Should I give up trying to get accurate color on my 20"iMac?
I bought a new aluminum iMac in December -- upgrading from a PC based system. As someone who is starting a photography business I was attracted to the iMac because I'd heard raves about their compatibility with Photoshop as well as the ability to color manage with excellent accuracy. (I have now learned that that information was based on people's experience with the old white iMac, but I didn't know that at the time.)
After endless frustration trying to calibrate my new iMac monitor I finally did much more extensive research online and learned of the inferior quality of the new iMac's TN display, the terrible gradient problem (I observed this myself immediately), the brightness problem, the reflective nature of the glossy screen, and on and on and on.
Still, I wanted to try to make my investment work. So I purchased a second, new colorimeter to see if I could get better results and live with the 20" iMac. The new Spyder 3Pro did improve color accuracy of the monitor but not enough for serious, perfect photography work. In particular, I am getting more yellow and less red/magenta in prints than my monitor displays. This is really a deal breaker when working with skin tones. I feel confident in my printer because I had perfect color management on my old PC, using the same printer and printer profiles that I am using with the iMac. In addition, when posting images online, I consistently get feedback that my images are too yellow -- which I am not seeing on my iMac monitor. The iMac monitor is clearly not representing color accurately, even after calibration.
Plan B then was to purchase a second monitor for my photo editing, and still make use of the iMac. Luckily, before spending the money, I borrowed a friend's 23" ACD. I set it up as a second monitor and calibrated it with the Spyder 3.
Here is where things get really weird. Lo and behold, the ACD display matched the iMac display perfectly to my eye. Of course it was an improvement over the iMac because of the matte screen and the fact that it displays colors the same no matter where on the screen you are looking. But in terms of the rendition of colors, it wasn't really better than the iMac. What could this mean?
Now I'm wondering whether the problems with the iMac go beyond the limitations of the TN screen. Is it possible that the graphics card or display controller in the iMac is somehow giving both displays inaccurate color rendering instructions?
Thank you thank you if you are still reading all this, but I wanted to give enough background so that I don't just get responses like, "try calibrating your monitor."
I was hoping some of the savvy Mac people here could shed some light on these issues for me.
1. Why can't I get decent color rendition on the iMac with either of the two colorimeters I've tried (a MonicoOptixXR and a Spyder 3Pro)?
2. Why would the ACD display the same, slightly inaccurate color when run through the iMac?
3. Have any professionals dealing with images accomplished accurate color representation with a new 20" iMac? If so, how?
4. Should I waste any more hours trying to fix these problems?
Or is it time to sell the iMac to an "average consumer" and invest in something else?
After endless frustration trying to calibrate my new iMac monitor I finally did much more extensive research online and learned of the inferior quality of the new iMac's TN display, the terrible gradient problem (I observed this myself immediately), the brightness problem, the reflective nature of the glossy screen, and on and on and on.
Still, I wanted to try to make my investment work. So I purchased a second, new colorimeter to see if I could get better results and live with the 20" iMac. The new Spyder 3Pro did improve color accuracy of the monitor but not enough for serious, perfect photography work. In particular, I am getting more yellow and less red/magenta in prints than my monitor displays. This is really a deal breaker when working with skin tones. I feel confident in my printer because I had perfect color management on my old PC, using the same printer and printer profiles that I am using with the iMac. In addition, when posting images online, I consistently get feedback that my images are too yellow -- which I am not seeing on my iMac monitor. The iMac monitor is clearly not representing color accurately, even after calibration.
Plan B then was to purchase a second monitor for my photo editing, and still make use of the iMac. Luckily, before spending the money, I borrowed a friend's 23" ACD. I set it up as a second monitor and calibrated it with the Spyder 3.
Here is where things get really weird. Lo and behold, the ACD display matched the iMac display perfectly to my eye. Of course it was an improvement over the iMac because of the matte screen and the fact that it displays colors the same no matter where on the screen you are looking. But in terms of the rendition of colors, it wasn't really better than the iMac. What could this mean?
Now I'm wondering whether the problems with the iMac go beyond the limitations of the TN screen. Is it possible that the graphics card or display controller in the iMac is somehow giving both displays inaccurate color rendering instructions?
Thank you thank you if you are still reading all this, but I wanted to give enough background so that I don't just get responses like, "try calibrating your monitor."
