Filed under: iMac
What the 27" iMac means for a designer
We asked our colleague over at Download Squad, Matt Heerema, for a designer's eye view on the new iMac 27" model.
Designers everywhere will rejoice at the announcement of the 27" iMac. With a resolution of 2560 x 1440 pixels, you are just 160 pixels shy of a full, pricey 30" monitor (2560 x 1600). My current design setup (17" MBP, 24" Cinema display) nets me two 1920 x 1200 screens, though only one of them is really useful at a time.
My current Photoshop or Fireworks workspace occupies about 1500px of screen (with however much height is available at the moment). The 27" iMac means I would have a spare 1000px to have a browser with a full-width Web page open for reference, or possibly my coding environment (usually Textmate or Coda), for which 1000px would definitely be sufficient.
This side-by-side workspace would mean massively efficient flow. Combine that with the intense specs of the iMac (quad-core processor & boatloads of RAM, anyone?), and you have the ultimate designer machine. Also: The 27" will handle DisplayPort input as well as output, allowing it to double as an external display for yet another computer, in a pinch.
Now, where did I put my credit card?
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Simon Arch said 1:38PM on 10-20-2009
Sorry, you are not a mere 160 pixels shy of a 30" monitor. Try 1,228,800.
WHY do people want 16:9 displays? Why are people willing to settle for FEWER pixels, for a SMALLER display? Hell, if the iMacs could at least play BluRay I'd understand this move, but they CAN'T.
Reply
SteveJr_Ri said 1:41PM on 10-20-2009
Blu-rays would be nice, but Apple really wants you to spend money on HD rentals/purchases from iTunes.
Sucks, but looks like it will be a while before we see blu-ray support on a mac. Also given how much Steve hates blu-ray...Only time will tell.
Pumapayam said 1:43PM on 10-20-2009
It's still more pixels than the previous 24".
But I see your point.
So why is a computerless 5 year old 30" LCD selling for $1800 and a 27" iMac selling for only $200 more?
geekmorgan said 1:46PM on 10-20-2009
The 16:9 aspect ratio matches widescreen DVDs and HD TV so you're not going to get any letterboxing when watching those programs. Also, they can use panels that would also be used for TVs bringing the cost down since the manufacturer no longer has to create two different panels at the same size (16:10 vs 16:9)
There are many more sources of HD footage than BluRay, and with the video capabilities of the 27" iMac it makes sense to go with 16:9.
Dave Wood said 1:51PM on 10-20-2009
How'd you come up with that number? It's only 409,600 pixels less than the 30". 2560*(1600-1440)
Mark Kawakami said 1:56PM on 10-20-2009
Actually, it's just over 400,000 pixels, and you CAN play blu-Ray because the new iMacs have HDMI inputs. You just have to get your own blu-Ray player. I think clearly the addition of the HDMI inputs means Apple expects people to use this as both a desktop computer and a second TV, which is something I'd actually really like, especially if I could watch what's coming in over HDMI in a window on the desktop.
Paul said 3:21PM on 10-20-2009
He's talking about the 160 pixel vertical difference. Quite simple to understand really. I don't think anyone would think the bottom 160 rows of the 30" display is 1 pixel wide.
Simon Arch said 11:08AM on 10-21-2009
Ah, I fail basic maths! D'oh! You're totally right, of course - this is about 1/3 fewer pixels than I said, HOWEVER! My point I believe remains valid - ESPECIALLY since this post is called "What a 27" iMac means for a designer" and not "What a 27" iMac means for watching DVDs". More pixels is ALWAYS better, and I cannoth fathom why a designer would prefer a 1440 pixel vertical resolution over the 1600 pixel vertical resolution offered by a 16:10 monitor with a 2560 pixel horizontal resolution.
Seriously, doesn't ANYone want a taller monitor? I'd give my eyeteeth for a monitor capable of 2560x2048 resolution. I can't possibly be the only one, can I?
Mikey said 1:43PM on 10-20-2009
Ha! Oh right... BluRay is a key to Apple adoption. HA!
Reply
John.B said 11:32PM on 10-20-2009
@Mark Kawakami "because the new iMacs have HDMI inputs."
??? Not that I've been able to verify. The 27 inch models apparently have external DisplayPort inputs, but no HDMI.
Jeremy Greenawalt said 1:50PM on 10-20-2009
1,228,800? Actually, I think it's 409,600 by my reckoning... either way, I have to admit that I do like the 16:9 because I am way more concerned with opening up windows side-by-side for editing than an extra 160px in height.
Reply
JJ said 1:53PM on 10-20-2009
What do the new iMacs mean for designers. It means Apple is forcing designers, who don't want gloss screens, to accept gloss or give up iMacs. If you want to protest that, leave your petition comment at http://macmatte.wordpress.com
Reply
Joey said 3:36PM on 10-20-2009
Yeah we're in a great position now: No mid range tower, no all-in-ones without a glossy screen and the performance of the Adobe Suite is abysmal on our platform compared to Windows. It's never been a better time to be a designer on a Mac. :-/
PhoenixMist said 8:53PM on 10-24-2009
Wow like you can't us other screen sorces... Cmon.
Lars said 1:54PM on 10-20-2009
No matte option. #fail
Reply
Vadrix said 1:55PM on 10-20-2009
Could you guys try and get someone to test the input on the 27" iMac. Being able to hook this iMac to my Xbox 360 or PS3 via an HDMI to Mini Display port adapter makes it much much more attractive then any other previous iMac to date, at least for me, being able to use it as a tv is a big plus.
Reply
PHiL said 3:45PM on 10-20-2009
Agreed! I am hoping a local shop will let me try.
Tipex said 2:06PM on 10-20-2009
If it would have a matte option I'd buy it instantly, my 24" is just too glossy especially as I have to invert the colors for my eyes.
Reply
Matt Jones said 3:21PM on 10-20-2009
FFS, stop with the "glare" whining. There was an equally loud bunch of yoyos when LCDs finally got decent, complaining that they couldn't work without the glassy surface of their CRTs.
Joey said 3:43PM on 10-20-2009
Matt, against my own better judgement I purchased a Macbook with a glossy display. I figured people were just whining about it. Really how bad could it be? Well it's now nearly two years later it's my least favorite Mac across every system I've ever owned (and I had a Performa so that's saying a lot).
I can't work anywhere near a window, I can't demo my websites to clients in meetings, and every little piece of dirt and fuzz is exceptionally noticeable in the right light. So I'd never purchase a glossy screen for work ever again. It's fine on my netbook, but not on a work system.