Apple LCD image quality 17" tops, iMac worst

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 33
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    [quote]I agree totally. I have to lower my iMac to about half the maximum brightness for comfortable viewing.<hr></blockquote>



    That's the thing, there's no middle ground for this. Either you have the screen at a decent brightness with washed out whites or at an unusable brightness setting where everything is a little too dark.
  • Reply 22 of 33
    steve666steve666 Posts: 2,600member
    I just don't trust LCDs. There seems to be little conformity to them. Some look good, some terrible. Are there any decent analogue LCDs out there or is digital the only way to go? NEC has some nice looking analogue models such as the 1550M, but I still seem to lean towards CRTs. If that eMac was black I'd be all over it like white on rice.............................................. ....
  • Reply 23 of 33
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    [quote]Originally posted by steve666:

    <strong>I just don't trust LCDs. There seems to be little conformity to them. Some look good, some terrible. Are there any decent analogue LCDs out there or is digital the only way to go? NEC has some nice looking analogue models such as the 1550M, but I still seem to lean towards CRTs. If that eMac was black I'd be all over it like white on rice.............................................. ....</strong><hr></blockquote>



    The same can be said for CRT uniformity.
  • Reply 24 of 33
    emaneman Posts: 7,204member
    [quote]Originally posted by steve666:

    <strong>I just don't trust LCDs. There seems to be little conformity to them. Some look good, some terrible. Are there any decent analogue LCDs out there or is digital the only way to go? NEC has some nice looking analogue models such as the 1550M, but I still seem to lean towards CRTs. If that eMac was black I'd be all over it like white on rice.............................................. ....</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I've got the NEC 1530v LCD and it's pretty good. I haven't seen any loss of quality like I thought I would since it's analogue.
  • Reply 25 of 33
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    [quote]Originally posted by Splinemodel:

    <strong>



    The same can be said for CRT uniformity.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Moreso in fact. Just look at the geometry and calibration tools on any CRT vs an LCD. With an LCD you've got brightness/contrast and color-cast.



    With a CRT, you've got to calibrate portions of your screen...each corner of my screen has color/brightness drop-off that must be set individually. The image on an LCD is always perfectly shaped. This is not so on a CRT, which has all sorts of geometry adjustments, width, height, pincushion, trapezoidal, parallelogram, skew, rotate, etc. Even worse, with a CRT you get moire, refresh, degaussing, horizontal/vertical static.



    The only two problems with LCDs are slow rise/fall (ghosting - ~30 ms is the upper limit) and true color depth.
  • Reply 26 of 33
    cubitcubit Posts: 846member
    The iMac's LCD is nearly perfect for its purpose and can easily be adjusted very easily IMO.



    I use a Cinema 22 with my G4 Cube 500 and it has been a life- and eye-saver. I have a 15" LCD, the original one I bought operating in my university office with a G4 450 networked to my iMac G4. The two screens are right next to each other and they each have very good features depending on lighting and viewing angles.



    There was nothing in the 17" that could get me to move there from the 15, but the 22 Cinema was marvelous. Now, if only I could get a video board that would allow my G4 Cube to run a 23 HD I could think of that. Maybe the new PowerBooks will just replace al the desktop CPUs? :eek:
  • Reply 27 of 33
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Actually, I take it back...the 15" iMac LCD and the 15" ASD are roughly the same...although the 15" ASD seems to have 230 NIT vs 200 NIT in the 15" iMac LCD.
  • Reply 28 of 33
    barvowbarvow Posts: 64member
    [quote]Originally posted by The Installer:

    <strong>The reviews I have read place the Formac Gallery 1740 <a href="http://www.formac.com/html/shopformac.html?cid=shop_products_gallerycal"; target="_blank">http://www.formac.com/html/shopformac.html?cid=shop_products_gallerycal</a>; slightly above the Apple 17". It doesn't look as cool though.



