Apple settles "millions of colors" class-action lawsuit - Page 3

Man, I'd take a nickle for each color missing!

No this isn't what it is all about - simply it is an issue of honesty with respect to the business / consumer relationship. Look at it this way say you go out and buy an 8 cylinder car and drive it around for a few weeks and notice that the performance just isn't there. You take a look under the hood and find that instead of a fully assembled 8 cylinder engine you have one with one missing piston.

Would you be mad, upset and would you want it corrected.

Frankly I see the people trying to defend Apple here as being way off base and lacking of back bone. I like my Mac as much as the next guy but that doesn't mean I don't avoid shining a little light on Apples darker side. The same could be said about other bits of promotion by Apple, for example the reference to server grade HD in some of their stuff.

In a nut shell if Apple wants to avoid this sort of suits in the future they best make sure they deliver what they advertise and allude to!


Dave

I do not recall seeing any papers, or statements out there asking people to join the suit.

Any of you got contacted to join?

This is one I certainty think Apple needs to fix, a Pro system should offer a PRO a system that is designed for PROs.

Well you can change the argument if you want but I doubt you could win that way. The issue at hand is false advertising, the Apple hardware simply isn't capable of producing the number of colors ADVERTISED. The perception of color had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Agreed.

Yes, from the technical stand point we process various wave lengths of energy an interpret the results. The interpretation is the realization of color. By saying that color isn't there is like saying there are no high frequency energy supplying the common radio.

This isn't relevant in the context of LCD screens as they certainly haven't exceeded the ability of a human. This doesn't even take into account the vast differences in people and their ability to detect various levels of color.

Well maybe somebody here needs to pull their own head out of their arse. The only thing that this problem can be reduced to is what was advertised vs what was delivered.

No more so that trying to pull the discussion away from the facts in the case.

Which can be very difficult when one buys hardware that isn't capable of doing what it was advertised to do. Look at it this way, if you purchased the latest Tera Byte disk drive and took it home and installed it an found out that the reality isn't even close to a Tera Byte would you be happy.

First; it simply doesn't matter in this discussion, the whole problem revolves around what was advertised and what was delivered. Here Apple screwed up big time.
Second; there is good reason to believe that current screens don't come close to the point of not being an issue due to their quality. There is a very long ways to go before the display is so good that it is no longer suitable for discussion.

I can't speak to the motivation of the people involved and doubt you can either. The reality is that this may have some impact in checking Apples questionable advertising. In a nut shell that is the issue at hand, what the display can and can't do is of limited interest.

Again it doesn't matter because the issue isn't one of perception of color but one of truth in advertising.

Simply this; they didn't have a leg to stand on. All the horse crap in the world won't make up for the dishonesty that they have displayed in this matter. In court the issue would come down to the facts. Or at least it should come down to the facts, we all know that the courts often do make mistakes.

Dave

You really didn't get the point about spatial vs temporal dithering did you?

My whole perception of this case is that they bought something and didn't get what was advertised. Simple as that.

Maybe because digital produces better results?

At a fundamental level their isn't that much of a difference in the so called matrixed color images and a photograph. The only advantage that silver based photography has is that it is very easy to increase the amount of information silver can acquire by increasing the size of the detector. For any given silver process there is a limit with respect to the size of the detectors, similar to the limit on pixel size on the various electronic detectors.

With silver I can take the same film type used in a 35 mm camera, and slap it into a medium format camera or an 8x10 for that matter. In any event it it is the end result that counts and 35 mm was eclipsed by digital long ago.

I suppose that by this logic non silver based methods to "photography" aren't photography either?

Liberal! Are you guys all nuts here, it is simple straight forward math.

Dave

So you agree with me. End of "argument". The rest of what you say after his is now irrelevant except for your emotional attachment to not be proven wrong.

Very interesting debate!

Originally I was on the fence, probably veering towards the plaintiffs. After hearing all the arguments and finding out a little more about temporal dithering, I'm inclined to agree that if Apple has only put "millions of colors" but not "8-bit" then they have done nothing worse than many manufacturers.

Interesting article excerpt here: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/oth...-guide_11.html

What I really want to know is - if 6-bit TN screens use temporal dithering, should a human eye be able to distinguish between them and the 8-bit screens? I am typing this on a MacBook. If I tilt the screen away from me (so the image becomes much darker), I can clearly make out dithering - not of a temporal kind but a spatial one. Especially on the drop shadows. Would I not see these on an 8-bit screen?

