Briefly: "Lost" iPod game, Mac display dithering, Costco Apple TV pilot

[AppleInsider]

Apple has released a new game for video iPods crafter after the hit TV show Lost. Meanwhile, Apple documents confirm that some of the company's LCD displays indeed employ software dithering to achieve the illusion of millions of colors. And Apple is said to be evaluating an Apple TV pilot at Coscto wholesalers.

Lost for iPods

Apple through its iTunes store has made available a new game for 5th-generation video iPods that lets users join their favorite castaways in a quest to seek the truth and survive the official iPod game of the hit television series Lost.

"Help Jack search for dynamite, tend to the wounded, and avoid the black smoke," reads a description of the game. "Relive the crash scene, open the hatch, and ultimately try your best to escape from the Others."

The $4.99 title promises to immerse players into a mysterious world with authentic settings and a genuine storyline created by the writers behind the hit show. Players will explore the island's main sites include the beach, the jungle, inside the Hatch and the Black Rock.

Mac display 'dithering'

One tipster conducting research on the recent MacBook class-action lawsuit against Apple has discovered at least one instance in which the Mac maker discloses the use of 'dithering' to produce the illusion of millions of colors on its smaller-sized displays.

A video developer note on the company's iMac line notes that the 17-inch model supports an LCD display size of 1440 x 900 pixels at 100 dpi, where "the graphics card temporally dithers the 6 bits per component to show up to millions of colors."

The 20-inch model, however, supports an LCD display size of 1680 x 1050 pixels at 98 dpi and supports 8 bits per component to show up to millions of colors, according to the note.

Earlier this month, two San Diego private citizens filed a class-action lawsuit against Apple, charging the company with falsely advertising the color display capabilities of its MacBook and MacBook Pro displays.

Specifically, the suit alleged that the Intel-based notebooks are only capable of producing the "illusion of millions of colors through the use of a software technique referred to as 'dithering,' which causes nearby pixels on the display to use slightly varying shades of colors that trick the human eye into perceiving the desired color even though it is not truly that color."

Apple TV pilot at Costco

Around the same time that AppleInsider reported on plans for Target retail stores to begin carrying Apple TV, the folks over at Ars noted that the $299 streaming media device had also cropped up at select Costco wholesale clubs.

AppleInsider has since learned, through a tipster, that only around 50 Costco locations are currently carrying the device. Those locations are said to be part of a pilot program aimed at testing sales of the device in the non-traditional Apple atmosphere.

Should the pilot show signs of success, its likely to see expansion to Costco's more than 375 U.S. locations, the tipster added. As part of the pilot, the wholesaler is pushing the Apple set-top-boxes for $289, about $10 under Apple's suggested manufacturers retail price.

Those readers looking to adopt an Apple TV for even less coin may also have some luck at Apple's online store, where other tipsters have noted that the company is selling refurbished Apple TV's for only $249, while supplies last.

Apple has said that it will leverage its proven capability in the area of software development to gradually add new software features and applications to Apple TV over time.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[kbsbeme]

AppleTV is being sold at Sam's Clubs in the Phoenix area.

[icibaqu]

"conducting researching"

commence appleinsider tipsters conducting editing

[vmardian]

As part of the pilot, the wholesaler is pushing the Apple set-top-boxes for $289, about $10 under Apple's suggested manufacturers retail price.

It seems to me like it's exactly $10.

[Hattig]

Quite clearly when the graphics card is performing temporal dithering regardless of the software it is a hardware function, not a software function.

Indeed I was under the impression that the dithering actually takes place within the display rather than the output of the graphics card. This explains how you can connect an 8-bit display and get a perfect image via mirroring even if you are also showing that same screen on a 6-bit dithered display on the MacBook or iMac. I believe that the discovered phrase was a simplification by Apple and that it meant that the dithering occurred within the graphics subsystem, which includes the display which is performing the action.

Software temporal dithering would actually alter the screen image in memory, thus affecting all attached displays. It would also be extremely wasteful and inefficient when it could be done in the display independently (it's not exactly rocket science either).

[ak1808]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

...which causes nearby pixels on the display to use slightly varying shades of colors that trick the human eye into perceiving the desired color even though it is not truly that color."