I was hoping some of the savvy Mac people here could shed some light on these issues for me.
1. Why can't I get decent color rendition on the iMac with either of the two colorimeters I've tried (a MonicoOptixXR and a Spyder 3Pro)?
2. Why would the ACD display the same, slightly inaccurate color when run through the iMac?
3. Have any professionals dealing with images accomplished accurate color representation with a new 20" iMac? If so, how?
4. Should I waste any more hours trying to fix these problems?
Or is it time to sell the iMac to an "average consumer" and invest in something else?
Comments
If you attach an Apple Cinema Display to the iMac, you will need to calibrate that display and use the resulting profile with the Cinema Display. If you are still getting unexpected results, you've either made a mistake during the calibration process, failed to apply the profile correctly, the printer isn't calibrated correctly or (least likely) the graphics card in the iMac itself is goosed.
If I were you, I'd be punting the iMac on Ebay (or similar). If you can't stretch to a Mac Pro/Cinema Display combo, I'd opt for a Mac mini/Cinema Display combo (which will cost you about the same as an iMac). I had a chance to work with a Mac mini not so long ago and with 4GB of RAM they are surprisingly capable little machines.
National Association of Photoshop Professionals---I know they use IMacs---I would guess it would be a matter of getting your printer correlated with the color profile of the monitor--
They would be the people to put you on the right track
I can almost guarantee that it is not the iMac--I am certain it has to do with calibration and correlating color profiles-
Don't buy something new---it's not a hardware problem---
When you print--I'm sure you turned off the switch to have the printer manage colors---and make sure that Photoshop manages the colors---
(Just a thought)
My biggest question was whether I could add on an ACD and get good color management that way. I do understand calibration and profiling for monitors and printers. And as I said in my original post, I did profile the ACD seperately when I added it to the iMac. I am not a novice with this and I have sucessfully color managed other systems with no problems. I use Photoshop extensively, I know how to set up the print menu and let PS manage colors during printing. I have the appropriate color profiles for my printer.
So I continue to be baffled about why the ACD also displayed the same inaccurate color as the iMac. I can only conclude that the iMac is giving some kind of bad information to the ACD also.
Can you complain to Apple?---the phone reps don't seem to know too much but-----can you
take to the Apple store genius bar near you and complain?--
Gloss or Matte doesn't improve color quality. The f'n different Panel is what you're seeing.
Agreed. But for photography work, the brightness of the iMac is way too high -- which it needs to be to overcome the glossy screen's reflective properties. When the brightness level is turned down to an more acceptable level for photo editing, the reflections do cause a huge problem. For this reason alone, the glossy screen is not well suited for serious photo editing. There are other problems with the iMac screens, too, namely in the way they display color.
Agreed. But for photography work, the brightness of the iMac is way too high -- which it needs to be to overcome the glossy screen's reflective properties. When the brightness level is turned down to an more acceptable level for photo editing, the reflections do cause a huge problem. For this reason alone, the glossy screen is not well suited for serious photo editing. There are other problems with the iMac screens, too, namely in the way they display color.
Well, you said it: the system is not designed for serious photo editing. If you're indeed serious, you should get a different screen.
If it wasn't for OS X, I'd recommend buying a quad core PC that can cost nearly half the price of the lowest iMac - even though it's prebuilt - including a matte display.
For Apple to force people to use external displays for serious work on any machine that they charge under £1200 for is profiteering plain and simple. The Mini is almost the best computer they make for this kind of work as they don't force you to use a crap screen but they cripple it in other ways.
I'm sure that if you had a mid-range tower as an option, there would be no issue whatsoever.
If I were you, I'd be punting the iMac on Ebay (or similar).
If it wasn't for the graphics card and hard drive in the iMac, I'd agree. You can see even when they have hardware comparisons on the Mini page where they show the iMac as though they want you to be persuaded by the higher spec to go for that instead. They want to coerce you into their naive way of thinking about computers instead of listening to how we use our computers.
But we can say as much as we like, it doesn't get through.
There are other problems with the iMac screens, too, namely in the way they display color.
It seems to be in a few areas. I do some work in Shake and when I render out to certain codecs (mainly MPEG-4), Quicktime actually plays back the videos over-saturated. I don't know what Apple's fascination is with this. The same video played under VLC displays how it looks in Shake.
take to the Apple store genius bar near you and complain?
