 GHz 24" iMacs from Apple. Supposedly, they will ship between May 6th through the 8th, to arrive no later than the 14th, and perhaps as early as the 8th.
When they come, I'll relate whether they have the problem, and how serious it is, if the problem is present.
I have to say for a "defective" screen, this thing is gorgeous. It makes my old 2001FP look like dirt next to it (nothing like a new monitor to make you realize how dim your old one was!).
Using this machine I doubt anyone would notice the backlight isn't even - I just did a couple Aperture tutorials and I wouldn't actually know if I hadn't checked the screen previously. It is actually really easy on the eyes - it is amazingly bright, but stays nice at dimmer levels. It is crystal clear which is something the glossy screen really highlights.
I'm really happy with my purchase overall - can't wait to actually do some work on it.
You guyz R jest mak'in the case fer glossy screens!
I'm not sure if this was covered yet, but a recent MacRumours forum post lists the CPU-Z model numbers for these new imac chips. They aren't in any normal Intel listing and they are apparently Santa Rosa chips, not Montevina.
They may also be desktop chips, not notebook chips based on their Intel model number. Eventually the heat from desktop chips would be low enough to be used in the slim iMac. If this is the case Apple is saving a bundle on the chips, thus increasing its profit margin.
I'm not sure if this was covered yet, but a recent MacRumours forum post lists the CPU-Z model numbers for these new imac chips. They aren't in any normal Intel listing and they are apparently Santa Rosa chips, not Montevina.
They may also be desktop chips, not notebook chips based on their Intel model number. Eventually the heat from desktop chips would be low enough to be used in the slim iMac. If this is the case Apple is saving a bundle on the chips, thus increasing its profit margin.
That's the actual CPU-Z result for the 3.06GHz model, which calls itself the E8435. Now, Intel's CPU numbers actually are logical, up to a point. The E8400, for example, is a 3.0GHz desktop processor with a 1333MHz bus speed and a 65W TDP (although it actually uses much less power than that). The letter that precedes the number doesn't mean it's a desktop CPU, however- it indicates the TDP "range" that the processor falls into. CPU-Z confirms that this is a Socket P processor with the GM965 northbridge; that means it is definitely a mobile processor, not a desktop part. Though obviously that line is pretty blurry in this case.
CPU-Z confirms that this is a Socket P processor with the GM965 northbridge; that means it is definitely a mobile processor, not a desktop part. Though obviously that line is pretty blurry in this case.
I was just coming to edit my post with that info. It's a pretty interesting arrangement that Intel has with Apple.
Received my 3.06 24" iMac yesterday. The upper and lower horizontal thirds of the display are significantly brighter than the center, there are several bright patches at the top and bottom edges of the screen and the upper left quadrant is dramatically brighter than the rest of the screen.
A point that has not been mentioned here. Once you have calibrated the display on your iMac (you do calibrate, using a colorimeter, religiously, don't you?), you do NOT adjust the brightness. If you do, then the display has to be re-calibrated, because you've just screwed up the current calibration. Uneven brightness is a MAJOR issue for calibration, and if you want to get correct colors, and print them, then you WILL calibrate, or you WON'T get them.
Most folks could not care less, but for some of us, it's enough to make or break the deal. Everyone else can relax, have a cold one!
A point that has not been mentioned here. Once you have calibrated the display on your iMac (you do calibrate, using a colorimeter, religiously, don't you?), you do NOT adjust the brightness. If you do, then the display has to be re-calibrated, because you've just screwed up the current calibration. Uneven brightness is a MAJOR issue for calibration, and if you want to get correct colors, and print them, then you WILL calibrate, or you WON'T get them.
Most folks could not care less, but for some of us, it's enough to make or break the deal. Everyone else can relax, have a cold one!
I'm eagerly awaiting the two bought for my wife and daughter.
My wife's machine isn't of a concern, but my daughter, has started in photography, and uses CS3.
I'll calibrate her machine with my i1 PhotoUV, as I've done with my screens (and printers).
