How do i use my $2000 MOTU FW audio interface now?!
Working in a pro studio like you, I wouldn't ever consider a Macbook for the kind of equipment you are connecting to it or the software you plan to run on it
I'm typing this on a new 13" Macbook in an Apple store.
I was looking forward to buying an MBP but I'm not gonna bother. I'll maybe get a 12" PB off ebay and trick it out the best I can til something with a screen I can look at comes along.
The screen on this thing is TERRIBLE. As it happens I'm a TV exec who uses laptops for editing and graphics work frequently. I wouldn't even use this for sending emails. Even at max lux all the colours look dark and greyed out, and I really don't wanna have to look at people walking around behind me or my own hands typing while I work.
The gloss screen factor is a real shame because in every other way (except the new power key, which looks too small and cheap compared to the previous style) both the MBP and new MB are beautiful. The new trackpad is extremely easy to use. I love the new graphics chip. I'm just not prepared to risk migraines using this thing.
I am betting that there is either a gloss coating available or will be one shortly.
As Jason Snell at Macworld so eloquently posted, "At first glance, the screens of both models appear to be quite similar?and similar to the MacBook Air?s as well. The LED backlighting is remarkably bright, meaning these laptops are going to be quite usable, even in very bright conditions.
Users who are fans of the matte finish on the MacBook Pro are going to be quite disappointed about these new systems? standardization, iMac style, on a glossy glass-covered display. In my extensive time with the MacBook Air over the past few months, I?ve found that the bright LED-lit screen could overpower just about every bright, glaring location you could think of.
However, since the displays are a single span of glass, there?s an easy solution for fans of anti-glare-coated displays: if they don?t already, companies will no doubt begin to make screen protectors, like those already available for the iPhone, that you can apply to your display in order to remove the shine and return an old-school matte finish. Yeah, it?ll be more work and more cost, but it?s not as if there isn?t an option out there if you just can?t stand the glossy look. (Me, I love it.)" Ref: http://www.macworld.com/article/1360...irst_look.html
Unibody construction is RIDICULOUSLY AWESOME. Can I say that again? it's killer.
Hybrid SLI stuff is cool...
But yeah, why would I rush out to buy a computer that does not offer me the professional features that I need like Blu Ray and non-glossy high bit depth LCD at least as expensive options or something? I know people say that any pro would just buy a monitor that's external. Well, they'd also buy a Mac Pro for that monitor as well. The laptop is FOR WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE THAT MONITOR. For example I can't take my monitor with me in my laptop bag. I need that same functionality though when I'm on the road. I don't want to sacrifice. Can I get an Amen?
It's a perfectly logical conclusion. Nowhere does Eizo say that the color is better on glossy displays in a dark room; Eizo claims that given equivalent specs, the reproduction is roughly even, and since this is true, then why use glossy at all?
There are two reasons I can think of. #1: maybe there simply isn't an environmentally-friendly matte LCD screen available on the market that is of the quality level which would be acceptable for a MacBook/MacBook Pro. #2: maybe Apple is tired of dealing with people with scratched LCD screens and they wanted to put a surface that is much harder to scratch (glass, which doesn't come in matte unfortunately!).
I am mostly disappointed. While I did not buy into most of the wild rumors that we floating around I still expected more than Apple gave today.
The restructuring is a great thing.
The trackpad is a cool change, but nothing groundbreaking.
I'm not familiar enough with graphics to know how important the new cards all are.
Letdowns:
No processor upgrade?? Not even a little bit of speed? Maybe just another .1 ghz! GEEZ!
Barely any hard drive space increase.
A wimpy price drop.
RAM still the SAME??? ugh.
No increase of speed on the Superdrive?
No thinner/lighter??
LESS options amongst models?? When will Apple learn that the public likes OPTIONS?
It just really disappointed me that the only things new are the infrastructure, video cards, and some flashy features.
As a consumer who has been holding out a bit for the new models to purchase the computer we will use for the next several years I must say I'm disappointed.
I will be using this computer for photography, video editing (just personal not pro) and general features. Maybe some sparse gaming.
Am I missing something here? Am I naive and not realizing how good these are? Let me know.
Graphics don't matter I see....
If you need/want a laptop, these are the best available. Simple.
I am mostly disappointed. While I did not buy into most of the wild rumors that we floating around I still expected more than Apple gave today.
The restructuring is a great thing.