    - T.I.</strong><hr></blockquote>





    I have a Formac Gallery 1740 with color calibration hardware and software by Pantone Colorvision. It's a fantastic monitor. It's better than the Apple 17" display, slightly larger screen size, and the calibration does work. Great color matching. Very good viewing angle, and after a while of looking at it, I think it looks "cooler" than the Apple display. (Pictures on the web don't do it justice)
  • Reply 29 of 33
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    Hmm... I was just at the Apple Store and I noticed that the 17", 23", and iMac displays were the best and brightest. The dimmest were the TiBook screen and the iBook screen. I did make sure that they were all at max brightness. I don't know, but for some reason the iBook screen looks quite dim, contrary to what most people say. The iMac has much truer colors and higher contrast than the iBook. Even my Wallstreet's 14" screen beats the TiBook and iBook for brightness and contrast.
  • Reply 30 of 33
    jromeojromeo Posts: 1member
    The key here is personal preference. Don't take anyone's word for it, look it up yourself and choose the one that works best for you. No self-proclaiming display expert (sadly, a few are floating around) can make the perfect case for your needs.

    I for one enjoy the new iMac's display. It's my screen of choice for watching DVDs, which to me simulates the high-def experience. A system's video board also has a lot to do with your display's image quality.

    For Apple systems, it's a choice between Nvidia and ATI boards. Nvidia driven systems seem to have better displays than those with ATIs, but again, that's only an opinion. I don't particularly like the new Powerbook G4s (667/800) use of ATI graphics. I hope Apple would switch to Nvidia in future models. I saw a Toshiba notebook with Nvidia's GE Force 4 video chipset, and the display was stunning. ATI doesn't do the Powerbook's display justice, IMHO.
  • Reply 31 of 33
    hornethornet Posts: 76member
    Interesting discussion. I am considering a 17" ASD, but had a question I'd like to ask ya'all on LCD's, as your all rich and lucky and have one it seems



    I know they have color shifting atributes when you near 160 degrees from the centre (they go dark blue right?).... but, if your looking at it head on, and then move say 10 degrees left or right (ie just a bit, small chair move), does the color change at all? I notice that on old laptop LCD displays they do.... is that true for modern lcd's? Color change also includes brightness change... cuz CRTs seem to exhibit NO shifting what so ever, which makes me inclined to think LCD's are a lite rubbishy if they do... cuz then from every different degree of viewing angle what you see if different :/



    comments?
  • Reply 32 of 33
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    From what I've read and what I've seen, it appears that todays LCD panels are much much better than anything from even two years ago. Viewing angle, brightness, and pixel speed especially. If you can afford it, I think the LCD is a better option: saves space and energy, and, more importantly, it doesn't tire your eyes the same way a CRT does.



    All of the current Apple displays are pleasant to look at, if overpriced (the 15 and 17). The only recent Apple LCD that seemed a bit washed out and inconsistent to me was the 1152x768 TiBook panel. I haven't seen the new one. You can also do well (if you're on a budget) with a Samsung display or an NEC. The 15"ers from both companies look nice and don't cost a lot (for an LCD.)



    If you want a big LCD, you can get a DVI 17" from NEC (1280x1024) for about 1000 canadian (vs 1500 canadian for Apple's 17") It's a decent display for the money; Apple's looks a little better and you'll need an adaptor if you want to use it with another computer/powerbook.



    I find it strange that Apple's big panels are so competitively priced -- you can't really get better big panel prices than what Apple charges for the 22 and 23 -- yet Apple's smaller panels are so over-priced. hrmmm...
  • Reply 33 of 33
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    I've noticed that on my G3 Powerbook (1998), the screen is very sharp and bright, but it tends to change in brightness rapidly in the vertical direction. For example, whenever I'm looking at it from above, it makes it whiter and washed out, and when I'm looking at it from below, it looks darker and more contrasty. There is enough of a change in brightness that when viewing at normal level, it's somewhat washed out at the bottom and somewhat dark at the top. However, the viewing angle is pretty good, and you can see the screen clearly (though not perfectly) from a good 40° to either side. This is still a pretty good LCD, and it was absolutely top of the line back in '98. It still doesn't compare with any of the freestanding Apple LCDs or the iMac display, but it's about as good as the TiBook screen in terms of brightness and contrast (with perhaps a little less viewing angle). Again, not much by today's standards, but pretty good considering its age.
Sign In or Register to comment.