But, the brightness is adjusted by the software, once the illumination level is ascertained, in her case a level of about 120.
But, you're right, nothing should be changed after a profile is made. Once a month is a good interval to redo the profile.
I'm eagerly awaiting the two bought for my wife and daughter.
My wife's machine isn't of a concern, but my daughter, has started in photography, and uses CS3.
I'll calibrate her machine with my i1 PhotoUV, as I've done with my screens (and printers).
But, the brightness is adjusted by the software, once the illumination level is ascertained, in her case a level of about 120.
But, you're right, nothing should be changed after a profile is made. Once a month is a good interval to redo the profile.
BINGO! You nailed it.
What camera system is your daughter using? I use CS3, but my main post processing software is Nikon Capture NX. Of course, Leopard can be a real problem with NX, which is why I'm still on 10.4.11. Some folks can't get NX to work worth a crap under Leopard, others can but say they still have problems.
IMO, it much harder to get accurate colors from the camera using CS3 than it is using Nikon's proprietary algorithms. Plus NX has D-Lighting, which is amazing, and easy to use. Sometimes I use both programs, and CS3 is easy to use for setting up printer profiles. Believe it or not, one can get really good prints from online min-labs, IF one has the correct profile for the printer paper combo to be used. I have a local Costco that does great print work, using Fuji crystal Archive paper, and I can't even begin to print at home for the same prices.
At this point, I'll bet dollars to donuts, and them's good odds, that she shoots Canon.
What camera system is your daughter using? I use CS3, but my main post processing software is Nikon Capture NX. Of course, Leopard can be a real problem with NX, which is why I'm still on 10.4.11. Some folks can't get NX to work worth a crap under Leopard, others can but say they still have problems.
IMO, it much harder to get accurate colors from the camera using CS3 than it is using Nikon's proprietary algorithms. Plus NX has D-Lighting, which is amazing, and easy to use. Sometimes I use both programs, and CS3 is easy to use for setting up printer profiles. Believe it or not, one can get really good prints from online min-labs, IF one has the correct profile for the printer paper combo to be used. I have a local Costco that does great print work, using Fuji crystal Archive paper, and I can't even begin to print at home for the same prices.
At this point, I'll bet dollars to donuts, and them's good odds, that she shoots Canon.
Damn right. I bought her a Canon 40D with 28 to 135 IS, and the 18 to 85 IS lenses.
I currently use a Canon 5D.
Nikon has problems with all software other than its own. I've used several Nikon models for testing purposes, and their own software does give slightly better results?if you are using the straight results. But they can be made equal with a bit of touching up, which can then be saved to the camera profiles.
I have a Canon IPF5100 printer. In all my years of experience in this, I've never used a printer, at any price, including the Iris, that can give a print, even using canned profiles, that exactly matches my screen when looking at the print with my GraphicLite D50 box.
I'm amazed because even B$W comes out incredibly well. I can make slightly better profiles for some materials, but they're not much better.
This is in opposition to the Epsons, which are so nonlinear, that without good profiles, have terrible, muddy shadows, without detail, and lost highlights.
Depending on the paper used, the print prices aren't too bad, but the quality will be higher than Costco's. I just bought a roll of 17" x 100' f Canon Saten Photo paper for $50. This is a good paper, but medium weight at 100gm/M.
Better paper can cost $1.70 for 8.5 x 11. Harman is very good, and so is Ilford Galerie, which is a bit less expensive.
I just had a guy on FredMiranda ask for help with Costco. Without using their profiles, which is something I know where to get, it can be very variable. they use sRGB, as do most labs of that type, and some will throw the profiles away if their machine isn't set up properly.
I went through this with my own Agfa mini labs, the last of which was the D Lab.
Comments
I have to say for a "defective" screen, this thing is gorgeous. It makes my old 2001FP look like dirt next to it (nothing like a new monitor to make you realize how dim your old one was!).
