Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: new imac 27 monitor quality  (Read 6253 times)
studio347
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 76


« on: August 20, 2013, 10:55:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,
I want to hear some experiences with the recent imac 27 with 32 ram & SSD.
The main reason for considering iMac rather than rMBP+monitor, is that I need 32 ram for some retouching involving big size files. My mac pro's 18 ram seems to be too small...
I'm considering to use it, mainly, for capture in a studio setting.
I have been using Lacie 321 & Mac Pro for a while. Now I want to reduce the size since I move it a lot to different rental studios and also expect air travel.

I know that, for important color work, I need a better external monitor.
My questions are_
Is the monitor, generally speaking, good enough for capture, compared with NEC PA monitors? (I know it's relative...Smiley still, I want to hear some opinions.)
Recently I used a bit old mac monitor. It was a bit contrasty, but seems to be ok if I'm getting used to it. I understand that the image's contrast will be down when printed in magazines and such. I can control the reflections in the studio setting with black V-flat.
Is Imac(w/SSD) strong enough(especially the screen) for air-travel in the air-travel case? I can't carry it on board with me since I have other stuff to move.
Any related advices?
Thanks in advance!
« Last Edit: August 20, 2013, 11:14:01 PM by studio347 » Logged
Ellis Vener
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1633



WWW
« Reply #1 on: August 22, 2013, 10:52:48 AM »
ReplyReply

I have a second generation 27' imac with white LED backlighting and profile using i1Profiler with an i1 Display pro.  The display is very  very good. Is it the same quality asa current top of the line NEC or Eizo CG? Not quite but the overall quality is quite high. The color has been very consistent with very little shift (in ∆E terms less than 1) from one profile/calibration session (which I do every three weeks or right before starting a major project, which ever comes first) to the next over the past two and a half years.  when using the i1 Profiler profile validation tool the purple square in the synthetic Xrite 24 Patch colorchecker  is very slightly outside of the target range.

Outside of the narrow world of colorimetry geeks, if you are shooting with clients present  my experience is that they are always  impressed by what they see.
Logged

Ellis Vener
http://www.ellisvener.com
Creating photographs for advertising, corporate and industrial clients since 1984.
studio347
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 76


« Reply #2 on: August 22, 2013, 12:22:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the infos. Hmm... there seems to be a lot of change, I guess. Years ago, the imac monitor was not so great, I remember Smiley
Is the surface glass the usual glass+ a bit stronger? Do I need to worry for it to break...when people are throwing the air-travel case?
I guess, I need to try it to know for sure...
Logged
D Fosse
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 226



« Reply #3 on: August 23, 2013, 12:46:50 AM »
ReplyReply

There is no definite answer. Manufacturing tolerances are such that there are large variations from one production run to another. What makes NEC and Eizo good is not that they use different and better panels, they don't, it's that their quality control is much better and tolerances much tighter. That's what you pay for.

At one time the iMac displays were known to have the same problem as the Dell Ultrasharps: uneven color and tone across the screen (something you never see in NEC/Eizo). Whether this problem persists I don't know.

You can be lucky and get a stellar copy. Or you may get a lemon.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7523



WWW
« Reply #4 on: August 23, 2013, 05:06:03 AM »
ReplyReply

There is no definite answer. Manufacturing tolerances are such that there are large variations from one production run to another. What makes NEC and Eizo good is not that they use different and better panels, they don't, it's that their quality control is much better and tolerances much tighter. That's what you pay for.

Then there is also that matte vs glossy debate.

Opinions vary, I would personally not want to do photo work on a glossy screen judging from what I see on my Macbook pro.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
K.C.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 650


« Reply #5 on: August 25, 2013, 02:48:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Then there is also that matte vs glossy debate.

Which is an easily solved problem when you can control the environment you're working in.

I use a mid-2011 27" iMac calibrated with the i1 Display Pro and it's just fine for capture and post work. I've never printed and had unexpected color or sent a file to a client who had any problems with the color.

I have also worked with Eizo and NEC's best and there is a noticeable difference if you have a color cast that's subtle and you're trying to correct it.
Logged
D Fosse
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 226



« Reply #6 on: August 25, 2013, 06:15:11 AM »
ReplyReply

There will always be a slight element of uncertainty due to different calibration targets, shifting perception due to variations in ambient light, and the operator's mood of the day (underrated!).

I think the most important quality in a display is consistency. By that I mean consistency from left to right and corner to corner, from light to dark (good separation in both ends), and temporal stability. And of course consistency from one unit to another. Consistency is usually taken for granted, and specifications taken at face value. But the reality is often far from that, and that's why you should either test a particular unit before purchasing, or make sure there is a good return policy.

Or you can pay the premium for brands that are known to operate at tighter standards than the others, which is labour-intensive and never comes cheap.

The well-publicized Dell U-2410 pink/green story is actually quite enlightening. It turns out they bought C-batch panels from LG cheaply, put them together and shipped them, no quality control whatsoever. That's how they could sell them at a third of the price of comparable monitors from NEC/Eizo. It caused a s***t-storm, which Dell never even acknowledged. They just said the units were "within spec", never mind that they were useless for any serious work.

I mention this because som iMac units had the same problem, although it wasn't as widely published.
Logged
Czornyj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1307



WWW
« Reply #7 on: August 25, 2013, 06:36:14 AM »
ReplyReply

The bigger gamut, the bigger problem with color mura. Dell U2410 was a combination of 3rd sort WG-CCFL H-IPS and the lack of uniformity compensation.

NEC/EIZO displays have DUC/DUE circuits, so such issues are usually well corrected. As an example - here's the measurement of new PA242W, it's uniform even with its massive gamut (almost 1,4mln dE^3)
« Last Edit: August 25, 2013, 06:51:02 AM by Czornyj » Logged

Marcin Kałuża
Rendezvous
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 50


WWW
« Reply #8 on: August 25, 2013, 09:12:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Have you had any issues with the colour calibration on the iMac? I have a 27" and when I run the Spider4 Pro I seem to get a different result each time I calibrate it. On the recheck every couple of weeks it seems to say it's still calibrated ok though.
Logged

K.C.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 650


« Reply #9 on: August 25, 2013, 10:24:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Have you had any issues with the colour calibration on the iMac?

My 2 year old 27" iMac has been very consistent using iProfiler and the iDisplay Pro.

I'm just waiting for the new Mac Pro to justify the new NEC Spectraview. Until then I at least know very clearly what I'm going to get when I print or deliver a file.
Logged
elolaugesen
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 189


« Reply #10 on: August 26, 2013, 02:28:24 PM »
ReplyReply

I use spyder pro and also had some problems until i made sure room lighting conditions were the same every time I recalbrated.  Also monitor settings were identical.
As far as I am concerned this is just like looking at prints under the same lighting conditions every time.


Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad