New ( 2011 ) iMac screen

<p>Hi<br>

I need to replace my ageing white iMac soon and I am wondering whether to go for a Mac Pro or the quad core 27 inch iMac.<br>

I would not hesitate about going for the latter except for the issue of screen brightness. Does anyone know if there is a way to get the new iMac screens down to 100 cd in luminance? This is what my print lab requires but I have never been able to get my current screen down below around 155 and I've had to use shades as a workaround. I'd rather not do this anymore so if someone can confirm whether or not the new iMac is able to do this, I would be most grateful.<br>

Thanks</p>

<p>William</p>

<p>cant say for sure since I dont own one but it's my understanding that the new screens don't have the 'nuclear bright' issues that the 2008/2009 series did. Also, software like ColorEyes or BasicColor (or even Shades) can drive down the luminance.</p>

<p>There’s nothing at all special or even good (in terms of calibration quality) of Apple displays. If that’s important to you, go for a desktop or something that will allow you to attach a much higher quality display for imaging (I’m keen on NEC SpectraView II’s). Especially if you want a wide gamut, easily calibrated display system. </p>

<p>Thanks folks. I'm veering towards a seperate display. I will certainly look at the NECs. I'm also now wondering if I'd be better buyting a Macbookpro and using it with the NEC?</p>

<p>William</p>

<p>I have a 27inch quad and yes the luminance can go down to 16.. far lower than your need ; )</p>

<p>i also have a NEC attach to it because i need it, but the imac 27inch is more than enough for many demanding prosumer and serious hobbyst.</p>

<p>You dont need anything special other than a regular spider3 pro, or better a eye1 display2 to calibrate it.</p>

<p>Theres is just no need for most of the people i know that do photography for a Mac Pro.. well, i like to think that if I dont need it and i do this for a living.. other that do this for *fun* certainly dont need it either.. but that is my opinion ; )</p>

To answer your question: Does anyone know if there is a way to get the new iMac screens down to 100

cd in luminance?

 

Yes, that's not a problem. I have a new 27" iMac (and a MacPro) and the problem you speak of was with

respect to the older display which was fluorescent lit. The new ones are illuminated with LEDs and there's

much better control.

 

Also, by holding down Shift + Option while adjusting brightness, you can make changes in smaller (25% of a click)

increments.

 

My 27" iMac display will go down to 13 cd/m^2 using an Eye-One (making an assumption the device is still accurate at such low values).

<p>Now if someone can prove with visual evidence either verbally described or photographed and posted here inline that an NEC display is better than an Apple display with regard to editing and viewing images, THAT would be some HELPFUL information.</p>

<p>Visual, sure. I have both, duel display system. Big difference. </p>

<p>Big difference? In what way?</p>

<p>Are you talking about the gamut clipping issue converting to sRGB from ProPhotoRGB with certain saturated yellows, oranges, blues and cyans?</p>

<p>Gamut, purity, smoothness of gradations. Ease to profile. Profile options. </p>

<p>i was using Bill Atkinson's 'twenty-eight balls' test image and was amazed at the difference between the iMac screen and the NEC PA241. the iMac viewing angle isn't bad but the NEC is a whole 'nother thing. Also, when I got the NEC out of the box, the little plastic piece that locks the stand up/down motion was broken. No questions asked, they sent me an entire new stand assembly (vs. just the little piece).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Also, when I got the NEC out of the box, the little plastic piece that locks the stand up/down motion was broken</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I had the same problem (initially). There’s what appears to be a left/right slider for locking. I couldn’t get it to move either way. I practically broke the plastic. Then I figured out, you have to push down on the display from the top, then the lock moves quite easily. Its not intuitive nor do I recall seeing it explained.</p>

<p>Well thanks to everyone for their help. It is much appreciated.</p>

<p>I'm likely to get a Macbookpro and upgrade the hard drive to the 7200RPM option, and combine this with a NEC screen. Although a bit more pricey than the iMac on its own, I reckon that will give me the benefit of the NEC screen and the flexibility of the laptop. The upgraded hard drive should give me pretty much the same performance as the iMac I would hope, and certainly enough for my needs.</p>

