Mac LED Monitor

[FlyFishingTN]

I use a Mac LED monitor to edit my photos at home but when I open them at work they look horrible. I have a wide screen at work so maybe it is just stretching the images.

I edit the flies in aperture 3 and export them at 640x640. Is there another method to re size that is cleaner for web images?

A few examples. These aren't tack sharp but they passed on my Mac. On this monitor they are pixelating (if that's a word) around the edges pretty bad.
http://www.trophyfishingtn.com/coppermine/albums/userpics/_MG_4467.jpg

http://www.trophyfishingtn.com/coppermine/albums/userpics/_MG_4414.jpg

How do they look? Any feed back appreciated.

[realmike15]

I use a Mac LED monitor to edit my photos at home but when I open them at work they look horrible. I have a wide screen at work so maybe it is just stretching the images.

I edit the flies in aperture 3 and export them at 640x640. Is there another method to re size that is cleaner for web images?

A few examples. These aren't tack sharp but they passed on my Mac. On this monitor they are pixelating (if that's a word) around the edges pretty bad.
http://www.trophyfishingtn.com/coppermine/albums/userpics/_MG_4467.jpg

http://www.trophyfishingtn.com/coppermine/albums/userpics/_MG_4414.jpg

How do they look? Any feed back appreciated.

What monitor are you using at work? I'm looking at these on a 13" MacBook Pro and they seem fine to me. Colors might be a little over Saturated, but I'm being overly picky here. No pixelation on my end.

[dsd17]

No pixelation here. They look just fine. Using a calibrated dell 2209WA

[JayCee Images]

Calibrated iMac...they look fine to me.

[pip boogaloo]

calibrated sony with firefox cm enabled ( for images with profiles) - spot on

[FarmerTed]

Is your work monitor running at its native resolution? If not then you'll experience poor image quality and the images can look plain wonky.

[FlyFishingTN]

My work monitor is a new Dell 24" wide screen. It must be stretching those images. Thanks for the help guys!

[dsd17]

My work monitor is a new Dell 24" wide screen. It must be stretching those images. Thanks for the help guys!

Make sure its at the maximum resolutions, otherwise it'll look like crap.

[DarkKnight369]

My work monitor is a new Dell 24" wide screen. It must be stretching those images. Thanks for the help guys!


First off, if we are talking about an Apple Cinema display here, its one of the best monitors available for color correction/photo/design type work. Even the iMac and Mac Book Pro screens are nice.

I used to have a dell monitor at work and it was just awful. No matter how much I used to try and calibrate it, it would look no where near as good as my 17" MBP screen. I then got a 24" Apple Cinema Display at work, which blew away the MBP screen, which blew away the dell monitor.

Also be aware that depending on your settings, the resolution on your Mac display may be much higher than that of your dell. My 17" MBP and 24" cinema are both 1920 x 1200, which is higher definition than a 1080p TV. Sometimes I will be doing design work on the MBP display, and I will look at it at work on the 24" and it doesn't look as good because I missed some details.

[FarmerTed]

First off, if we are talking about an Apple Cinema display here, its one of the best monitors available for color correction/photo/design type work. Even the iMac and Mac Book Pro screens are nice.

I used to have a dell monitor at work and it was just awful. No matter how much I used to try and calibrate it, it would look no where near as good as my 17" MBP screen. I then got a 24" Apple Cinema Display at work, which blew away the MBP screen, which blew away the dell monitor.

Also be aware that depending on your settings, the resolution on your Mac display may be much higher than that of your dell. My 17" MBP and 24" cinema are both 1920 x 1200, which is higher definition than a 1080p TV. Sometimes I will be doing design work on the MBP display, and I will look at it at work on the 24" and it doesn't look as good because I missed some details.

This all may be true, however the main complaint by the OP seems/seemed to be related to aspect ratio and screen resolution, not simply picture quality. A monitor run at a non-native resolution can and will stretch images to fill the screen, especially if using a non-widescreen resolution on a widescreen monitor.

Also, running at "high" resolutions really requires that the monitor be connected via DVI-D, HDMI, or some other digital source. Running a high resolution via analog D-SUB (aka SVGA 15-pin) port is a good way to guarantee really crappy display quality due to the monitor having to convert the signal from analog to digital and the result not always "lining up" on the screen, resulting in fuzzy text, images, etc.

Apple doesn't make the actual LCD panels, btw.