I've been to a genius bar. I recall seeing quite a few teenagers in there. 'Geniuses' they are not. I think Apple's definition of a genius is that they know what an Apple key and option key are, whereas idiot consumers who can only see a clover and alt don't and they can helpfully explain.
They keep the geniuses in the back doing the repairs.
So I continue to be baffled about why the ACD also displayed the same inaccurate color as the iMac. I can only conclude that the iMac is giving some kind of bad information to the ACD also.
Despite all the above being true that the iMac is a horrible, horrible machine and you should get rid of it as soon as you can
What adaptor did you use? The Apple Mini-dvi to VGA or to DVI?
I've done that with external displays and the iMac screens always look very poor to me. Even the old white one. I see speckling in the iMac one where I can't in the external, the colors are completely uniform.
Base 20" iMac = £800
Base Mini (£400) + Samsung Syncmaster 20" matte (£150) + external tray-loading DVD burner (£50) + external 500GB hard drive (£70) = £670
The Mini lacks the ability for dual displays, no 3.5" internal and has a lame video chipset but that above deal is cheaper than an iMac, you get a matte screen, dual optical drives for copying DVDs (you can with an iMac too but this is much cheaper remember) and when you need an upgrade, they are easy to sell on ebay because they are so small and you don't have to worry about the new one being bundled with a stupid shiny screen. Just plug it into your existing setup.
Of course the downside to a Mini is you have to wait so long for Apple to update them because as I say, Apple seem to want you to go for the iMac.
Yeah, there are people who like to pretend the iMac is capable enough as a prosumer (funny that word isn't in OS X's dictionary) level machine and yet all the evidence points to the contrary.
Because it's not a real word, and it's a stupid fake word at that. When people say "prosumer" it always seems to me like they really mean "plays the latest games." There are plenty of tech-related professions for which an iMac 20" is fine -- even well suited for. Evidently, photo editing isn't one of them, but if the screen were better it would probably be just fine at that, too. Of course, if the screen were better the whole unit would cost more, so go figure.
Because it's not a real word, and it's a stupid fake word at that. When people say "prosumer" it always seems to me like they really mean "plays the latest games." There are plenty of tech-related professions for which an iMac 20" is fine -- even well suited for. Evidently, photo editing isn't one of them, but if the screen were better it would probably be just fine at that, too. Of course, if the screen were better the whole unit would cost more, so go figure.
So give us a workable arrangement with any of the current Mac line, seeing how CRTs have become not with it enough for Apple?
btw This was all bleeding obvious when Apple started switching to the flat screens, but was hotly denied back then too.
So give us a workable arrangement with any of the current Mac line, seeing how CRTs have become not with it enough for Apple?
btw This was all bleeding obvious when Apple started switching to the flat screens, but was hotly denied back then too.
DVI to VGA adapter to CRT if you really need a CRT.
Because it's not a real word, and it's a stupid fake word at that. When people say "prosumer" it always seems to me like they really mean "plays the latest games."
If you consider someone who is into photography, it would refer to someone who can't afford to pay say £5,000 for the best professional camera but are skilled enough to take advantage of more affordable hardware.
That's what prosumers are. Skilled people who use consumer-level hardware. Gamers are satisfied by the same hardware as prosumers but gamers themselves are not prosumers.
I think it's a pretty good word and very meaningful at representing a certain market. Indie musicians are another example of prosumers.
There are plenty of tech-related professions for which an iMac 20" is fine -- even well suited for. Evidently, photo editing isn't one of them, but if the screen were better it would probably be just fine at that, too. Of course, if the screen were better the whole unit would cost more, so go figure.
Which is why they need to be separate. So that people can buy the machine on a budget and use it with as cheap a display as they can get. Then when they can afford to get the best consumer-level display technology, they just upgrade the screen - who knows, they might even get a Cinema display. Very few iMac owners would.
Then when they settle on a good display that they know fits into their workflow and computer technology moves on, they can upgrade the machine without disrupting that workflow.
It's the basic model-view-control paradigm that Apple go to great lengths to get across in their developer software.
You have a portable code base that is your data core, you have a modular interface system that can be replaced as needed without affecting your unchanging, stable data model.
What happens when they bring out huge tables with touch displays and OLED/laser displays? The iMac display will be redundant. Now of course we all know where Apple are going with this. Despite the fact your machine might be perfectly capable, they will make you buy a new one just to get the new screen.