<p>William</p>

<p>William, I have a 2009 iMac and the screen is not at all too bright for me, though I don't use it in a darkened room and I haven't ever tried to properly calibrate it. I wouldn't recommend using a laptop as a desktop machine though, unless you need to use it half the time on the road. Laptops run a lot hotter than iMacs, especially if you're going to run it in the closed position. I'd run it in the open position and use the laptop screen as a second monitor. Also, when the cpu works hard in a laptop, the fan starts spinning fast and it can be quite loud. The iMac, even when stressed, is wonderfully quiet. Plus you won't get that nice 27" iMac screen as part of the deal.</p>

<p>I'd consider getting the maxed out iMac i7 27" and a second monitor if you think you need one. The iMac has a high end IPS panel already, so you may be able to use it as your primary calibrated monitor without having to spend extra money on a second monitor. And as for a pro LCD panel, I wouldn't buy anything but an EIZO, and they start at around $1250 for the entry level one.</p>

<p>Run a dual 27” with one display being really good, the other not so much.</p>

<p>I have the new iMac with the 27inch monitor and an additional separate Apple 27 inch monitor (2 TB drive and 16 GB of RAM). I looked at the Mac Pro, but chose the iMac and could not be happier. I have a very large Apple system with an Xserve at the top and it works its way down to iPads, iPods and iPhones. I had my choice of systems and CPUs. I chose the full house iMac because of what really amounted to superior performance for my requirements. Unless you are doing serious real-time video production, the Mac Pro has little to offer over the iMac (except a higher price). My system has 24 TB of memory and the iMac serves it just fine. I run the full Adobe CS5 and do not find any fault with the system.</p>

<p>I've certainly decided I don't need a MacPro and as far as power goes, both the Macbookpro and the iMac have more than enough for me. I intended to run the laptop with the screen up using it for the editing software controls and the NEC monitor for the image.</p>

<p>Given that, I'm not sure I can see any advantage in going for the iMac option. I don't really need two 27" screens and I'd like the versatility of the laptop. I would like to use it for tethered shooting away from home.</p>

<p>Given this, are there really big disadvantages in going for this combo which I have overlooked?</p>

<p>William</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Given this, are there really big disadvantages in going for this combo which I have overlooked?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nothing that’s a deal breaker. I’ve done just that with one system and it works well. I’ve got quite a few drives daisy chained but it works. </p>

<p>@Brad:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Also, by holding down Shift + Option while adjusting brightness, you can make changes in smaller (25% of a click) increments.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks! I never knew that and have always wished I had finer control over screen backlighting. That is so fun.</p>

<p>William, it is 2 really good setup.. 2 that i have and still use.</p>

<p>Imac 27 + NEC (who need / want a Eizo? why...) for photo editing is a perfect setup.</p>

<p>Macbook pro 15 + NEC is another really good one, one that i use while assisting photographer on location.</p>

<p>both are good, the Imac is just faster to process images (LR export for example) but im talking seconds here per images... 3sec vs 4-5sec.. not bad just for 1 image, but another story when you need a fast 500 pict export ; )... many time a day.</p>

<p>The only thing is i would take the 13 inch macbook pro personnaly instead for better / smaller / less heavy option while on the road, and have a NEC at home / office to hook the system when i need it.</p>

 

<p>I am currently using both the new iMac 7 quad core with the 256 solid state drive and 2TB hard drive along with a MacBook Air with 256 solid state drive. I just couldn't be happier with this set up. The solid state drives are great to base the applications on with the files stored on the hard drive. The MacBook Air is so much more convenient than my MacBook Pro, which now sits neglected. I can't comment on improving this set up with a NEC monitor, perhaps what I don't know is a good thing; however, I am certainly very pleased with the iMac monitor.</p>

<p>Lowering the screen luminance is not a problem. That's a thing of the past. I don't know how perfect the screen is, but I just did a series of medium 12-18 prints and the match is very very good. Some people like to sneer down at the iMac because it's not as good as a NEC, but it's still a very good screen. I haven't had any problem calibrating at all. </p>

>>> Thanks! I never knew that and have always wished I had finer control over screen backlighting. That is so fun.

 

You're welcome. BTW, that works with increasing/decreasing sound volume as well - 25% of a click increments.

 

>>> Some people like to sneer down at the iMac because it's not as good as a NEC, but it's still a very good screen. I

haven't had any problem calibrating at all.

 

I'm also extremely pleased with the iMac display. Is it the "best?" No, but neither is my photography.

<blockquote>

<p>who need / want a Eizo? why...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Imaging professionals...</p>

<p>i meant "who want a Eizo, when you can buy a NEC for the same visual quality for less money for comparable model ".</p>