Whether or not Apple or any display manufacturers advertise their screens as millions or 16.2 million or whatever, I'm a little disappointed this case wasn't used to gain some kind of precedent whereby LCD screens must be sold with more detail on their specification. If a 6-bit screen is supposed to show a detailed full-colour image with no dithering, then either this statement is incorrect or I am looking at a faulty screen.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy with my MacBook and its display, it's not off-putting but the dithering most certainly is visible. If this makes up the difference between 6-bit and 8-bit screens then there is most definitely reason to ensure customers know there IS a difference between such screens on the MacBooks and iMacs compared with the Cinema Displays.

My, so much effort to attempt to refute empirically proven and repeatedly demonstrated scientific fact... the state of science education in America is so woeful these days.

I'm not changing the point, the argument, etc. My point is that it's obvious that the claim made is that we perceive their to be "millions" of colors, and that is indeed what we get, irrelevant of the hardware. As for not exceeding the limits of human vision, wrong. If that were the case, then the kinds of results that show people can and do perceive "millions" of colors from the display would not have been found, let alone replicated in multiple laboratory experiments, with different experimental paradigms and controls, again and again and again.

The deeper issue here is that in our society the letter of the law has become more important than the understanding or the spirit of that law. As one poster earlier said, "Welcome to the society of lawyers". It's too bad that you're one of the people who've fallen into that unfortunate mind-set.

I do get it, but the poster was wrong to claim that the LCD is only capable of producing 192 colors, that's what I was responding to. There are 3 elements who each can produce 64 values, that can't be simplified to say that monitor can only fundamentally produce 192 colors, that's not what the math is.

It's the same as arguing that a piano can only play 88 different sounds.

Also, I doubt it's well understood here what 'dithering' means. Dithering is a computer graphics term that means something very precise, using patterns of multiple pixels and blending them together with others to produce an impression of the a color. It's not specific to LCD panels, it happens before the LCD or CRT, it happens in software.

The lawsuit was about the fact that millions of colors were advertised AND since the colors were implemented as software dithering then even more information was lost. It wouldn't have been so bad if no software dithering had been done.

Just because you elect to be either difficult or ignorant doesn't change the definition of a photograph, Clive. The word "photograph" originated long before anyone knew what photons were. By your definition, a pattern that appears on your crusty bathroom curtains caused by color fading due to sunlight exposure is a photograph.

From the Oxford Dictionary:

photograph |ˈfōtəˌgraf| noun
a picture made using a camera, in which an image is focused onto film or other light-sensitive material and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment.

You can call a digicam image a photograph all day long, but you're wrong, because a true photograph has continuous tone and is not made up of a matrix of individually colored squares. It's a picture, a bitmap, a raster, popularly known as a snapshot, or technically as a digital image, but the image you view on a computer screen, a laser print, or in a magazine printed in CMYK will not qualify as a photograph.

And you're proving my point: Apple said their laptop was capable of displaying "millions of colors" (which is technically true, because they didn't say anywhere that all of those millions of colors are displayed at the same moment in time) because it has come to be accepted as a nominal specification. If people who don't produce actual photographs can call themselves "Professional Photographers" simply because standards have lowered enough for people like you to accept that as the common definition, why should Apple or any other computer maker not be able to use commonly accepted standards of perceptual vision as a specification?

For that matter, the MacBook Pro is perfectly capable of displaying "millions of colors" on a display connected to it for that specific purpose. I do it every day with a color-corrected EIZO 24" LCD monitor that costs nearly twice what my MBP did. And it (and the work we do on it) looks very professional indeed.

For anyone to buy a lone laptop and then sue the manufacturer because it didn't fully enable them to do precision photography work by itself shows a great degree of un-professionalism on their part. I suppose they could have lawsuits pending against their camera manufacturer because they advertised it had a "built-in flash" but it didn't produce the same light output a professional flash attachment does.

Maybe at a detailed level the technique may differ but doesn't a CRT also only have a limited number of colours which are mixed to create the illusion of millions of colours -- e.g. 3 electron beams each of which energizes a different set of phosphor dots respectively glowing red, green or blue, depending on the energy level of the beam when it hits the dot?