Sure you can just upgrade to the latest every 3 years but when it comes to doing real work, this isn't always possible to do because new hardware comes with new software and it isn't always compatible with old software (hence the stable data core in the paradigm).
Apple want developers to follow modular object-oriented paradigms in their software model - they even use a micro-kernel vs a monolithic kernel - but all-in-one concepts in their hardware model. Those two ideas conflict directly. Either they think one way is better or the other. They could think one way is better in hardware, the other in software but it seems to me they just think about what's best for them, not what is practically best.
Apple want developers to follow modular object-oriented paradigms in their software model - they even use a micro-kernel vs a monolithic kernel - but all-in-one concepts in their hardware model. Those two ideas conflict directly. Either they think one way is better or the other. They could think one way is better in hardware, the other in software but it seems to me they just think about what's best for them, not what is practically best.
If you're really so wise, how come you don't run a high-flying tech company? You could go get a job with Apple and "set them straight," you know.
That aside, your whole interpretation of "prosumer" couldn't be more idiotic. Basically, we have one data point of a semi-pro user who can't get it done with the iMac as-is (needs to buy a CRT for <$200), and dozens upon dozens of other data points that show semi-pro and full blown pros getting it done just fine with the iMac. FWIW, your indie musician example is a terrible one, since a lot of pro musicians, it seems, use Garage Band on lousy hardware.
You could go get a job with Apple and "set them straight," you know.
Nah, they don't listen to reason. They prove it time and time again.
That aside, your whole interpretation of "prosumer" couldn't be more idiotic. Basically, we have one data point of a semi-pro user who can't get it done with the iMac as-is (needs to buy a CRT for <$200), and dozens upon dozens of other data points that show semi-pro and full blown pros getting it done just fine with the iMac.
I hardly think it's just one. Why is it that every single thread where someone isn't satisfied with the iMac, it's just one guy on a forum that doesn't count? It's not just one. Every thread only has one OP. Does that mean if someone posts a thread about liking the iMac, we can say hey only one person likes the iMac?
Where are these dozens and dozens of semi-pros that are satisfied with the current glossy iMac? I don't recall seeing any. All the semi-pros I encounter in the real world are using PC towers or older G4/G5 towers.
FWIW, your indie musician example is a terrible one, since a lot of pro musicians, it seems, use Garage Band on lousy hardware.
Correct, they aren't using modern iMacs and the reason they use lousy hardware is because they can't upgrade to a mid-range tower if Apple don't offer one.
A lot of them use Macbook Pros though (note, without the glossy screen) because if you're going to get an AIO, you might as well get a laptop.
I hardly think it's just one. Why is it that every single thread where someone isn't satisfied with the iMac, it's just one guy on a forum that doesn't count? It's not just one. Every thread only has one OP. Does that mean if someone posts a thread about liking the iMac, we can say hey only one person likes the iMac?
Where are these dozens and dozens of semi-pros that are satisfied with the current glossy iMac? I don't recall seeing any. All the semi-pros I encounter in the real world are using PC towers or older G4/G5 towers.
When I said your interpretation of "prosumer" was idiotic, I was criticizing your opinion, but I was really criticizing the basis on which you formed that opinion. What you've basically done is take a stance prior to the evidence, and then looked for singular, supporting evidences that can't be disproved. Of course, they can't be proved, either, and there is indeed much more evidence to the contrary.
All of your assumptions go against market trends. In other words, you have a lot more work to do to validate your opinion than I have to do for mine, because mine aligns with prevailing market trends. If decide to take it upon yourself to prove yourself right -- or at least valid -- all you have to do is succeed in the same market, consumer electronics, to show us that your assumptions can be counted on to dictate upcoming market trends. If you decide to stop making excuses and go for it, I wish you the best of luck. Really, I do. If you do succeed, I will be tremendously happy for you, but until then you're just another kid who thinks he knows more than people who have been at it for a lot longer.
What you've basically done is take a stance prior to the evidence
and then looked for singular, supporting evidences that can't be disproved. Of course, they can't be proved, either, and there is indeed much more evidence to the contrary.
What evidence to the contrary? Explain to me what this magical evidence is that you keep referring to but never actually showing.
all you have to do is succeed in the same market, consumer electronics, to show us that your assumptions can be counted on to dictate upcoming market trends.
