Intel iMac 20" display quality compared to ACD?

[jan_thomas1]

I'm considering buying the 20" iMac, and have a question about the built in

screen. I have read that the quality of the ACD's are excellent and many serious

amatuers/pro's use them for professional work. Now I am not a pro, and not

nearly serious enough as an amatuer so the point may be moot, but I would like

to know how the screens compare. I doubt that they use the same panels, and I

can't find the monitor specs of the iMac on the Apple store.

 

Anyone have any experience of the two (20" iMac and 20" ACD)?

[ellis_vener_photography]

I do and they are very close, the iMac screen may even be a little better, especially once

you have accurately calibrated and profiled the iMac, which means gettting a Gretag-

macbeth Eye One Display 2 or Monaco OPTIXxr monitor profiling kit. As it came fro mthe

factory my 20" imac was too bright for critical work so during the calibration process , the

brightness level was reset to about 44% of maximum brightness. But the color has been

very accurate. I'm very happy with the new iMac. The sweet spot for configuration for

Photoshop CS2 and Lightroom work (i haven't tried Aperturte recently) right now is 2Gb of

RAM , the standard amount of video RAM (unless you asre doign video or multi-media or a

lot of 3D rendering (gaming). I'll upgrade to 3Gb of RAM when the price for the 2Gb RAM

chip drops to a more reasonable level.

[erik scanhancer]

The iMac 20" panel itself is allright, but the lighting behind it is not as even as an ACD's. Only

the 24" iMac has two light sources, resulting in a much better overall evenness. I always have

to put critical images in the middle of the screen to get a good idea of their density.

Sometimes it gives me headaches and I open the images on my old 23" Cinema Display,

which is still better if you look straight into it (I mean: not under an angle). The ACD has

better definition in the shadow areas too, when calibrated to the same values as the iMac

screen.

[Brad_]

Just a side note...

 

If you can swing the extra cash ($500), the 24" in addition to giving you a larger (and IMO,,

absolutely gorgeuous display), you get a FireWire 800 interface and a zippier graphics card.

I've found FW800 interfaces significantly fast than FW400. And if you're considering Aperture,

the quicker video card will prove worth it. You can even improve that with an even better

graphics card and 256 MByte of video memory for an extra $125. Again, only important if

you're going to be running Aperture.

[micheleberti]

<blockquote>You can even improve that with an even better graphics card and 256 MByte</blockquote>

 

don't think so ... the photo editing doesn't need an expensive video card, unless you wanna do some videogames or videoediting.

[Brad_]

>> You can even improve that with an even better graphics card and 256 MByte<P>

 

>>> don't think so ... the photo editing doesn't need an expensive video card, unless you

wanna do some videogames or videoediting.<P>

 

No, you're wrong. Aperture (unlike photoshop and lightroom) heavily relies on <a href=

"http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/coreimage/">Apple's Core Image</a> graphics

technology. The

more sophisticated the graphics card (and the amount of vram), the snappier the resulting

image editing

performance. Core Image can run on a variety of graphics cards, or even totally in software

in low-end machines. Core Image is actually a framework that's built into the OS. That's

where all of the actual image editing routines live, rather than in an image editing

application like photoshop. <P>

 

Like I said above, important if you're running Aperture. Perhaps you are thinking of PCs

and photoshop/lightroom?

[Uhooru]

Ditto Brad, the 24 is great. The upgraded vid card may not help in CS2 or Lightroom, but It may make a difference in Aperature and other core graphic using apps, FCE/FCP etc. Its not a lot more and even though theoretically you could upgrade later, it will probably be practically improbable. 2GB has worked well for me for CS2, Lightroom, Aperture and FCE. I'll probably go to 3 when the ram is reasonable and Leopard comes in...I suppose.

[jan_thomas1]

Thanks for your responses re: the screen quality.

 

Getting the 24" may be a good move, but the 20" iMac is probably the best model that I can afford.

 

At the moment I am running a G4 mini with 1GB, any iMac is going to be a HUGE upgrade ;-)

[hardboiledphil]

Hi Jan

 

I'm currently running 20" ACD with a 20" iMac and whilst there is a difference it's not really that much in my opinion. The iMac screen is still much better than for example than the screen I am supplied with at work in terms of colour rendition.

 

Might be worth a visit to your local Apple store to do a comparison - they will usually oblige if you ask nicely.