If it tricks me so nicely, why should I care?
Blue pill anyone?

[crees!]

I ended up at the new Costco in Woodbridge, VA @ Potomac Mills this past Saturday. They are carrying Apple TV.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by ak1808

If it tricks me so nicely, why should I care?

It doesn't work that way with everyone.

[EagerDragon]

I can understand the ditherig in the case of consumer computers.

Howeever in the case of PRO computers there is a significant expectation and a significant price differential.

At this time I have no idea if they are using dithering or not on PRO systems, If Apple is doing dittering in any PRO system, I can see them in big problem.

Several applications are called pro by Apple and 2 lines of machines are also called PRO. These systems and software have a large price differential from consumer software and hardware.

I hope all is well.

[ascii]

I normally support Apple, but in this case I think it was sh*tty of them to pass off high color displays as true color, and I hope these lawyers rip their legal anus out and hand it to them.

[SymeonKilo]

Tigard, OR has them, as well.

Lets wait to see what happens witth the display thing, before we scream for anyone's orifice.

[Feste]

How is this lawsuit any different from someone suing the "motion picture" industry for claiming that they show moving pictures? The pictures don't really move. There's a display of 24 still images per second. They trick the human eye into seeing motion, where there isn't "real" motion. Big deal.

It would be ridiculous for Apple to claim that there's "really" great color in a display, and it's a defect in your eye that makes it see crappy color. Why is the reverse any less ridiculous?

[wilco]

Originally Posted by Feste

How is this lawsuit any different from someone suing the "motion picture" industry for claiming that they show moving pictures? The pictures don't really move. There's a display of 24 still images per second. They trick the human eye into seeing motion, where there isn't "real" motion. Big deal.

Great analogy!

[melgross]

One might as well sue every manufacturer that uses LCD's as they all do this.

As long as you aren't doing graphics and photo color edits, it won't matter.

I'm pretty sensitive to color, as that was my business going back to the early '70's, and my wife's new 6 bit monitor has very good color. I would have to be very engaged with it so see any problems.

Don't forget that the color gamut for TV is not much more than one million colors, even for current hi def. Very few people are bothered by that.

[mmmdoughnuts]

Originally Posted by Feste

How is this lawsuit any different from someone suing the "motion picture" industry for claiming that they show moving pictures? The pictures don't really move. There's a display of 24 still images per second. They trick the human eye into seeing motion, where there isn't "real" motion. Big deal.

It would be ridiculous for Apple to claim that there's "really" great color in a display, and it's a defect in your eye that makes it see crappy color. Why is the reverse any less ridiculous?

To properly state your analogy, it would be like Apple selling movies at 24 frames per second but only delivering 20 frames per second. Some people wont know the difference other people (including myself) will get severely motion sick. Some people need the extra color information on the display; most do not. However, this does not change the misrepresentation of the product.

[Louzer]

Originally Posted by melgross

One might as well sue every manufacturer that uses LCD's as they all do this.

As long as you aren't doing graphics and photo color edits, it won't matter.

I'm pretty sensitive to color, as that was my business going back to the early '70's, and my wife's new 6 bit monitor has very good color. I would have to be very engaged with it so see any problems.

Don't forget that the color gamut for TV is not much more than one million colors, even for current hi def. Very few people are bothered by that.

As I'm sure people will be doing (esp. if this case gets settled or money exchanges hands). But do all of them say "show millions of colors" as apple does? If Apple said "over 200,000 colors" with some "sort of millions, due to dithering" at the end, they'd be fine (like they do for Hard drives).

But saying 'it doesn't matter' still ignores the big picture. You buy a $2500 laptop, you kind of expect to get some features worthy of the price, like a true 8-bit display or something. Or you're getting what you're being told you're getting. But, if you're fine with that, then I'm sure you'd be fine getting a computer with a 1.5GHz processor that's overclocked to 2GHz, or a 1600x1200 display that really had a resolution of 1200x800, but they used some software techniques to 'increase' the resolution.

BTW, when I was about to buy my MBP, I checked the comments on Amazon, and someone specifically mentioned this (and this was months ago), with links to some forum discussions and screenshots of what they were talking about. It was almost enough for me not to get one (I ended up going to the apple store first to see if I could see the problem, which I couldn't, so I took a chance - but Apple may have addressed it by then).