I don't have to succeed where others already have. All I have to do is get you to look at the real world instead of buying into the Apple hype.
How can you dictate upcoming trends of Apple computers when they only sell one model on the mid-range? I predict that every mid-range Mac Apple sells in the upcoming years will be an AIO. Wow, how did you reach that conclusion?
(hint: in case you didn't figure it out, it's because THAT'S ALL THEY SELL)
I actually think you're wrong on your assumption of the iMac's success though and overlooking the real star of the show. Laptops are becoming more and more powerful and there will reach a time in the next 2 years when any computer Apple sells will be enough for a consumer and prosumer and you know what they'll buy? The Mac Mini or one of the laptops.
A Mac Mini with a large capacity SSD, graphics capabilities that simply don't cause compatibility issues and are powerful enough for 3D graphics on the level of the original Intel iMac and a quad mobile CPU will wipe out the iMac. Why would you buy a more expensive, less-flexible machine?
How many people bought those TVs with the VHS player built-in? Not that many and yet it saves space. The reason is that as soon as you need a bigger screen or VHS becomes obsolete, you lose both. If the VHS player breaks, you have no TV to watch while it's repaired. There's a thread on AI just now about someone whose iMac blew and the whole machine will be away for 3 weeks. How long would a one-man photography business last without clients' photographs for 3 weeks? If it was a display issue, like a blown display inverter, how pissed would that guy be if he'd know he could have had a headless machine and could have been back working within 24 hours?
until then you're just another kid who thinks he knows more than people who have been at it for a lot longer.
And I suppose that the companies manufacturing the machines that I think Apple should be selling are just kids playing a grown-up's game. They aren't in any way outselling Apple by a factor of 5:1 each? Apple have been in the game since the start and Michael Dell is just a silly little boy who doesn't know anything compared to Steve right?
This issue has nothing to do with market trends, it's about hardware design. You can say the Macbook Air is fine the way it is, market trends show that only 10% of people actually carry a spare battery pack. Well so what? Maybe those 10% of people are the most important professional clients you could possibly hope to get as customers and they'll take one look at the machine and say that it doesn't do what they need. That has nothing to do with the market.
As soon as Apple start losing the interest of people who drive the computer industry forward (not consumers) then they become a toy company. Now children get very excited when a new toy comes out but grown ups who have work to do acknowledge that it's just another toy.
But we can throw opinions about page after page, the bottom line is that the OP in this thread is trying to get serious, professional work done with his computer in order to earn a living and the computer is falling short. The mid-range tower (PC) that he used to own did the job. Those aren't trends or statistics, those are facts.
Until this guy manages to do what he wants with his computer, the iMac is inferior to a mid-range tower for this profession. Sooner or later you have to question what value does the iMac really have that makes it better. That it saves space? It's not a big advantage really.
Basically, we have one data point of a semi-pro user who can't get it done with the iMac as-is (needs to buy a CRT for <$200), and dozens upon dozens of other data points that show semi-pro and full blown pros getting it done just fine with the iMac.
I think this is exactly where the problem lies. Please -- show me the dozens upon dozens of other pros who are happily using the new glossy screened 20" iMac. Actually, show me just one. I am completely serious. I would very much like just one pro photographer to tell me how they achieved accurate color management on their new iMac. I've been searching for a solution for months now and I haven't found a single pro level photographer who likes the new iMac. Not one.
And just for the record, I'm a she not a he.
I think this is exactly where the problem lies. Please -- show me the dozens upon dozens of other pros who are happily using the new glossy screened 20" iMac. Actually, show me just one. I am completely serious. I would very much like just one pro photographer to tell me how they achieved accurate color management on their new iMac. I've been searching for a solution for months now and I haven't found a single pro level photographer who likes the new iMac. Not one.
And just for the record, I'm a she not a he.
I fully agree.
You can not make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
I like my brand new iMac 24" 28.GHz but despite not because of the glossy screen. The variable illumination and color mixed with the killer reflections just makes it impossible to do accurate Photoshop work on it.
I'll use it for Illustrator and DTP work where I can set my colors mathematically, but that really limits its usefulness.
The "dozens upon dozens of pros" are just conjured out of thin air like they always are in these arguments. In fact the Apple Forums have been full of the recalcitrant pros since last year complaining about how unworkable the iMac screens are. They are getting poo-pooed as usual by the non-pros who can't see what the issue is, exactly because they are non-pros and for them almost anything will do.
