Bought new iMac 20" Faded Screen

People with good displays are probably using them, rather than taking pictures of them. Absence of evidence isn't the same as evidence of absence...

This obsession with photos is misguided and irrelevant, IMHO. I question the validity of the photos I've seen because I can't change the calibration settings of a photo or experiment with the gradient effect it shows by changing its viewing angle, and most of the people who keep posting photos appear to be waging a campaign rather than trying to examine the problem objectively.

Just look at this thread as an example. As I write this it's at 390 posts, the bulk of which have been posted by no more than a dozen or so people. A few people are making quite a lot of noise about it here but beyond that the issue is getting scant attention elsewhere.

I haven't posted photos of mine because it's more time and trouble than it's worth and in the end it won't change any minds. When I posted a screenshot, some who initially mistook it for a photo expressed skepticism because it looked too perfect, which was part of the point I was trying to make.

People are more likely to find evidence of whatever it is they believe to be true rather than what is actually true, and will reject evidence to the contrary. Some people may have created some impressive illusions by posting photos, but there is no substitute for examining actual displays.

The real problem here, at least with the 20" aluminum iMacs, is that Apple befuddled a few too many previous iMac users who don't understand the differences in LCD display panel types when they switched the 20" iMac from an S-IPS panel to a TN panel. The rest is just sour grapes.

capaho wrote:

When I posted a screenshot, some who initially mistook it for a photo expressed skepticism
because it looked too perfect, *which was part of the point I was trying to make*.

*"Please let me know if you can see evidence of a gradient problem."*

*"That screenshot is an accurate image, it's exactly as it looks to the naked eye."*

*"It passed the eyeball test. I checked the image carefully to make sure it*
*matched the actual screen. I wouldn't have posted it if it weren't an accurate*
*representation of the display."*

http://discussions.apple.com/message.jspa?messageID=5549883#5549883

...too bad you can't delete the evidence, huh?

Looby

"The discipline of the written word punishes both stupidity and dishonesty."
\- John Steinbeck

.

...too bad you can't delete the evidence, huh?

That screenshot and my comments regarding it were intended as an integrity test for some of the people here. Having explained it twice already, you still don't get the point, which may be a fitting analogy for your stubborn belief that there is something wrong with all 20" aluminum iMac displays.

Just today, it seems like my screen has faded in brightness. Rather, the correct term would probably be it has decreases its illuminations. I could have sworn my screen was brighter (thus the colours projecting more vibrantly) but now my whites look like a drab grey and everything else just looks dimmer and shades darker than what it used to. Anyone know whats up? Thanks for th input!

Capaho... A screen shot sees what the computer sees, a photo sees what the human looking at the computer sees. *And you didnt know that* when you posted your screen shot as evidence of a non defective 20" iMac.

Now you're trying to go back in time and say "Oh - wait - I knew that - I was just testing you!" Isn't that the kind of "logic" most of us stopped using in 3rd grade ?

capaho wrote:
Just look at this thread as an example. As I write this it's at 390 posts, the bulk of which have been posted by no more than a dozen or so people. A few people are making quite a lot of noise about it

"A dozen or so people"? "A few people making quite a lot of noise"? Then why does every other thread on this board have a handful or a dozen or maybe a hundred views, *and this particular one have over 20,000 views?*

As I've mentioned previously, I don't have the time to debate you, so feel free to spin your reply however you'd like. Whatever your comments are, I'm sure they will be quite transparent.

A screen shot sees what the computer sees, a photo sees what the human looking at the computer sees.

It's not that simple. The range of quality in digital cameras is rather broad and there are too many factors that can result in an image that does not match what the human eye sees. A fixed photo, in particular, is rather pointless in examining the gradient effect.

And you didnt know that when you posted your screen shot as evidence of a non defective 20" iMac.

Now you're just being silly. The screenshot was to emphasize a point (as I have previously explained). Of course, it's a bit-perfect image of the graphics data (at least in theory), but it will appear to have the characteristics of whatever display it is being viewed on. I was hoping to catch someone complaining about a flaw that was actually a result of their own display.

"A dozen or so people"? "A few people making quite a lot of noise"? Then why does every other thread on this board have a handful or a dozen or maybe a hundred views, and this particular one have over 20,000 views?

There is a difference between people viewing and people posting. I'm quite sure that most of the people who are reading this thread are doing so for the entertainment value. The number of actual complainers is quite small.

Truthiness2008 wrote:
Capaho... A screen shot sees what the computer sees, a photo sees what the human looking at the computer sees. *And you didnt know that* when you posted your screen shot as evidence of a non defective 20" iMac.

I really shouldn't post on here again, as I don't have a 20" iMac (although all the ones I saw in person looked reasonable to me - not a very wide viewing angle but no worse than most other LCDs I've seen) but...this has to be one of the most bizarre efforts yet on this thread! "A screen shot sees what the computer sees"??? Erm? I assume the closest the computer gets to "seeing" is via the built in iSight, so that statement is utterly bizarre. "A photo sees what the human looking at the computer sees" - again - erm? Photos can see now?

Back to life, back to reality. As Capaho has pointed out, there are so many variables involved in taking the photos on this thread (the one or two that are constantly re-posted) - that they are next to meaningless. Certainly the number one poster has not taken controlled photos of a 20"iMac display and of a comparable 20" TN LCD panel, which would at least go some way towards allowing comparisons to be made. The only test worth taking, it seems to me, is to use your own eyes, not digital images where the CCD in the camera and the display you view the images on make massive differences (Looby, on my Powerbook, the "gradient" on your pictures disappears completely if I move my head up or down - perhaps a characteristic of the display used by Apple in an earlier computer, and a "professional" one at that, seeing as you keep going on about the term professional.)