Using this machine I doubt anyone would notice the backlight isn't even - I just did a couple Aperture tutorials and I wouldn't actually know if I hadn't checked the screen previously. It is actually really easy on the eyes - it is amazingly bright, but stays nice at dimmer levels. It is crystal clear which is something the glossy screen really highlights.
I'm really happy with my purchase overall - can't wait to actually do some work on it.
Calling the 24" defective is a bit hyperbolic. It's a very good screen and if I buy an iMac it's certainly going to be a 24" for the IPS screen.
I don't think i'm all that excited about OLED. I think if it had promise as a larger format TV it would have been here by now. I'm hoping Sony can turn FED into the next Trinitron
http://www.oled-display.info/sony-shows-fed-display
I have to say for a "defective" screen, this thing is gorgeous. It makes my old 2001FP look like dirt next to it (nothing like a new monitor to make you realize how dim your old one was!).
Using this machine I doubt anyone would notice the backlight isn't even - I just did a couple Aperture tutorials and I wouldn't actually know if I hadn't checked the screen previously. It is actually really easy on the eyes - it is amazingly bright, but stays nice at dimmer levels. It is crystal clear which is something the glossy screen really highlights.
I'm really happy with my purchase overall - can't wait to actually do some work on it.
Are people who are dismissing the whole "defective" screen issue using 20-inch iMacs?
I know that the issue has been more prevalent with the 20-inch models than 24-inch models, and I really do hope that the "defects" are not as noticeable as the angry guys on other forums are claiming to be. I live abroad where test driving a Mac is a rare luxury, so I haven't been able to see for myself what kind of screen the 20-inch iMacs are sporting.
I guess going from a 3year-old iBook to a brand new iMac will be an amazing upgrade for me, but I am a student and the purchase is right from my pockets, so the amount is pretty hefty for me. Needless to say, I am trying to get everything to be perfect if I am going to shell out a major sum.
When do you guys rekon the next refresh for iMac will take place? I heard November is the month. Do you think it will be worth the wait, though?
Are people who are dismissing the whole "defective" screen issue using 20-inch iMacs?
I know that the issue has been more prevalent with the 20-inch models than 24-inch models, and I really do hope that the "defects" are not as noticeable as the angry guys on other forums are claiming to be. I live abroad where test driving a Mac is a rare luxury, so I haven't been able to see for myself what kind of screen the 20-inch iMacs are sporting.
Problems are *never* as bad as angry people on internet forums make them out to be.
Perhaps if you had read my post, then you'd have realized that I recognize the uneven backlights as a separate problem to the glossy screen, not related.
Apple's display, has had a number of problems including uneven backlighting, dead pixels, washed-out colors, as well as a cheap gloss without any anti-glare coating or an option to at least drop the gloss for the end-users.
Apple had said somewhere that the screens had an anti-glare coating.
But on a glossy screen, this won't cut the reflections as much as it would with a matt screen. It doesn't bother most people though.
All manufacturers have screens with some dead pixels, even some of the most expensive monitors can have them. Most monitors have edge brightness problems where the backlight leaks around the edge of the LCD panel. The 24" screens definitely do not have washed out colors. You're just saying that to be more dramatic.
The only real problem is that some of these have the side to side brightness problem.
Calling the 24" defective is a bit hyperbolic. It's a very good screen and if I buy an iMac it's certainly going to be a 24" for the IPS screen.
I don't think i'm all that excited about OLED. I think if it had promise as a larger format TV it would have been here by now. I'm hoping Sony can turn FED into the next Trinitron
http://www.oled-display.info/sony-shows-fed-display
Samsung showed almost a couple dozen 31" OLED Tv screens at CBIT this year. that's the first time a manufacturer has shown more than one, unfinished, large panel that wasn't a laboratory sample. I do think we will see larger displays. But remember how long it took for the LCD to move from indicator size to a 14" monitor.
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/ce...-31/3656387519
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/ceb...lays,4948.html
Are people who are dismissing the whole "defective" screen issue using 20-inch iMacs?