[kindwarrior]

Originally Posted by ascii

I normally support Apple, but in this case I think it was sh*tty of them to pass off high color displays as true color, and I hope these lawyers rip their legal anus out and hand it to them.

If indeed there is something inappropriate (ie *still* image 6 bit per channel color) I'll agree but I'm intrigued by the term "temporarally" in the sentence "the graphics card temporally dithers the 6 bits per component to show up to millions of colors": If they are dithering to increase display performance during visual effects in machines with limited bandwidth they they are making a very wise choice (you may detect dithering on a still but it is unlikely that even the discerning can detect dithering that is moving and cycling at ~24fps). What even the undiscerning would detect, is jittering and latency that might occur if you are trying to push more bits into a frame buffer than it can handle.

I'd like clarification on exactly what Apple is doing here before I make my call.

K

[melgross]

Originally Posted by Louzer

As I'm sure people will be doing (esp. if this case gets settled or money exchanges hands). But do all of them say "show millions of colors" as apple does? If Apple said "over 200,000 colors" with some "sort of millions, due to dithering" at the end, they'd be fine (like they do for Hard drives).

But saying 'it doesn't matter' still ignores the big picture. You buy a $2500 laptop, you kind of expect to get some features worthy of the price, like a true 8-bit display or something. Or you're getting what you're being told you're getting. But, if you're fine with that, then I'm sure you'd be fine getting a computer with a 1.5GHz processor that's overclocked to 2GHz, or a 1600x1200 display that really had a resolution of 1200x800, but they used some software techniques to 'increase' the resolution.

BTW, when I was about to buy my MBP, I checked the comments on Amazon, and someone specifically mentioned this (and this was months ago), with links to some forum discussions and screenshots of what they were talking about. It was almost enough for me not to get one (I ended up going to the apple store first to see if I could see the problem, which I couldn't, so I took a chance - but Apple may have addressed it by then).

Yes. The ads for those monitors do say "millions of colors".

It's legit to say that even if the monitor has only "native" support for hundreds of thousands, if dithering can take care of it.

It's like digital projectors. You have to look for the small print, or detailed tech specs oftentimes to see the native rez. They usually just state the rez that they input. So, a projector that is advertised as being 1024 x 768 may output 800 x 600. It does a down-conversion.

Until the government puts a law in place, manufacturers will continue to do this.

Remember the controversy over screen size for crts?

[Louzer]

Originally Posted by melgross

Until the government puts a law in place, manufacturers will continue to do this.

Remember the controversy over screen size for crts?

Yep, until some people filed class-action suits against the manufacturers to put the correct size on the box. You don't need a law, you just need someone to sue!

And that's why it irritates me when people call these types of suits pointless or just a money grab for lawyers. Of course its a money grab, but if it weren't for these types of suits, you'd still be trying to find out whether the 17" monitor you could get from Apple was larger or smaller then the 17" monitor you could get from Sony.

[jasondwelsh]

Originally Posted by mmmdoughnuts

To properly state your analogy, it would be like Apple selling movies at 24 frames per second but only delivering 20 frames per second. Some people wont know the difference other people (including myself) will get severely motion sick. Some people need the extra color information on the display; most do not. However, this does not change the misrepresentation of the product.

To even more properly state the analagy (while maintaining the 8 bit:6bit ratio), it would be like Apple selling movies at 24 frames per second but only delivering 18 frames per second.

Some people think I am funny, but mostly they just .

[jasondwelsh]

Damn... AnalOgy. Don't want to perpetuate any misspellings. ;-)

[mmmdoughnuts]

Originally Posted by jasondwelsh

Some people think I am funny, but mostly they just .

Mine was not so much based fractionally, but rather where flicker becomes irritating.

BTW, I think you are .

[jasondwelsh]

Originally Posted by mmmdoughnuts

Mine was not so much based fractionally, but rather where flicker becomes irritating.

BTW, I think you are .

Why, thank you. By the way...are you a police officer?

[mynameisjesse]

To say it doesn't matter if you can't tell the difference really pisses me off. I spent close to 3 grand for my Macbook Pro, it should have the best display possible....it should be exactly how they told me it was. You people that say it doesn't matter are the reason they get away with that stuff. I want what I paid for, simple as that.