The trackpad is a cool change, but nothing groundbreaking.
I'm not familiar enough with graphics to know how important the new cards all are.
Letdowns:
No processor upgrade?? Not even a little bit of speed? Maybe just another .1 ghz! GEEZ!
Barely any hard drive space increase.
A wimpy price drop.
RAM still the SAME??? ugh.
No increase of speed on the Superdrive?
No thinner/lighter??
LESS options amongst models?? When will Apple learn that the public likes OPTIONS?
It just really disappointed me that the only things new are the infrastructure, video cards, and some flashy features.
As a consumer who has been holding out a bit for the new models to purchase the computer we will use for the next several years I must say I'm disappointed.
I will be using this computer for photography, video editing (just personal not pro) and general features. Maybe some sparse gaming.
Am I missing something here? Am I naive and not realizing how good these are? Let me know.
The MacBook is 0.7lb lighter. I think MacBook Pro is 0.3 lb lighter. Both supposedly more rigid, it might help them last longer rather than die through flex fatugue. Faster RAM, better graphics, I think faster FSB. It is thinner by about 1/16". Hard drives went up by 40+GB on many models.
....And quit whining about the glossy screens : ) Fact is that the picture looks alot better on a glossy screen because the black is more black.
Remember that before flat screens ALL screens were glossy, and the Sony CRTs were even completely flat. Nobody whined about the glossyness back then.
You would never think about giving a CRT monitor a mat surface would you?
Are you trying to play revisionist? A lot of CRTs had a matte texture. Some were glossy. Some had an aggressive rayleigh anti-reflective coating that still isn't offered on computer LCDs. Apple's flat tube CRT Studio displays had the aggressive rayleigh coating. I had had at least one CRT of each kind of surface. I have a camcorder and digital camera LCD displays with such coatings, but they are 3" or smaller.
photo work (read editing) or photo slide show? it's two completely different tasks
glossy screen is good for a photo viewing, it gives bright, "better than original" colors
and it's a nightmare for a photographer, even amateur one who targets photos for a printing, not saying about a pro ? you just think the colors are great, and it's not when it's printed
Nonsense! My wife and daughter both have 24" glass iMacs. The images from those screens are by far the best Apple ever offered. Neither has reflection problems.
In fact, both look much better than the Samsung and Viewsonic monitors these replaced from their old Mac towers. My wife has the room light just where reflections would be seen by her from the glass, but it does't. My daughter has a window that reflected badly from her Viewsonic, but not from the iMac.
.
Well, your comment is a great explanation why Apple made this glossy choice - because they want to please consumers, save cash and don't care anymore about pros
Please do not compare Samsung and Viewsonic (though there is a good LED Viewsonic model now) to new iMac screens. It's a comparison between a very bad and a suitable for home models.
Your understanding of glossy vs. matter advantage is ... not correct, say it softly.
Glossy screen deliver oversaturated, unrealistic colors which may look great to you, and it is a disaster when you intend to produce an image, which will look good on the paper and other computers.
Previous iMac and Apple Cinema monitors were used by thousands (millions?) of photo and design pros and sem-pros. Color accuracy on old Cinema was not the best in the world, yet very good. Now it's over.
Are the pathways on the discrete nVidia 128 bit or 256 bit? And on that note, will the Macbook Pro be able to use both GPU's (discrete and integrated) at the same time?
Your understanding of glossy vs. matter advantage is ... not correct, say it softly.
Glossy screen deliver oversaturated, unrealistic colors which may look great to you, and it is a disaster when you intend to produce an image, which will look good on the paper and other computers.
Why do you think the glossy surface enhances saturation beyond its actual color? Why do you not think that the matte surface doesn't wash out the contrast of the image? That's what matte does, any incident light is diffused over the entire display surface, making the darker colors look slightly grayer, reducing the apparent dynamic range.
I'm not trying to be sarcastic when I say that anyone here should not hire webhead for serious graphic work if he actually thinks that glossy displays (with equivalent specs to matte ones) are superior in color reproduction and image quality.