No, you don't get it. First you can do spatial dithering in hardware in the monitor. Any 6 bit with 2x2 spatial dithering monitor does this...no software on the computer required. Spatial dithering will have a checkerboardish appearance most observable in darker gradients.

Temporal dithering like FRC will vary color quickly back and forth between colors the display can do to approximate a color it can't natively do. As long as you don't get flicker folks don't notice.

All are perceptual tricks to create the perception of color that isn't red, green or blue. Spatial dithering is more apparent because it is larger (not at a sub-pixel level) and more likely in the spatial contrast sensitivity range for an observer. The quantization noise is simply too high to be unobservable especially in darker regions. Even then, a lot of folks don't notice until you tell them what to look for and some not even then.

With respect to color it turns out that if you optimize for very even intensity (equiluminant) chromatic errors, even largish ones, are not visible because of the way human visual systems work. For temporal dithering at 15-20 hz color flicker fusion occurs (ie you get your desired fake colors) as long as the intensities are even. However, luminance imbalance can be perceived even up 50-60 Hz.[1] Which shows up as a nervous, crawly or flickery display...again, most visible in darker regions.

What I didn't pay any attention to is whether the panels used by apple was doing spatial or temporal dithering. 6 bit panels use a few basic strategies to reproduce additional colors beyond their native color-depths.

Are these colors "real"? Mostly. A lot of what we take for granted in displays (computer, TV, movies, analog, digital, etc) are highly efficient visual tricks of the human visual system.

I don't mind that Apple was sued or that Apple settled. I do think that the vehemence that Apple was doing evil by folks like Clive are silly. Like they love being outraged by something Apple did or didn't do. For the general case, those panels did indeed generate millions of colors as percieved by humans. Unless, of course, the panels did their visual tricks poorly. Which is possible too and doing the tricks wrong sometimes result in glaringly obvious artifacts.

[1] Mulligan, 1993 Improving digital halftones by exploiting visual system properties

They did research it Apple claimed the panels were capable of displaying millions of colours and that should be all the research that's required.

Their only mistake, as far as I can see, was trusting Apple.

You can argue about dithering etc. until you are blue in the face, but at the end of the day Apple, like any other manufacturer, has a responsibility to make accurate representations about their products.

In this case, it's obvious that Apple made a claim that simply wasn't true. Calling the two plaintiffs names and questioning their professionalism doesn't change that fact.

Apple have a long culture of making misleading or unquantifiable statements about their products - the 'server grade' hard disk in the Time Capsule is another perfect example. That's another piece of marketing jargon that implies that the Time Capsule offers increased reliability over a product that doesn't feature a server grade hard disk mechanism. If you were to take that to court you'd soon realise that 'server grade' doesn't actually mean anything at all, and if you were to strip-down a Time Capsule you would see that Apple is in fact using a run-of-the-mill hard disk drive that doesn't offer any benefits over any other hard disk drive out there.

I for one am pleased that Apple have been caught with their fingers in the honey jar this time around. I hope that Apple will come to realise that misleading their customers will only damage their brand.

They need to get a good old CRT and carry it around with them everywhere you go then. Or maybe get a desktop an expensive LCD and a really large backpack and use it as a laptop. That is effectively what they would have to do to get what they are looking for anyways... since the MBP doesn't come with RAID-5, 16GB RAM, and more than one optical drive, which I'm sure they are stewing over as well.

It would be funny to see what laptops they do buy to replace their less than adequate MBPs. I'd like to see them (I bet they would be new MBPs)

I think the photographers are just looking for a quick buck. I also think apple should disclose this as well though. no big deal... Apple just put 6bit on the box. But if you are a pro you are going to know this and by a secondary screen anyway.

People in America need to get over stuff like this and quit suing. That's my deal (Coffee is Hot!, so what if it is a slighty less red shade of red than you think it should be... dont buy it!, drinking beer doesn't make you get women!, haunted houses are supposed to be scary!, and my favorite... for $2.5 million dollars... The Fear Factor TV show made a man sick to his stomach! Don't watch it!) All laptop screens use technique to make them look better and keep so they can be used as laptop screens... otherwise they wouldn't be very usable for anyone, and everyone would complain and come sue someone just because they can.