But faked evidence or not, you can not hide the evidence of what you do (or don't) see before you when you use one of these iMacs.
Oh and those who made the silly suggestion that you just plug in a CRT screen next to the iMac, don't have a clue. The variable lighting and color next to each other would throw out your color perception, even if the cost and other practicalities didn't rule it out.
Oh and those who made the silly suggestion that you just plug in a CRT screen next to the iMac, don't have a clue. The variable lighting and color next to each other would throw out your color perception, even if the cost and other practicalities didn't rule it out.
Yes, because there is an immense cost to using a CRT you already own. If you don't already own a CRT wtf were you going to do anyway? You still need to get a CRT somehow and they typically aren't free unless you're dumpster diving.
In any case you were whining that Apple doesn't support CRT use when it allows it with a dongle included in every notebook or $19 from the Apple store.
As far as throwing out your color perception you can make the CRT your primary display and dim/cover/move the iMac display if it really bothers you. However, unless you work in a cave (which some of our artist do) then you'll have an issue anyway. The iMac IS thin. You can hide it if you need to even if it's just sticking it behind the CRT or sideways so you can still get at the DVD slot.
Hope has a real issue with the inability to calibrate a secondary ACD. I'd say her iMac is borked and to see if she can get her ACD calibrated on another iMac of the same generation. If not then the iMac should get eBay'd and a Mac Pro or Mac Book Pro purchased instead.
Note the "pro" moniker on the end? I can turn off my MBP display by dimming it to zero. I can also run a 30" ACD. Neither of which I can do on a (consumer) iMac. Calibrate to the level that Hope needs I dunno, cause I'm not that kind of "pro" user but I'd rather pony up for a 15" MBP than a 24" iMac and pay the difference for a 23" ACD or a 30" Dell HC. Or for Hope or other pro users a 12bit Ezio or ColorEdge...which isn't exactly cheap.
It's a cost to be sure but the mobility option is often worth the difference. Especially if I already own a high quality monitor I wish to reuse.
Still though, I'd be kinda surprised that it is a generic defect vs just her machine wrt calibration of an external display.
Hope, you are far more likely to get help from the Mac forum of DP review than here. The number of folks that own an EyeOne or Spyder here is few. There's got to be someone there with a Spyder, ALU 20" iMac and a 23" ACD that can tell you if it works or not.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1017
Yes, because there is an immense cost to using a CRT you already own. If you don't already own a CRT wtf were you going to do anyway? You still need to get a CRT somehow and they typically aren't free unless you're dumpster diving.
In any case you were whining that Apple doesn't support CRT use when it allows it with a dongle included in every notebook or $19 from the Apple store.
As far as throwing out your color perception you can make the CRT your primary display and dim/cover/move the iMac display if it really bothers you. However, unless you work in a cave (which some of our artist do) then you'll have an issue anyway. The iMac IS thin. You can hide it if you need to even if it's just sticking it behind the CRT or sideways so you can still get at the DVD slot.
Hope has a real issue with the inability to calibrate a secondary ACD. I'd say her iMac is borked and to see if she can get her ACD calibrated on another iMac of the same generation. If not then the iMac should get eBay'd and a Mac Pro or Mac Book Pro purchased instead.
Note the "pro" moniker on the end? I can turn off my MBP display by dimming it to zero. I can also run a 30" ACD. Neither of which I can do on a (consumer) iMac. Calibrate to the level that Hope needs I dunno, cause I'm not that kind of "pro" user but I'd rather pony up for a 15" MBP than a 24" iMac and pay the difference for a 23" ACD or a 30" Dell HC.
It's a cost to be sure but the mobility option is often worth the difference. Especially if I already own a high quality monitor I wish to reuse.
Still though, I'd be kinda surprised that it is a generic defect vs just her machine.
Now can you just show us what this set up looks like, with the cloth draped over the iMac, which is pushed back somewhere, but not too far because you still have to reach the ports and the DVD slot, but neither bump into the 24" CRT that is sharing the desk...
The dongle costs $35 here and I'll just pretend that the 24" screen didn't cost me anything.
Anyway I should pay for a MacBook Pro, cover the screen on that with a cloth, etc, etc...
You know you are right I just didn't look at this the right way!