There are many pro photographers in these posts that agree with me about glossy screens so you really don't know what you're talking about. Until you have spent hundreds or thousands of hours in front of a screen editing photos than you really can't comment. Some people are so afraid of change they will go to any lengths to prove their unsubstantiated fears. Mark my works, in a few years time all professional graphic and photo houses will be switched to glossy screens, because they are better, period! They just have to get over the fear of change first that is perpetuated by people like you who can't see past their own biases opinion and recognize a good thing. I?ve seen posts here by professional graphic design companies that say they now prefer the glossy screens, after they have used them. Get with the program and learn to see the future, or you'll be left behind. I can't wait until apple releases a 30 inch glossy display, that will be beautiful. You have to realize that's coming, don't you?
the reason I, and probably many people, have a big problem with the "high-gloss" of this "glass-gloss" [which I am assuming is more glossy than the previous macbooks "plastic-gloss"], is the DISTRACTION factor.
sure the matte screen it is a bit fuzzy
[and NO not as crazy fuzzy as it would be if an anti-glare film is applied...that will be very fuzzy/blurry and not even as "anti-glare" due to having the gloss of the glass in place as well as being further away from the screen. try it with a piece of tracing paper, put it over a photo and you can see thru a bit, now raise that paper above the photo about 1/8 inch or so and you will find that the clarity becomes even worse. this is why those anti-glare films are not a solution, besides being just another expense on top of an already expensive machine]
So like I said, sure the matte screen may be a bit less contrasty, or not as dark or rich, but it is alot closer to what will be printed on almost every paper [except the really high end. hard to find glossy stuff]
BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY any reflection or glare is diffused, and I don't just mean diffused in color/brightness...but also in it's DISTRACTION factor.
With matte any random shapes that would reflect simply become subtle abstract variations.
As opposed to being physical objects with detail, such as my hands on the keyboard, my shirt, the white wall behind me, the doorway, the ninja sneaking up on me to slit my throat....well I guess there is one positive
I do believe that some people have an easier time ignoring reflections and glares.
I am constantly bothered by any reflection or glare in my tv screen, and it actually has an anti-glare factor to it.
It may not correlate, but many of the people that I have encountered that do not have a problem with reflections or glares are the same people that most likely wouldn't be intently focusing on every detail of the image.
Maybe it is best said that a casual viewer will not have a problem.
But that someone trying to intently concentrate on individual details on the screen will have a problem with sharp distractions.
which is why professionals and display engineers have stated that gloss is good for viewing, but matte is better for working.
Comments
NO F.I.R.E.W.I.R.E 4.0.0.
.....W.T.F?
How do i use my $2000 MOTU FW audio interface now?!
Working in a pro studio like you, I wouldn't ever consider a Macbook for the kind of equipment you are connecting to it or the software you plan to run on it
I doubt you would either.
I was looking forward to buying an MBP but I'm not gonna bother. I'll maybe get a 12" PB off ebay and trick it out the best I can til something with a screen I can look at comes along.
The screen on this thing is TERRIBLE. As it happens I'm a TV exec who uses laptops for editing and graphics work frequently. I wouldn't even use this for sending emails. Even at max lux all the colours look dark and greyed out, and I really don't wanna have to look at people walking around behind me or my own hands typing while I work.
The gloss screen factor is a real shame because in every other way (except the new power key, which looks too small and cheap compared to the previous style) both the MBP and new MB are beautiful. The new trackpad is extremely easy to use. I love the new graphics chip. I'm just not prepared to risk migraines using this thing.
Classic shot to the foot Steve.
I am betting that there is either a gloss coating available or will be one shortly.
As Jason Snell at Macworld so eloquently posted, "At first glance, the screens of both models appear to be quite similar?and similar to the MacBook Air?s as well. The LED backlighting is remarkably bright, meaning these laptops are going to be quite usable, even in very bright conditions.
Users who are fans of the matte finish on the MacBook Pro are going to be quite disappointed about these new systems? standardization, iMac style, on a glossy glass-covered display. In my extensive time with the MacBook Air over the past few months, I?ve found that the bright LED-lit screen could overpower just about every bright, glaring location you could think of.
However, since the displays are a single span of glass, there?s an easy solution for fans of anti-glare-coated displays: if they don?t already, companies will no doubt begin to make screen protectors, like those already available for the iPhone, that you can apply to your display in order to remove the shine and return an old-school matte finish. Yeah, it?ll be more work and more cost, but it?s not as if there isn?t an option out there if you just can?t stand the glossy look. (Me, I love it.)" Ref: http://www.macworld.com/article/1360...irst_look.html
Unibody construction is RIDICULOUSLY AWESOME. Can I say that again? it's killer.
Hybrid SLI stuff is cool...