America get over your sue crazy attitude. Sue when you have to, not because you just want a quick buck. You are one of the people driving America into the ground and embarrassing the crap out of the rest of us.

File complaints... and if they don't get heard... go somewhere else that will hear you. or wear a bib, you pick. Make capitalism work the way it is supposed to. This is not it for sure.

http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2007/0...lcd_lawsu.html

'nuff said!

If Apple is guilty then they need to spread the love and sue all laptop LCD makers... That's what "professionals" do right? Anyone who said those two had done enough research prior to purchasing an Apple laptop (any laptop for that matter) is bs.

Another example of the flood of frivolous lawsuits that US firms must deal with constantly.

As a Canadian, I'm always dismayed by stories like this. And the company being sued generally loses: usually by being forced into a "cheaper" out of court settlement, not out of guilt, merely to avoid an even costlier trial.

Makes ya wonder how much of a premium customers unwittingly pay to offset the barrage of frivolous suits Apple and countless other companies deal with constantly. Claims like this one are nothing short of blackmail, plain and simple. Maybe it's time for legislators to get involved.

No, it's because of Apple using *S-IPS panels in the Cinema displays. There are other, much cheaper, panels capable of displaying 8 bits of colour per subpixel.

/Adrian

Oh get real. I'm a Physicist. I LIVE to be proven wrong.


This statement is laughable. It's physically impossible to "empirically" prove anything about perception! That's why there's a huge debate about whether or not Psychology is actually a "science." Of course you'll maintain that it is because it gives your argument credibility. I, however, can show, physically, why perception cannot be trusted.

Take a look at this photograph:
[CENTER][/CENTER]
Which point, A or B, is quasar 0957+561?

The correct answer is that both points show images of the same quasar. This is not a photoshop trick. Both images are truly the same object. However, that's not the end of the story. Neither point represents the actual location of the quasar.

Somewhere between the observer and the quasar, there exists a large gravitational field which is bending light around it, creating the double-image. The actual position of the quasar is between the two points.

Point is: perception cannot be trusted.

So now tell me: Is {6-bit plus features} truly equivalent to {8-bit native}? The simple fact is, no. The display does not show millions of colors per pixel. It only shows 260,000 or whatever number that is. Now, on how Apple marketed these displays, I cannot comment, so whether these gentlement truly have a case, I do not know. But it must be made clear that perception does not imply truth.


Just because you elect to cling to an archaic definition doesn't make you ultimate supreme overlord of all that is. It's clear that "photo - graph" means "something written by light." Your gripe about "photons" is immaterial because photo = light, wherein a photon is an elementary "particle" of light. So you can drop that one.

Secondly, your "continous spectrum" argument is bogus as well as everything in this universe is quantized. Space, time, color (photon length). None of them are continuous. Everything proceeds/changes as a series of tiny steps.

The only difference is the size of the quantization. So what if it's shown on a screen, or shown on film, or shown on a shower curtain? It's still a reproduced image whose origin is "recorded" light.

You two gentlemen have very narrow-minded views on your subjects of choice. We have Mr. "Only what we perceive is truth" and Mr. "A photograph is a chemical reaction on film, period." Loosen up, boys. It's time to update your dictionaries.

-Clive

Point blank - this is another case of yet another company being sued so some lawyer can get rich off of his or her one-time home run. There is absolutely no benefit to the consumer in this case whatsoever. And, is it any surprise the lawsuit comes out of California?

What's next, sue Dell, HP, Toshiba, Sony? Maybe you can sue TV manufacturers too?

Wait, what about McDonalds? Have they REALLY served "billions"? I feel mislead by that statement.

These two 'professional' photographers are likely in cahoots (yes, cahoots) with the attorney filing the lawsuit. Most likely, the attorney thought up the suit and then sought the 'professional photographers' out to be the plaintiffs.

These are the same types of people that buy Apple products, say they are Apple fanatics, but then gripe and bitch over a 15% restocking fee when they decide they really wanted the 'green' iPod. They know the policies, they know the technology, they know the limitations. But, when something doesn't go exactly there way, Apple and Papa Steve somehow 'owe' them something for their loyalty. Humpf!