[Louzer]

Originally Posted by mynameisjesse

To say it doesn't matter if you can't tell the difference really pisses me off. I spent close to 3 grand for my Macbook Pro, it should have the best display possible....it should be exactly how they told me it was. You people that say it doesn't matter are the reason they get away with that stuff. I want what I paid for, simple as that.

Hey, you got what you paid for. Its just not what you thought you'd be getting!

[melgross]

Originally Posted by mynameisjesse

To say it doesn't matter if you can't tell the difference really pisses me off. I spent close to 3 grand for my Macbook Pro, it should have the best display possible....it should be exactly how they told me it was. You people that say it doesn't matter are the reason they get away with that stuff. I want what I paid for, simple as that.

Are they talking about the MBP in this suit, or the MB. That's a big difference.

[yanchu]

The Apple TV is available at AAFES for $289, no tax. Not bad.

[nvidia2008]

Originally Posted by ak1808

If it tricks me so nicely, why should I care?
Blue pill anyone?

Nice.

Originally Posted by Hattig

Quite clearly when the graphics card is performing temporal dithering regardless of the software it is a hardware function, not a software function.

Indeed I was under the impression that the dithering actually takes place within the display rather than the output of the graphics card. This explains how you can connect an 8-bit display and get a perfect image via mirroring even if you are also showing that same screen on a 6-bit dithered display on the MacBook or iMac. I believe that the discovered phrase was a simplification by Apple and that it meant that the dithering occurred within the graphics subsystem, which includes the display which is performing the action.

Software temporal dithering would actually alter the screen image in memory, thus affecting all attached displays. It would also be extremely wasteful and inefficient when it could be done in the display independently (it's not exactly rocket science either).

Originally Posted by JeffDM

It doesn't work that way with everyone.

In the case of MacBooks, I'm happy to swallow the blue pill, or apply it as a suppository, etc.

Seriously though, the 6-bit dithering works well for 13" LCD glossy displays. I imagine it is done mostly at the LCD-hardware level. It might be something in the low-level display drivers though*. Serious techy stuff. I scared.

*There have been reports that things on the exact same display looks worse when running BootCamp vs. Mac OS X.

Originally Posted by EagerDragon

I can understand the ditherig in the case of consumer computers.

Howeever in the case of PRO computers there is a significant expectation and a significant price differential.

At this time I have no idea if they are using dithering or not on PRO systems, If Apple is doing dittering in any PRO system, I can see them in big problem.

Several applications are called pro by Apple and 2 lines of machines are also called PRO. These systems and software have a large price differential from consumer software and hardware.

I hope all is well.

Originally Posted by ascii

I normally support Apple, but in this case I think it was sh*tty of them to pass off high color displays as true color, and I hope these lawyers rip their legal anus out and hand it to them.

Originally Posted by melgross

One might as well sue every manufacturer that uses LCD's as they all do this.

As long as you aren't doing graphics and photo color edits, it won't matter.

I'm pretty sensitive to color, as that was my business going back to the early '70's, and my wife's new 6 bit monitor has very good color. I would have to be very engaged with it so see any problems.

Don't forget that the color gamut for TV is not much more than one million colors, even for current hi def. Very few people are bothered by that.

I think we are looking at two things here. The first is that the Macbook is fine, but MacBookPro being pushed strongly for high-level, high-definition video and photo, means 6-bit aint cutting it.

The second thing is, forget this 6-bit 8-bit 24-triple-88-bit whatever nonsense. The solution is to show the MacBookPro *handling color workflow well*. For pro photo and video and calibrating monitors, LCD, etc. There are still a ton of creative hobby/ enthusiast/ prosumer/ pro that are quite clueless about this color workflow stuff. I used to seriously calibrate doing web design 6 years ago (I'm getting old like Melgross, always referring to the halcyon days...) .... but haven't in like 3-4 years. And goodness knows with print design and video those are whole different "color spaces".

So yeah, blue pill for me when it comes to MacBook, but Apple needs to say in fine print (now that this "fiasco" is out there: *Millions of colors achieved using sophisticated 6-bit technology most of you wouldn't even understand or care about. Actual colors may vary depending on your eyes, temperature, Acts of God, and a bazillion other things.