But yeah, why would I rush out to buy a computer that does not offer me the professional features that I need like Blu Ray and non-glossy high bit depth LCD at least as expensive options or something? I know people say that any pro would just buy a monitor that's external. Well, they'd also buy a Mac Pro for that monitor as well. The laptop is FOR WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE THAT MONITOR. For example I can't take my monitor with me in my laptop bag. I need that same functionality though when I'm on the road. I don't want to sacrifice. Can I get an Amen?
-=DG=-
It's a perfectly logical conclusion. Nowhere does Eizo say that the color is better on glossy displays in a dark room; Eizo claims that given equivalent specs, the reproduction is roughly even, and since this is true, then why use glossy at all?
There are two reasons I can think of. #1: maybe there simply isn't an environmentally-friendly matte LCD screen available on the market that is of the quality level which would be acceptable for a MacBook/MacBook Pro. #2: maybe Apple is tired of dealing with people with scratched LCD screens and they wanted to put a surface that is much harder to scratch (glass, which doesn't come in matte unfortunately!).
-=DG=-
I am mostly disappointed.
The restructuring is a great thing.
The trackpad is a cool change, but nothing groundbreaking.
I'm not familiar enough with graphics to know how important the new cards all are.
Letdowns:
No processor upgrade?? Not even a little bit of speed? Maybe just another .1 ghz! GEEZ!
Barely any hard drive space increase.
A wimpy price drop.
RAM still the SAME??? ugh.
No increase of speed on the Superdrive?
No thinner/lighter??
LESS options amongst models?? When will Apple learn that the public likes OPTIONS?
It just really disappointed me that the only things new are the infrastructure, video cards, and some flashy features.
As a consumer who has been holding out a bit for the new models to purchase the computer we will use for the next several years I must say I'm disappointed.
I will be using this computer for photography, video editing (just personal not pro) and general features. Maybe some sparse gaming.
Am I missing something here?
Graphics don't matter I see....
If you need/want a laptop, these are the best available. Simple.
Here's the image I posted here 13 months ago about what the 2008 MacBook might look like:
Pretty close.
That, my friend, is pretty close. :0
Remember that before flat screens ALL screens were glossy, and the Sony CRTs were even completely flat. Nobody whined about the glossyness back then.
You would never think about giving a CRT monitor a mat surface would you?
I am mostly disappointed.
The restructuring is a great thing.
The trackpad is a cool change, but nothing groundbreaking.
I'm not familiar enough with graphics to know how important the new cards all are.
Letdowns:
No processor upgrade?? Not even a little bit of speed? Maybe just another .1 ghz! GEEZ!
Barely any hard drive space increase.
A wimpy price drop.
RAM still the SAME??? ugh.
No increase of speed on the Superdrive?
No thinner/lighter??
LESS options amongst models?? When will Apple learn that the public likes OPTIONS?
It just really disappointed me that the only things new are the infrastructure, video cards, and some flashy features.
As a consumer who has been holding out a bit for the new models to purchase the computer we will use for the next several years I must say I'm disappointed.
I will be using this computer for photography, video editing (just personal not pro) and general features. Maybe some sparse gaming.
Am I missing something here?
The MacBook is 0.7lb lighter. I think MacBook Pro is 0.3 lb lighter. Both supposedly more rigid, it might help them last longer rather than die through flex fatugue. Faster RAM, better graphics, I think faster FSB. It is thinner by about 1/16". Hard drives went up by 40+GB on many models.
....And quit whining about the glossy screens : ) Fact is that the picture looks alot better on a glossy screen because the black is more black.
Remember that before flat screens ALL screens were glossy, and the Sony CRTs were even completely flat. Nobody whined about the glossyness back then.
You would never think about giving a CRT monitor a mat surface would you?
Are you trying to play revisionist? A lot of CRTs had a matte texture. Some were glossy. Some had an aggressive rayleigh anti-reflective coating that still isn't offered on computer LCDs. Apple's flat tube CRT Studio displays had the aggressive rayleigh coating. I had had at least one CRT of each kind of surface. I have a camcorder and digital camera LCD displays with such coatings, but they are 3" or smaller.
I
I prefer glossy for photo work any day.
photo work (read editing) or photo slide show? it's two completely different tasks
glossy screen is good for a photo viewing, it gives bright, "better than original" colors
and it's a nightmare for a photographer, even amateur one who targets photos for a printing, not saying about a pro ? you just think the colors are great, and it's not when it's printed
Nonsense! My wife and daughter both have 24" glass iMacs. The images from those screens are by far the best Apple ever offered. Neither has reflection problems.