-JSA

Mkay. So you're saying that all LCD monitors are not actually using visual perception tricks to display color? Whether temporal dithering in 6 bit displays or sub-pixel spatial additive color tricks on 8 bit displays?

That you cannot empirically prove the human visual perceptual limits?

That you cannot empirically show that specific visual techniques work? I'll have to email SMPTE your learned opinion.


This isn't just a branch of cognitive (perceptual) psychology but also physiology. There are physical limits to the human visual system. Then there are all the tricks the brain plays to fill in the gaps. These tricks can be mapped and utilized to create specific, known, outcomes in perception. Or you wouldn't have any movies to watch.

In any case, typically the "huge debate" is carried out by folks holding hard science degrees to feel vaguely superior to folks holding soft science degrees.

It's ironically very human. Folks secure in their own expertise generally do not indulge in penis size/scientific rigor measuring contests because...they don't need to.

But rather accept collegues as equal collegues*.

In any case, I find your reasoning rather limited in this discussion and often find that anyone that declares themselves to be a "physicist" to be a pompous blowhard. Most physicists I know aren't actual practioners in their field but...let's face it...failures in their choosen field and making a living doing something else.

Work at CERN or Fermi? Brookhaven? NASA? JPL? Standford? Anywhere actually DOING physics? No? Then you aren't a "physicist" but a random guy with some sort of physics degree in his past.


Which has zip to do with human perception of color.


Point is: your analogy has zip to do with the topic at hand.


Truly equivalent? No. Functionally equivalent? At least to the point that "millions" of colors are percieved? Yes, depending on the implementation.


If you're close enough to the display with sufficient visual acuity then neither does an 8-bit display (show millions of colors per pixel). You see three sub-pixels that are red, green and blue. The visual trick of placing these additive colors sufficiently close to each other for spatial color fusion creates the perception of specific colors. So does temporal color fusion by rapidly changing between close color values to to create the perception of specific colors.


If the quantization noise from spatial dithering in a 6-bit + 2 display or 6-bit + FRC is sufficiently small then the reproduced (mental) image is the correct color within the limits of the visual system of the observer (including the "post-processing" done by the brain).

Of course, given a reference (ie 8 bit display next to a 6-bit display) it is easier to see any differences and also in areas where human perception is stronger in detection of visual artifacts.

-v

* I'm just a lowly programmer. I have no delusions of grandeur.

LOL...I saw your profile. Are you at least a post-doc somewhere? Claim grandeur when you HAVE a PhD and have a permanent research position somewhere.

No, I didn't go on to get a PhD, and no I'm not currently working in the field but those were choices I've made to follow other passions. That doesn't change that I've been trained to think scientifically.

I'm not trying to piss all over psychology either. I find a lot of it fascinating, I really do. I just think it must be distinguished that perception is an unreliable human faculty.

By the way, I was one of the first people in this thread to mention that displays only emit red green and blue photons and different intensities anyway, so I'm not really sticking up for either side here.

It also doesn't make you a Physicist as you are neither trained nor a practioner. I guess you were just proven wrong. I certainly am glad you live for it.

Bowser was also trained to think scientifically...AND managed to prove so by doing independent research at least once in his life (PhD thesis). In fact...that might make him...better trained to think scientifically, no?


And yet you did by questioning it is a science. I would say this statement is wrong.


And yet it isn't unreliable. The limits of human visual perception are quantifiable and repeatable. If it were NOT then all the tricks for moving pictures, color, etc would not reliably work on a day to day basis for the vast majority of the populace. When I say vast majority I mean nearly all as only a very few detect artifacting when the techniques are applied correctly. In other words: most people can go to a theater and see moving images even though they are in reality a series of static pictures replaced at a rate too fast for most humans to see.

So how is this "unreliable"? Are we wrong again?


No, you were not. Hattig brought it up in post #34 on page 1, there were posts discussing the point and THEN you repeated it late on page 2 in post #66 . In fact that discussion was occurring in the very post BEFORE (Wiggin, post #41 ) the one you obviously read from Bowser (#42 ) and responded to. Pad your resume much? Or can you really be one of the first when you are in reality one of the last? Perhaps that's just a human perception issue or more likely...merely wrong.

Not sticking up for either side? Are you kidding? You're the guy with the monkey urine analogy.

So wrong again. Are we living the life yet buddy?