I know that the issue has been more prevalent with the 20-inch models than 24-inch models, and I really do hope that the "defects" are not as noticeable as the angry guys on other forums are claiming to be. I live abroad where test driving a Mac is a rare luxury, so I haven't been able to see for myself what kind of screen the 20-inch iMacs are sporting.
I guess going from a 3year-old iBook to a brand new iMac will be an amazing upgrade for me, but I am a student and the purchase is right from my pockets, so the amount is pretty hefty for me. Needless to say, I am trying to get everything to be perfect if I am going to shell out a major sum.
When do you guys rekon the next refresh for iMac will take place? I heard November is the month. Do you think it will be worth the wait, though?
Sunday night I ordered two 3.06 GHz 24" iMacs from Apple. Supposedly, they will ship between May 6th through the 8th, to arrive no later than the 14th, and perhaps as early as the 8th.
When they come, I'll relate whether they have the problem, and how serious it is, if the problem is present.
I have to say for a "defective" screen, this thing is gorgeous. It makes my old 2001FP look like dirt next to it (nothing like a new monitor to make you realize how dim your old one was!).
Using this machine I doubt anyone would notice the backlight isn't even - I just did a couple Aperture tutorials and I wouldn't actually know if I hadn't checked the screen previously. It is actually really easy on the eyes - it is amazingly bright, but stays nice at dimmer levels. It is crystal clear which is something the glossy screen really highlights.
I'm really happy with my purchase overall - can't wait to actually do some work on it.
You guyz R jest mak'in the case fer glossy screens!
They may also be desktop chips, not notebook chips based on their Intel model number. Eventually the heat from desktop chips would be low enough to be used in the slim iMac. If this is the case Apple is saving a bundle on the chips, thus increasing its profit margin.
I'm not sure if this was covered yet, but a recent MacRumours forum post lists the CPU-Z model numbers for these new imac chips. They aren't in any normal Intel listing and they are apparently Santa Rosa chips, not Montevina.
They may also be desktop chips, not notebook chips based on their Intel model number. Eventually the heat from desktop chips would be low enough to be used in the slim iMac. If this is the case Apple is saving a bundle on the chips, thus increasing its profit margin.
Very interesting. That link leads to this: http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=353588
That's the actual CPU-Z result for the 3.06GHz model, which calls itself the E8435. Now, Intel's CPU numbers actually are logical, up to a point. The E8400, for example, is a 3.0GHz desktop processor with a 1333MHz bus speed and a 65W TDP (although it actually uses much less power than that). The letter that precedes the number doesn't mean it's a desktop CPU, however- it indicates the TDP "range" that the processor falls into. CPU-Z confirms that this is a Socket P processor with the GM965 northbridge; that means it is definitely a mobile processor, not a desktop part. Though obviously that line is pretty blurry in this case.
CPU-Z confirms that this is a Socket P processor with the GM965 northbridge; that means it is definitely a mobile processor, not a desktop part. Though obviously that line is pretty blurry in this case.
I was just coming to edit my post with that info. It's a pretty interesting arrangement that Intel has with Apple.
Now, I really love the iMac.
Thanks!
P.S.
I'm buying an iMac in the next couple hours.
Does anyone with a 3.06 iMac notice any excessive fan noise? I do audio work and can't have fans kicking on all over the place.
Thanks!
P.S.
I'm buying an iMac in the next couple hours.
That's a bit short of a time to expect a response from someone that has one.
Most folks could not care less, but for some of us, it's enough to make or break the deal. Everyone else can relax, have a cold one!
That's a bit short of a time to expect a response from someone that has one.
Sorry about that,
I'm off to buy one!
A point that has not been mentioned here. Once you have calibrated the display on your iMac (you do calibrate, using a colorimeter, religiously, don't you?), you do NOT adjust the brightness. If you do, then the display has to be re-calibrated, because you've just screwed up the current calibration. Uneven brightness is a MAJOR issue for calibration, and if you want to get correct colors, and print them, then you WILL calibrate, or you WON'T get them.
Most folks could not care less, but for some of us, it's enough to make or break the deal. Everyone else can relax, have a cold one!