Seriously though this is a good opportunity for Apple to at least, by the end of the year, with Leopard and MacBookPro, MacBookPro displays, have solid, easy-to-use, secure, high-level color workflows in place for prosumer/pro. And displays of appropriate quality to achieve these goals.

[nvidia2008]

Originally Posted by melgross

Remember the controversy over screen size for crts?

Hah! Old skool bro... It is the very birth-mother of the term "viewable" in specifications of display sizes. It was a good for everyone in the end though... I think.

Originally Posted by kindwarrior

If indeed there is something inappropriate (ie *still* image 6 bit per channel color) I'll agree but I'm intrigued by the term "temporarally" in the sentence "the graphics card temporally dithers the 6 bits per component to show up to millions of colors".....
K

I think "temporarily" means that all processing is done at 8-bit at the general graphics hardware level, the 6-bit-ness only happens in the instant that each frame is sent to a particular 6-bit display. That's my reading of it at this stage.

Originally Posted by Louzer

As I'm sure people will be doing (esp. if this case gets settled or money exchanges hands). But do all of them say "show millions of colors" as apple does? If Apple said "over 200,000 colors" with some "sort of millions, due to dithering" at the end, they'd be fine (like they do for Hard drives).

But saying 'it doesn't matter' still ignores the big picture. You buy a $2500 laptop, you kind of expect to get some features worthy of the price, like a true 8-bit display or something. Or you're getting what you're being told you're getting. But, if you're fine with that, then I'm sure you'd be fine getting a computer with a 1.5GHz processor that's overclocked to 2GHz, or a 1600x1200 display that really had a resolution of 1200x800, but they used some software techniques to 'increase' the resolution.

BTW, when I was about to buy my MBP, I checked the comments on Amazon, and someone specifically mentioned this (and this was months ago), with links to some forum discussions and screenshots of what they were talking about. It was almost enough for me not to get one (I ended up going to the apple store first to see if I could see the problem, which I couldn't, so I took a chance - but Apple may have addressed it by then).

Valid points. There has been deep dissatisfaction with MBP displays for quite some while. It has improved over time, though clearly the 6-bit issue is still a major sticking point. With Adobe full CS3 (including AfterEffects), FinalCutStudio2, Core2Duo to SantaRosa stuff, here is a great opportunity for Apple to round out their Pro Notebook offering with some appropriate displays, plus good tech/software/training support with regard to color workflows. Pros don't give a frack about whether "OS X looks grainy", it's their videos and photos and how they translate to other media that's important.

Originally Posted by melgross

...Don't forget that the color gamut for TV is not much more than one million colors, even for current hi def. Very few people are bothered by that.

Yeah, I am just dumbfounded by all the LCD HDTVs that say "Billions" of colors. WTF?

Oh, and "1080p" -- I'll say it again, the LCD HDTV manufacturers (eg. Sony [yes I'll take some heat on this]) can use whatever specs and disclaimers and what not to prove it's "REAL 1080p", but it looks ... well, pretty bloody unimpressive. Yes, upscaling, sources, etc. etc. etc.

But certainly HDTV LCDs is another big gray area. Hmmm...

[Luca Boccaccini]

Originally Posted by nvidia2008

Oh, and "1080p" -- I'll say it again, the LCD HDTV manufacturers (eg. Sony [yes I'll take some heat on this]) can use whatever specs and disclaimers and what not to prove it's "REAL 1080p", but it looks ... well, pretty bloody unimpressive. Yes, upscaling, sources, etc. etc. etc.

Just for fun (actually, a little sad for myself): at least, when Sony declares a FULL HD 1920x1080p panel, it actually works as declared: up to 1080p.

Do you know that Philips, with the "1920x1080p", means 1920 per 1080 P(IXELS) and not P(ROGRESSIVE)? You can find it on the web site, their catalogues etc. etc.

As matter of fact, my great LCD TV 46" only accepts 1080i(nterlaced) signals.
Nice, for 3.999 Euros, isn't it?
They (customer service) are calling it a "marketing mistake".

Sigh...