So if you were to stop being a programmer, yet retained all the skills and knowledge of programming, you wouldn't consider yourself a programmer? That's too much of a night-and-day definition to me. "Once a marine, always a marine," as the saying goes. If you've been trained to act and think in a different way, that training sticks.


I, too, (even at the undergrad level) was required to carry out independent research on an advanced topic in Physics, where professors were forbidden from anything but mild guidance. I'm not claiming PhD status or abilities, but my degree should stand as proof that I'm capable of thinking like a scientist.


No, I didn't question it as a science. I noted the debate and stated an example of where perception can't be trusted. I personally did not attack the realm of psychology. I just noted places where natural science usurps it.

And I don't understand why you're so hesitant to accept my example... It clearly proves that perception can't be trusted. It doesn't have to do with color.

If you want one that does, take a look at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect#Astronomy to see that color is not always what it seems either.

My statement stands: perception cannot always be trusted.


Many people stated "63 different reds, blues and greens." I made the clarification in Post #68 that actually displays only produced three single wavelengths period. One red wavelength, one green wavelength, and one blue wavelength in different intensities.

Re: my position

At first I was entirely for the plaintiffs, after reading many worthy arguments, I've reconsidered my position. I don't know exactly how Apple marketed the display at the time of sale and, quite frankly, don't even care anymore. The only point I've been trying to make in the last few posts is that though most humans may perceive a {6-bit plus...} display the same as an {8-bit native} display they are fundamentally different. Now how that would come into effect versus Apple's marketing technique in a court of law, I do not know, so I am not commenting legally on whether I think Apple is right or wrong.

Since you finally admitted there was, in fact, a difference, I am content. Yet you continue to attack me...

1st the criteria for being a programmer are fairly low. To claim programmer status, at most you need a BS and at a minimum programming language skill. Not all that rigorous. This is why claiming to be a programmer is no big deal.

2nd if you haven't been programming a while you become fairly out of date rather quickly. So to a great extent, after a few years as a non-practitioner, you really aren't a coder anymore. Most folks would say "I used to be a programmer" at that point.

3rd, your claiming to be a Physicist is a like someone claiming to be a Marine that didn't finish boot camp. The minimum training required to be a practicing physicist is a PhD. Somewhat more rigorous than a mere programmer.

Take any undergrad bio courses? Care to claim "I am a Doctor, I live to save lives"?


Yah. Right. Proof? Hardly.

Bar dropping here a bit? Now merely "thinks like a scientist"? I think like a millionaire. Doesn't make me one.


Right. You noted it. Because it is highly relevant? Or because you were TRYING to toot your horn as a "Physicst" which is a hard science vs a PhD in Cognitive Psych? Bullshit. At least own up to what you were trying to do.

I note that some people are considered jerks. Oh wait, was that a personal attack, or simply illustration that some insults are stupidly transparent? It is the latter.


Because unless you commonly have a large gravitational source between you and your monitor this natural phenomena is irrelevant.

Oh, wait, perhaps that's your ego.

Now that is a personal attack.


Which has ZERO to do with human visual perception of color. Shifted wavelengths are indeed perceived as the right shifted color.

Again, you ignore that human perception of color is a quantifiable thing and depended on for reproduction of color DAILY. It CAN be trusted to behave in certain ways.


Yes, Hattig was imprecise however the POINT remains the same. Color is still simulated through spatial color fusion in the human visual system.

A trick because the sensor in question can't resolve the RGB sources.


Because you've been making attacks on others.

And there is no "finally". There has always been an acknowledged difference between 8-bit and 6-bit displays. The POINT is that human perceive of millions of colors even with 6-bit displays.

Not true at all. My sister has a B.A. in Chemistry, works for a company in a lab where she uses her degree in the work she does every day, conducting research in scientific uncharted territory. Is she not, then, a Chemist?

I've already acknowledged that I'm not practicing phsyics at a company, in a school or with a research group, but I am working on a physics paper which is an extension of my Senior Thesis. I'm still using the phsycis I learned in this self-initiated project. Just because I'm not in a lab means I'm not a physicist?