In fact, both look much better than the Samsung and Viewsonic monitors these replaced from their old Mac towers. My wife has the room light just where reflections would be seen by her from the glass, but it does't. My daughter has a window that reflected badly from her Viewsonic, but not from the iMac.
.
Well, your comment is a great explanation why Apple made this glossy choice - because they want to please consumers, save cash and don't care anymore about pros
Please do not compare Samsung and Viewsonic (though there is a good LED Viewsonic model now) to new iMac screens. It's a comparison between a very bad and a suitable for home models.
Your understanding of glossy vs. matter advantage is ... not correct, say it softly.
Glossy screen deliver oversaturated, unrealistic colors which may look great to you, and it is a disaster when you intend to produce an image, which will look good on the paper and other computers.
Previous iMac and Apple Cinema monitors were used by thousands (millions?) of photo and design pros and sem-pros. Color accuracy on old Cinema was not the best in the world, yet very good. Now it's over.
Your understanding of glossy vs. matter advantage is ... not correct, say it softly.
Glossy screen deliver oversaturated, unrealistic colors which may look great to you, and it is a disaster when you intend to produce an image, which will look good on the paper and other computers.
Why do you think the glossy surface enhances saturation beyond its actual color? Why do you not think that the matte surface doesn't wash out the contrast of the image? That's what matte does, any incident light is diffused over the entire display surface, making the darker colors look slightly grayer, reducing the apparent dynamic range.
I'm not trying to be sarcastic when I say that anyone here should not hire webhead for serious graphic work if he actually thinks that glossy displays (with equivalent specs to matte ones) are superior in color reproduction and image quality.
There are many pro photographers in these posts that agree with me about glossy screens so you really don't know what you're talking about. Until you have spent hundreds or thousands of hours in front of a screen editing photos than you really can't comment. Some people are so afraid of change they will go to any lengths to prove their unsubstantiated fears. Mark my works, in a few years time all professional graphic and photo houses will be switched to glossy screens, because they are better, period! They just have to get over the fear of change first that is perpetuated by people like you who can't see past their own biases opinion and recognize a good thing. I?ve seen posts here by professional graphic design companies that say they now prefer the glossy screens, after they have used them. Get with the program and learn to see the future, or you'll be left behind. I can't wait until apple releases a 30 inch glossy display, that will be beautiful. You have to realize that's coming, don't you?
sure the matte screen it is a bit fuzzy
[and NO not as crazy fuzzy as it would be if an anti-glare film is applied...that will be very fuzzy/blurry and not even as "anti-glare" due to having the gloss of the glass in place as well as being further away from the screen. try it with a piece of tracing paper, put it over a photo and you can see thru a bit, now raise that paper above the photo about 1/8 inch or so and you will find that the clarity becomes even worse. this is why those anti-glare films are not a solution, besides being just another expense on top of an already expensive machine]
So like I said, sure the matte screen may be a bit less contrasty, or not as dark or rich, but it is alot closer to what will be printed on almost every paper [except the really high end. hard to find glossy stuff]
BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY any reflection or glare is diffused, and I don't just mean diffused in color/brightness...but also in it's DISTRACTION factor.
With matte any random shapes that would reflect simply become subtle abstract variations.
As opposed to being physical objects with detail, such as my hands on the keyboard, my shirt, the white wall behind me, the doorway, the ninja sneaking up on me to slit my throat....well I guess there is one positive
I do believe that some people have an easier time ignoring reflections and glares.
I am constantly bothered by any reflection or glare in my tv screen, and it actually has an anti-glare factor to it.
It may not correlate, but many of the people that I have encountered that do not have a problem with reflections or glares are the same people that most likely wouldn't be intently focusing on every detail of the image.
Maybe it is best said that a casual viewer will not have a problem.
But that someone trying to intently concentrate on individual details on the screen will have a problem with sharp distractions.
which is why professionals and display engineers have stated that gloss is good for viewing, but matte is better for working.
High gloss screens create high contrast ratio "reflections".
Your eye always looks to what has the most contrast and/or looks out of place.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/m...pro/index.html
Can't hurt to lobby for the option a lot of us need - whether the fanboys think we need it or not.