[nvidia2008]

Originally Posted by Luca Boccaccini

Just for fun (actually, a little sad for myself): at least, when Sony declares a FULL HD 1920x1080p panel, it actually works as declared: up to 1080p.

Do you know that Philips, with the "1920x1080p", means 1920 per 1080 P(IXELS) and not P(ROGRESSIVE)? You can find it on the web site, their catalogues etc. etc.

As matter of fact, my great LCD TV 46" only accepts 1080i(nterlaced) signals.
Nice, for 3.999 Euros, isn't it?
They (customer service) are calling it a "marketing mistake".

Sigh...

That's tragic. ...A pity, Philips as a brand with their Ambilight Plasmas and LCD HDTVs, I kinda like them....

[melgross]

Originally Posted by nvidia2008

Valid points. There has been deep dissatisfaction with MBP displays for quite some while. It has improved over time, though clearly the 6-bit issue is still a major sticking point. With Adobe full CS3 (including AfterEffects), FinalCutStudio2, Core2Duo to SantaRosa stuff, here is a great opportunity for Apple to round out their Pro Notebook offering with some appropriate displays, plus good tech/software/training support with regard to color workflows. Pros don't give a frack about whether "OS X looks grainy", it's their videos and photos and how they translate to other media that's important.

The only time it matters is when one is doing bit level correction of colors, which is to be discouraged, under most circumstances. If one is doing overall corrections, which is the norm for most imaging and video, even 6 bit monitors are fine. I've seen comparisons between 6 bit and 8 bit models, and the colors (as adjusted, and calibrated) were the same.

Yeah, I am just dumbfounded by all the LCD HDTVs that say "Billions" of colors. WTF?

It's intersting, isn't it? If the circutry uses 10 bit processing, then it's billions of colors being sent to the screen. But, if the screen can't reproduce all of those billions of colors, then a smaller number of them are selected that would best represent the image, and those are projected.

We're waiting for HDMI 1.3 to become standard on both the output and inputs. When that happens, all components will be capable of showing "deep color". Until then, at least for Tv, the answer is no.

Oh, and "1080p" -- I'll say it again, the LCD HDTV manufacturers (eg. Sony [yes I'll take some heat on this]) can use whatever specs and disclaimers and what not to prove it's "REAL 1080p", but it looks ... well, pretty bloody unimpressive. Yes, upscaling, sources, etc. etc. etc.

But certainly HDTV LCDs is another big gray area. Hmmm...

Well, depends. Some TV's, like the front projection models I earlier mentioned, can accept 1080p, but convert it to 1080i before projecting it. Others can accept 1080p, but downconveert it to 720p for display.

We have also had plasma sets that can only disply 1024 x 720 (or 768) and call themselves hi-def. They have to downwards interpolate the vertical rez from 1270 to 1024. Almost no one can see the difference.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by nvidia2008

That's tragic. ...A pity, Philips as a brand with their Ambilight Plasmas and LCD HDTVs, I kinda like them....

Phillips, as a rule, doesn't seem to get very good reviews for its TV's or its monitors.

[ouragan]

Apple has said that it will leverage its proven capability in the area of software development to gradually add new software features and applications to Apple TV over time.

Don't hold your breath!

[adadbby]

--I can't believe I tried to read this...
My brain just got hurt..
---------------------------------
iPod Converter
http://www.ipodconverter.com

[melgross]

Originally Posted by ouragan

Don't hold your breath!

You're right. I can only hold my breath for a bit over 80 seconds. Several months would be too much.

[KidRed]

Originally Posted by Feste

How is this lawsuit any different from someone suing the "motion picture" industry for claiming that they show moving pictures? The pictures don't really move. There's a display of 24 still images per second. They trick the human eye into seeing motion, where there isn't "real" motion. Big deal.

It would be ridiculous for Apple to claim that there's "really" great color in a display, and it's a defect in your eye that makes it see crappy color. Why is the reverse any less ridiculous?

Each frame moves into view and out of view as you state, 24 times a second. That's a ton of moving still pictures as far as I'm concerned.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by KidRed

Each frame moves into view and out of view as you state, 24 times a second. That's a ton of moving still pictures as far as I'm concerned.

As we've tried to explain, it the methodology that's patented, not the idea of moving pictures.

Each new design has new patents.