Hyperbole much? A) I point-blank stated that I did not have a PhD. B) It takes more than just a bio-degree to be a Doctor who saves lives. It does not take more than a Physics degree to be considered a Physicist. In fact, I could conceive of a case where one wouldn't even need a degree to be a Physicist. A degree is just a piece of paper showing that someone noticed you knew a shit about something. You can still learn about Physics and Scientific Method without doing so at an overpriced establishment. You can still use that knowledge to research, plan, and carry out experiments that are meaningful to the Physics community. Would such a person still not be a physicist in your eyes?

The world is not as black-and-white as you wish it to be.


If you want me to agrue like you, I will. Since you like your "definitions" so much, let's look at the definition of a Scientist according to M/W:
Main Entry: sci·en·tist
Pronunciation: \\ˈsī-ən-tist\\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin scientia
Date: 1834
1: a person learned in science and especially natural science : a scientific investigator

There you have it in the black-and-white that you love to cling to so much. I am a scientist.


You repeatedly fail to miss the point of my hypothetical situations: Perception is not accurate. I'm not saying there's a large gravitational source between an observer and his display. I'm not saying the the display is traveling at you at speeds significant enough to witness a Doppler shift. I'm saying that the techniques that make 6-bit plus displays resemble 8-bit native displays are an illusion that takes advantage of human limitations. The point is that Apple and other display manufactures need to be careful about what they advertise because there is a difference between millions of simulated colors (per pixel) and millions of colors (per pixel). If you claim you're so willing to accept this portion of my argument, then why are you trying so vigorously to put down all of my examples?

And why all of a sudden resort to shallow put-downs? I've been very careful not to personally attack or insult anyone, despite the number of names I've had the urge to call you.


Where?


I'm not disputing that either. The conflict is how Apple (and others) marketed the displays. I'm suggesting that maybe it should be marketed as "Millions of simulated colors per pixel." "Millions of colors" seems pretty ambiguous. Besides, if {6-bit plus} displays were identical to {8-bit native} displays, why would they produce the latter? There must be SOME visual difference, no?

-Clive

I have noticed while buying 500 GIG drives recently the choice between 'Server Grade' and 'Standard' and there is a price difference. This is from companies like Western Digital and I am talking about plain internal drives here, no other parts such as power supplies etc.. So I assume they are actually manufactured to a higher tolerance and perhaps have better MTBF figures ...? Just pointing out here the hard drive example might not be correct in your comments. I have no idea not having opened one but perhaps Apple are using higher or server grade drives. If not then they are going to be called on it for sure ...

Perhaps this entire thread is getting totally out of perspective. I am sure the guys that sued where simply clever enough to see a marketing error and call a lawyer. I also doubt their work was severely damaged by using a MacBook Pro. Having said that, if MacBook Pros show 'stepping' in graduated tints I would be pretty ticked off if I had bought one for the purpose of working in color graphics. I don't know if they do or not to be honest, I would not consider doing serious computer graphics on a laptop anyway.

As I said early on in this thread, after 25 years in the color / print/ computer business I can humbly suggest that a proof is always subject to variances and unless your Mac is running profiles tied to the specific press, paper and ink you are never truly able to be accurate (and not even then at times).

I also suspect that Apple didn't mean to mislead rather they had always had those terms like 'thousands' and 'millions' in the control panels of Macs going back to the first color Macs while PCs had VGA etc. It was probably more a tradition than anything and meant low, medium and high to me at least.

Ah...normally, out of politeness, I would accept that fiction. However, in reality, folks with master degrees (or less) are often considered (and job categorized as) "technicians". These typically work under someone with a PhD in the relevant field.

So, not so much.


Yes, you are not. You are a "student" in this specific case.

Jeez, how hard is it to understand? You claimed authoritative knowledge you do not possess and a title you are not qualified to have to try to trump someone else. Then you dis'd his profession to boot.

At least he's not a poseur.


You point-blank stated you were a Physicist. The implications are that...you would at least qualify to be one if you were actually practicing physics.

Just having a BS in physics (if you even have that) does not qualify you to be a physicist. Try getting a job as one at NASA or CERN or wherever. The hyperbole is yours, sir.


Yes, in this case it would be "proof" that you at least had the minimal understanding of a field.

Otherwise we would have to ask you to cite your independent research and published papers in the field then evaluate that work. Which is rather a chore.


Any accredited university would do. I'm sure there are a couple that are not overpriced.


