[jmichael]

I’ve been reading posts in this forum daily since the new iMac was released. The concern which interested me the most dealt with the glossy versus matte screen…glare being (in the opinion of some) less than desirable for photo or illustration work. Since that’s a part of my job, I was concerned. I have been using a PowerMac G-5 dual 1.8 Ghz since they were first introduced, along with a 23-inch Apple Cinema monitor. I want to move up to a new Apple Intel computer, but am not sure I need a new Mac Pro. I intend to continue to use my G-5 friend, and it's wonderful monitor, but want a second desktop. Thus, perhaps a new iMac.

So, to get some hands-on experience with the new computer, I took a trip to the Durham, NC Apple store today, and spent almost two hours experimenting. I checked out four separate 24-inch models which were located at various points in the store, one being next to the main front window. Inside light was what you might expect in an Apple store…bright. I definitely saw glare on each of the four screens; however, it was not at all that distracting to me. Even the one next to the outside window was OK to my eyes.

To do some comparison, I opened a dark contrast mountain scene photo in Photoshop (PS) on the new iMac, and opened the same one on a Mac Pro, using a 23-inch cinema monitor. No glare at all (obviously) on the cinema matte screen, but after walking back and forth several times, and comparing the same photo on the two computer screens, over and over at various angles and photo sizes, I concluded that (for me anyway) the iMac screen looked better. It was much sharper, colors were more vibrant, and the contrast and brightness was fine. Viewing angle was not a problem, vertical or horizontal. Of course, I am the only one who has to look at the screen, glossy or matte.

My eyes tended to focus more on the much greater detail of the photos on the iMac screen, than they did on any glare present. One thing I experimented with was keeping photos at a size in PS which kept some amount of the gray paste board showing. That really helped minimize whatever glare was present. Fortunately, the store machines had loads of photos to open in PS, and I tried several with various contrast and colors. None posed any big problem in terms of glare…to me.

Color accuracy may be better on a matte screen for professional photographers, graphic designers and illustrators, but for the magazine design, layout and print work I do, using my own photos and others provided to me, total color accuracy is not that much of an issue. I realize that to many others, however, color accuracy will be paramount. Whether or not the glossy screen is that much worse (or better) in that regard, is beyond my pay grade.

I was impressed by the quality of the iMac’s internal speakers. At first I thought I was hearing connected external speakers, and had to check the USB ports to see if that were so. Some bass was present, to my total surprise! Also, the new keyboard, to me anyway, was easier to type on than the older version. I really liked the flatness and quietness of the keyboard…no more dirt and junk to clean out between old white plastic clicking keys! Oh yes, the top of the iMac was not that hot, about what I’d expected.

So, am I ready to buy? Not yet. I want to read some reviews on the 2.8 Ghz, model (speed) compared to the 2.4 version. But, my initial worry had to do with how my eyes might work with the new screen. Not a problem.

[hldan]

Originally Posted by jmichael 

So, am I ready to buy? Not yet. I want to read some reviews on the 2.8 Ghz, model (speed) compared to the 2.4 version.

Do you really need to read someone's review of the speed difference between the 2.4 and the 2.8? For me it was a no brainer, I went for the 2.8. 400 Mhz is more than enough differential between the two to figure out with common sense.

[jmichael]

Good point on 2.8 vs 2.4. Maybe I'm just being too cautious in finally pushing the "submit order" button at the Apple store. Thanks.

[awaspaas]

I do kind of wish my wife would have let me get the 24" instead of the 20" - its screen is quite a bit better.

[hldan]

Originally Posted by jmichael 

Good point on 2.8 vs 2.4. Maybe I'm just being too cautious in finally pushing the "submit order" button at the Apple store. Thanks.

Go ahead and press "submit". I felt the same way too. I am so glad I went for the 2.8. When it's time to sell it, it will hold better value. Let's face it, all the Macs fly with Intel so it's just a matter of how long you plan on keeping it so it will outlast future software upgrades.
My ship date is on the 27th. Can't wait.

[Veltliner]

Just know what you are going to do with it. 2.4 or 2.8, that doesn't seem to be a big issue with me.

But if you plan to do graphics or photo work on that machine at a not so much later point in time, I'd recommend you to research that issue.

Many people like the pop the glossy screen gives the image, and it is better for watching movies in a dark room. But google "glossy screen iMac, calibration".

Know what you want, and check out what you get when you buy a certain model.

[shifuimam]

I would wonder if, for professional environments that depend on correct color management, using a CRT would be best - LCDs simply have too many discrepancies in the display of color.

Of course, if you're using CMYK values to do you work, it technically shouldn't matter how it appears on the screen..

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I would wonder if, for professional environments that depend on correct color management, using a CRT would be best - LCDs simply have too many discrepancies in the display of color.

Of course, if you're using CMYK values to do you work, it technically shouldn't matter how it appears on the screen..

I don't think this is still correct.

Matrox, for example, just put a 999$ device on the market, which controls the colors of an Apple cinema display pixel by pixel. It can now be used even for color grading, which poses the highest demands to color correctness.

http://www.matrox.com/video/products/pdf/mxo.pdf