[DarkKnight369]

This all may be true, however the main complaint by the OP seems/seemed to be related to aspect ratio and screen resolution, not simply picture quality. A monitor run at a non-native resolution can and will stretch images to fill the screen, especially if using a non-widescreen resolution on a widescreen monitor.

Also, running at "high" resolutions really requires that the monitor be connected via DVI-D, HDMI, or some other digital source. Running a high resolution via analog D-SUB (aka SVGA 15-pin) port is a good way to guarantee really crappy display quality due to the monitor having to convert the signal from analog to digital and the result not always "lining up" on the screen, resulting in fuzzy text, images, etc.

Apple doesn't make the actual LCD panels, btw.

Sorry, I guess I completed over thought that. I am so computer savy that I forget not everyone is sometimes. All those things you said were true.

I realize Mac doesn't make the screens...they don't actually make a majority of the components. However, I have yet to see or hear of a monitor that is better than my Cinema Display at work.

[FarmerTed]

Sorry, I guess I completed over thought that. I am so computer savy that I forget not everyone is sometimes. All those things you said were true.

I realize Mac doesn't make the screens...they don't actually make a majority of the components. However, I have yet to see or hear of a monitor that is better than my Cinema Display at work.

No worries, sometimes it's hard to gauge someone when you can't see their face and know if they actually get what you're saying or if they're up to speed on the basics (Wasn't too long ago that people didn't think LCDs were better than CRT, then DVI wasn't a big deal, etc. When you like and know what you have it's sometimes hard to think how something else might be different or better). :D I can tell you, someone like my mother would probably think a 22" LCD blurred due to being connected via D-SUB looked stunning and wouldn't even think to do or try anything different until someone came along and said something. Not that the OP is like my mother. :lol:

I agree, the Apple displays are beautiful. My main display is a Dell 2405FPW from '06 and it still does OK, but there's no comparison to what my 15" unibody MacBook Pro display is like. Part of it is the glossy screen vs. matte, part of it is LED vs CCFL, and of course the Mac is 4 years newer.

[DarkKnight369]

I don't like the glossy screen. I have Mac on both my work and home 17" MBP...last gen before the unibody. The gloss sure makes the colors pop a bit more, but they also are glare monsters.

[HappySnapper90]

Make sure its at the maximum resolutions, otherwise it'll look like crap.

Not maximum resolution, but nativeresolution.

And most likely if you view a 400 pixel X 400 pixel image on any monitor, it will be physically longer in one direction than the other. Try it, put a ruler up to your screen and make sure you're at a 100% view of the square image.

[themadman]

Dell makes nice screens to, but maybe your work just doesn't have em.

[FarmerTed]

Not maximum resolution, but nativeresolution.

And most likely if you view a 400 pixel X 400 pixel image on any monitor, it will be physically longer in one direction than the other. Try it, put a ruler up to your screen and make sure you're at a 100% view of the square image.

That doesn't make any sense (and isn't true). Why? Because your monitor's resolution matches the aspect ratio. If you had a 16:10 monitor that was 1200x1200 resolution then yes, you would have images that stretched along the longer side.

A 16:10 monitor with a 1920x1200 resolution will provide perfectly square 400x400 images. Same with a 1920x1080/16:9, the same 400x400 image will be perfectly square...just like it would on a 1600x1200/4:3 ratio monitor...

Think about it this way, your monitor's resolution IS like a ruler. There are more pixels on the long/wide side than the short side, just like when you measure with a ruler there are more cm/mm/in on the long side when you measure the physical dimensions. The pixels aren't being stretched.

[dozyaustin]

That doesn't make any sense (and isn't true). Why? Because your monitor's resolution matches the aspect ratio. If you had a 16:10 monitor that was 1200x1200 resolution then yes, you would have images that stretched along the longer side.

A 16:10 monitor with a 1920x1200 resolution will provide perfectly square 400x400 images. Same with a 1920x1080/16:9, the same 400x400 image will be perfectly square...just like it would on a 1600x1200/4:3 ratio monitor...

Think about it this way, your monitor's resolution IS like a ruler. There are more pixels on the long/wide side than the short side, just like when you measure with a ruler there are more cm/mm/in on the long side when you measure the physical dimensions. The pixels aren't being stretched.

pixel is a pixel. If you are on your native resolution, 400x400 will be 400x400 will be 400x400 . period. If it is not, something is _wrong_!

[Purple Puppy]

LCD panel manufacturers go to great lengths to ensure that each pixel is square.