I'm eagerly awaiting the two bought for my wife and daughter.
My wife's machine isn't of a concern, but my daughter, has started in photography, and uses CS3.
I'll calibrate her machine with my i1 PhotoUV, as I've done with my screens (and printers).
But, the brightness is adjusted by the software, once the illumination level is ascertained, in her case a level of about 120.
But, you're right, nothing should be changed after a profile is made. Once a month is a good interval to redo the profile.
I'm eagerly awaiting the two bought for my wife and daughter.
My wife's machine isn't of a concern, but my daughter, has started in photography, and uses CS3.
I'll calibrate her machine with my i1 PhotoUV, as I've done with my screens (and printers).
But, the brightness is adjusted by the software, once the illumination level is ascertained, in her case a level of about 120.
But, you're right, nothing should be changed after a profile is made. Once a month is a good interval to redo the profile.
BINGO! You nailed it.
What camera system is your daughter using? I use CS3, but my main post processing software is Nikon Capture NX. Of course, Leopard can be a real problem with NX, which is why I'm still on 10.4.11. Some folks can't get NX to work worth a crap under Leopard, others can but say they still have problems.
IMO, it much harder to get accurate colors from the camera using CS3 than it is using Nikon's proprietary algorithms. Plus NX has D-Lighting, which is amazing, and easy to use. Sometimes I use both programs, and CS3 is easy to use for setting up printer profiles. Believe it or not, one can get really good prints from online min-labs, IF one has the correct profile for the printer paper combo to be used. I have a local Costco that does great print work, using Fuji crystal Archive paper, and I can't even begin to print at home for the same prices.
At this point, I'll bet dollars to donuts, and them's good odds, that she shoots Canon.
BINGO! You nailed it.
What camera system is your daughter using? I use CS3, but my main post processing software is Nikon Capture NX. Of course, Leopard can be a real problem with NX, which is why I'm still on 10.4.11. Some folks can't get NX to work worth a crap under Leopard, others can but say they still have problems.
IMO, it much harder to get accurate colors from the camera using CS3 than it is using Nikon's proprietary algorithms. Plus NX has D-Lighting, which is amazing, and easy to use. Sometimes I use both programs, and CS3 is easy to use for setting up printer profiles. Believe it or not, one can get really good prints from online min-labs, IF one has the correct profile for the printer paper combo to be used. I have a local Costco that does great print work, using Fuji crystal Archive paper, and I can't even begin to print at home for the same prices.
At this point, I'll bet dollars to donuts, and them's good odds, that she shoots Canon.
Damn right. I bought her a Canon 40D with 28 to 135 IS, and the 18 to 85 IS lenses.
I currently use a Canon 5D.
Nikon has problems with all software other than its own. I've used several Nikon models for testing purposes, and their own software does give slightly better results?if you are using the straight results. But they can be made equal with a bit of touching up, which can then be saved to the camera profiles.
I have a Canon IPF5100 printer. In all my years of experience in this, I've never used a printer, at any price, including the Iris, that can give a print, even using canned profiles, that exactly matches my screen when looking at the print with my GraphicLite D50 box.
I'm amazed because even B$W comes out incredibly well. I can make slightly better profiles for some materials, but they're not much better.
This is in opposition to the Epsons, which are so nonlinear, that without good profiles, have terrible, muddy shadows, without detail, and lost highlights.
Depending on the paper used, the print prices aren't too bad, but the quality will be higher than Costco's. I just bought a roll of 17" x 100' f Canon Saten Photo paper for $50. This is a good paper, but medium weight at 100gm/M.
Better paper can cost $1.70 for 8.5 x 11. Harman is very good, and so is Ilford Galerie, which is a bit less expensive.
I just had a guy on FredMiranda ask for help with Costco. Without using their profiles, which is something I know where to get, it can be very variable. they use sRGB, as do most labs of that type, and some will throw the profiles away if their machine isn't set up properly.
I went through this with my own Agfa mini labs, the last of which was the D Lab.