This discussion is archived
2264 Views 11 Replies Latest reply: Dec 9, 2009 1:12 AM by FrankBobandy
Currently Being ModeratedDec 6, 2009 12:23 AM (in response to FrankBobandy)If you calculate and compare the total number of pixels, the difference is only 10%. The 27-inch iMac has 10% fewer pixels compared to the 30-inch Cinema Display.
If you calculate the pixels per inch (PPI):
27-inch iMac - about 109 PPI
30-inch Cinema Display - about 101 PPI
So the same objects (and text) will look a bit smaller on the 27-inch iMac's screen. The 27-inch iMac has smaller pixels. Also in comparison, the previous 24-inch was much lower at about 94 PPI.
would have a huge impact as far as resolution goes.
The actual resolutions are:
27-inch iMac - 2560x1440
30-inch Cinema Display - 2560x1600
So the horizontal resolution is the same and the 27-inch iMac has 160 fewer pixels vertically.
think itd make sense to sell off the 30" for the 1300 ~ 1400 and pick up either of the baseline iMacs.
Or you could use the 30-inch Cinema Display as the 27-inch iMac's second display.Various including Intel iMac, Power Mac G5, Pismo w/G4, Power Mac 8100 w/G3, Mac OS X (10.6.2), also Mac OS X 10.5.8, 10.4.11, Mac OS X 10.3.9, and Mac OS 9.x
Currently Being ModeratedDec 6, 2009 2:02 AM (in response to FrankBobandy)My old setup for 4 years was a 30", 23" and 20" Cinema Displays and after purchasing the 27" iMac I had the 30" display setup next to it for a couple of days. To me, the picture on the new iMac was so vibrant and beautiful, that 30" looked horrible next to it. After making an assessment and being a long time advocate of matte displays, I realized the reflection on the new glass front was not a problem in my office environment, I immediately sold all of my old displays and bought the new 24" ACD to go with my new iMac.
Currently Being ModeratedDec 6, 2009 4:38 AM (in response to Scott Emeson)perfect.
so how is working with the 16x9 ratio compared to the 16x10 any sort of difference as far as workflow goes?
i understand the difference in pixels and resolution isnt that difference but just trying to get as much perspective since the local apple stores dont have 30" on display here for some reason.
and i figure ~1400 for a display i paid the same amount for 2 years ago is pretty worth it towards upgrading to a nicer LED display and a secondary system that I could use for multi purpose work.
besides I dont wanna completely get rid of my macbook considering i like its ultraportability and thef act I can still run leopard on it as well (which in these early months of SL is godo to have).
cant wait, even the baseline 27" iMac is enough for my needs, i may wanna try upping the graphics card VRAM to the 512 version, but im sure I can suffice.15" Macintosh Book Professional Unibody, Mac OS X (10.5.7), Issues with shared devices/10.5.7
Currently Being ModeratedDec 6, 2009 9:09 AM (in response to FrankBobandy)Work flow feels about the same, you can easily put two documents side by side. The only different feel to me is the height feels slightly shorter and the text slightly smaller, but not enough to make a difference in work flow. Although the text may be smaller, it is sharper. My workflow may be different than yours, because I have a new 24" paired up with the 27". If you can afford it, it is well worth it, especially since I'm a big advocate of working with two screens. Even with the one 27", it's pretty impressive.
Luckily for me, my 27" hasn't had any of the reported problems of dead pixels, yellow tinge or flickering. On a completely black screen, I can see a little light bleed from the edges, but to me it seems normal compared to any other screen I have seen and the people complaining about this may be looking for something that doesn't exist with current technology, but that is for them to decide. Besides, I don't use a black wallpaper and don't notice the problem when watching movies. Additionally, I don't really enjoy watching movies on my computer anyway. That's what my 50" plasma is for.
Currently Being ModeratedDec 8, 2009 1:40 AM (in response to Scott Emeson)Quick question,
what edition of the 27" iMac do you have?
I'm looking at either the complete Baseline model (27" 3.06Ghz 4GB 1TB 256MB VRAM) or if i can squeeze an extra $300 for the i5.
but i still have my main workhorse (the 17" uMBP)Macintosh | PowerBook G4 17", Mac OS X (10.5.6), MacBook Pro 17" 2009 | Time Capsule
Currently Being ModeratedDec 8, 2009 6:48 PM (in response to Scott Emeson)Thanks for your feedback. Plenty of rave reviews for the iMac's display, but not a lot of comparisons from people who own the ACD 30". Hoping it's hard drive is fast enough that I won't miss my SSD, since I'll like sell both my ACD and Mac Pro if the iMac replaces them.Quad Core Mac Pro | Mac Book Air | iPhone, Mac OS X (10.5.3)
Currently Being ModeratedDec 8, 2009 7:36 PM (in response to Christopher Meinck)You're Welcome.
I would like to add one caveat. I am not a professional video editor or photographer that relies on color correctness. From this perspective I have no experience because it is not a concern for me. So my feedback probably isn't helpful for someone who is concerned with this issue. Although I find the picture quality to be excellent from a general computer user's point of view; if you are a professional who relies on this ability, you should rely on someone who is more qualified pertaining to this subject matter. If someone would like to comment on this issue feel free, otherwise I think there are other threads which discuss this particular issue.
Currently Being ModeratedDec 8, 2009 8:45 PM (in response to Scott Emeson)Thanks again, i recently sold my display for roughly ~$1400 so i got basically what I paid for and couldnt have upgraded to the imac wihtout getting rid ofone component.
i was thinking of getting the 17" uMBP & 27" iMac but im not sur eif thatd be overkill or not.
(a friend of mine had the 17" uMBP and a 30" and compared between them, the 17" Display was way more vibrant and much easier to look at then the 30" as the 30" was really washed out, yet it was fairly colour accurate and didnt look bad, but compared to that little display i liked the 17" display haha)
i tested out the baseline 3.06Ghz iMac at the apple store the other day and i was pretty impressed with it, the color quality looked amazing compared to the 30" behind it.
I think the i5 would be nice but tips the scale of my budget which is no more than 1700~1800 with my student discounts and taxes. which is what the baseline rounds upto after all is applied.
i7 would be a bit overkill for me right now at least. i dont see myself needing that much horsepower i dont htink.
as i was looking for a desktop machine to do some other editing work and have mobile version too.
if anyone has further tips i'd love to know!Mac OS X (10.5.7)
Currently Being ModeratedDec 8, 2009 9:18 PM (in response to FrankBobandy)You might try going to this link for the experiences of both pro and advanced amateur photographers.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1017 It is the Mac Forum of Digital Photography Review. Their display needs can be very ciritical so their comments might prove especially helpful to you.
Good luck!i5 iMac; G5 dual 1.8 (10.58 OS X), Mac OS X (10.6.2)
Currently Being ModeratedDec 9, 2009 1:12 AM (in response to 3 Point)hmm good reviews and info guys.
the iMac27" will be a secondary distribution computer running bootcamp & SL, also sending out movies & audio from the system and stream it over the network as well as using it for post-production while i use the umBP for regular raw work.
i might snag one up of the baseline c2d before the holiday weekend. =)Mac OS X (10.5.7), Issues with shared devices/10.5.7