"A dozen or so people"? "A few people making quite a lot of noise"? Then why does every other thread on this board have a handful or a dozen or maybe a hundred views, *and this particular one have over 20,000 views?*

Yep. Literally a handful of people. There are 20,000 views because this thread has dragged on for months. The number of views divided by the number of replies is fairly constant for the threads on here.
This thread: 21274/396=54
The next thread down: 833/12=69
The next thread: 214/3=71

I could go on. Keep spreading the misinformation guys. On another thread one person has been suckered into buying expensive screen calibration equipment to use with his 24"iMac, because of the hysterical ranting on here, and discovered that he didn't like the result of calibrating his screen.

DC Steve wrote:
I took your suggestion and ordered Spyder2 Express. It worked fairly well, but my printed images did not look like the screen. So I downloaded a trial version of Color Eyes and recalibrated. Wow! Now my screen looks dark and muddy. Plus, everything has a purplish cast. What am I doing wrong? This certainly isn't worth paying for.

What a ridiculous situation for people to get themselves in, simply because of the rants of a handful of people on here. I'm using my 24" with factory settings and it looks absolutely fine.

The screen image quality shouldn't just suddenly change on its own. Check the display calibration settings and see if they've changed. If so, you might want to adjust them. If not, and the image quality appears to have degraded suddenly, you might want to call AppleCare.

capaho wrote:

The range of quality in digital cameras is rather broad and
there are too many factors that can result in an image that
does not match what the human eye sees.

TallyHo wrote:

As Capaho has pointed out, there are so many variables involved
in taking the photos on this thread (the one or two that are
constantly re-posted) - that they are next to meaningless.

Yes, photography is a sham, cameras don't work, evidence-free
strenuous chin-wagging is superior to dozens of actual laboratory
measurements published by tftcentral, tomshardware, and others.

Please ignore the fact that hundreds upon hundreds of cheap TN
monitors have been certified to meet industry-standard color and
brightnesss uniformity standards. Those tests are meaningless...

... 'cause everyone knows that photography is pure quackery,

Looby

capaho wrote:

Just look at this thread as an example. As I write this it's at 390 posts,
the bulk of which have been posted by no more than a dozen or so people.
*A few people are making quite a lot of noise* ...

* Looby: 51 posts* -- including:

\- Twenty-five posts with photographs and/or links to monitor reviews and
test results, technical references on LCD monitor test/certification criteria,
Apple's display (un)specifications, LCD manufacturers' panel part numbers
and specifications, and various other forms of actual information.

* capaho: 68 posts* -- including:

\- One digital screen grab masquerading as a photograph.

\- One plagiarized, cut n' pasted, techno-babble non sequitur.

\- One link to an "All About LCDs In 500 Words or Less" puff-piece.

\- Sixty-five very generous servings of "Proof by strenuous assertion."

...now, please tell us more about "noise" sources,

Looby

Now you're just being silly.

TallyHo wrote:

Truthiness2008 wrote:
"A dozen or so people"? "A few people making quite a lot of noise"? Then why does every other thread on this board have a handful or a dozen or maybe a hundred views, *and this particular one have over 20,000 views?*

Yep. Literally a handful of people. There are 20,000 views because this thread has dragged on for months. The number of views divided by the number of replies is fairly constant for the threads on here.
This thread: 21274/396=54
The next thread down: 833/12=69
The next thread: 214/3=71

Sounds like Carl Rovian Math. Oh wait, his math was wrong, that's not good!

The toms hardware article said there were something like 15,000 views here. That was a couple weeks ago. There are now 21,000 views. I said 20,000 thank you for correcting me. *So over 6,000 new views in 2 weeks.* That's not the result of "months" of viewing. That's the result of holiday buying and people coming home with defective displays.

{quote:title=TallyHo wrote:}{On another thread one person has been suckered into buying expensive screen calibration equipment to use with his 24"iMac, because of the hysterical ranting on here, and discovered that he didn't like the result of calibrating his screen.{quote}

Most people don't seem to have a clue what a calibration tool is all about. It's to make prints to look the same way as what's on your screen. Calibration leaves you with a less bright LCD, colors look less vibrant and overall: less good to your eye. Calibration is not here to make-my-screen-look-nice! Those guys in here that recommend calibration all the time are exactly the ones who deny the existing of the widespread bad panel problem.

pechspilz wrote:
Those guys in here that recommend calibration all the time are exactly the ones who deny the existing of the widespread bad panel problem.

Well... i think they even don't know what is that "calibration"... There is no problem with LCD panels BUT the quality of this LCD panels is the problem... I have 20" iMac, no bad pixels, nothing is wrong, it works, but the quality of my LCD panel is not OK.

Yet again you ignore the content of my post - how come the "gradient" in your photos disappears on my powerbook display? Because that display (TN I assume) cancels it out. Yes the new iMac uses a TN panel, with associated narrow vertical viewing angle, but so did Apple's professional laptop of a couple of years ago. It's really not a huge issue in my use of my powerbook...

Yet again you mention laboratory tests: show us a laboratory test for the iMac you've been ranting about. Your "photo", which is then viewed on a variety of screens by people who access this site, is not a laboratory test Looby. What's so hard to understand?