Meaningful research is the key. The answer in this day and age is "highly unlikely a lay person could conduct meaningful Physics experiments". With the understanding that "meaningful" means advancing human knowledge somewhere along the frontier of physics.


I didn't say it was. I simply stated that to call oneself a "physicist" requires more than taking a couple courses. There is a high bar if you wish to do so in order to claim authority.


Arguably you are not learned in science. You can follow that chain of definitions if you wish but it ends with erudition and the phrase "extensive knowledge". Can you claim extensive knowledge in science if you have not even begun to learn? As in that gaining a PhD is not the END of learning but merely the acknowledgment that you now has sufficient basis for advanced learning in a field.

Arrogant much?


I'm not missing your point. I'm saying it's irrelevant to the topic. That you can fool the human visual system is depended on.

Your hypotheticals are no more relevant than your monkey urine and coffee analogy.


The objective of a 6-bit display is not to resemble an 8-bit display but to render an image.

Likewise an 8-bit display is designed to render an image.

How closely both of these displays accurately renders an image differs but both rely on illusion.


So you see "per pixel" anywhere? They say the display can show millions of colors. If the human visual system has sufficient acuity to see at the sub-pixel level at normal viewing distances you wouldn't see the same picture but a field of red, green and blue dots even for an 8-bit display.

Here's a little physics experiment for you Mr. Scientist. If you smear a small drop of water on your display what do you see? Red green and blue perhaps?

I am not responsible if you electrocute yourself or ruin your display.


Did I accept your argument? No, I did not. See there are nuances there if you read carefully. Or at all.


Please. You dis'd an entire category of science.


What's this "per pixel" stuff? If they are (as it appears) to be using 6 + 2 spatial dithering the perceived color is not on a per pixel basis. What they say is the display is capable of millions of colors.

An 8-bit display is capable of "Millions of simulated colors per pixel" by design because the RGB components are in a sub-pixel level.


Yes there are differences. But that does not mean that a 6 bit display cannot do millions of color.

You are impossibly stubborn. Your inflexibility is unbearable. To avoid going legally insane on account of this trite bickering, I must back down. I'm not going to continue wasting my time explaining the same arguments over and over when you simply will not even consider another point of view. Before you charge me of hypocracy, remember that I was the one willing to reconsider my position on this legal case.

Adieu, and good luck in life. I sense you will need it.

-Clive

You too buddy. A simple apology regarding your psych crack would have sufficed but you can't even admit to what you were trying to do. "I was only noting..."

Amusingly, I never claim to be a real "scientist" but that's only funny if you know who I am. In any case, it doesn't serve you well to claim something you aren't.

Is Clive going to be your new grudge?

Very touchy.

IMHO, in recent years Apple has been deceiving the public in lowering their "higher standards" when comparing their products with the competition, and this doesn't apply solely to the displays which is the issue here, but I'll stay on topic!

The benefit of using more mainstream components in their computers is more affordable machines. In the case of the MacBook, well, it's an entry level laptop, what can one expect! for the pricier MacBook Pro, it's a totally different beast, one would expect to have much better components - especially the screen - then it's lower end counterpart.

I tend to compare the 6 bit color + "software enhancement" to 8 bit color as the zoom on a digital camera or the resolution of a scanner:
Digital cameras typically have an Optical Zoom of (#)X, that can be enhanced with the use of digita enhancement, or as we call it by doing interpolation. The same applies to scanners, which have a set "optical resolution" and a Maximum resolution which is achieved by software interpolation as well.

Depending on the visual acuity of the user, the artifacts, banding, or whatever you want to call it will be more or less visible and/or bothersome to the eye. NOT ALL EYES ARE CREATED EQUAL !!! Especially true for some "professionals" whose trained eyes are more sensitive to those artifacts then the general public. Claiming that boosting a displays colors via software from 262,144 to 16,777,216 while NOT BEING PERCEPTIBLE BY THE HUMAN EYE is quite a bold claim and I don't buy it for a minute. I agree it will not be visible for some, but I can plainly see the difference.

This is why manufacturers of high-end monitors come up with 10 bit and 12 bit displays. I personally find that the Apple Cinema Displays - acknowledging the fact that they are superior to most mainstream display, but then again, they are not mainstream! - with their true 8 bit color are not precise enough for professional photo editing, especially for commercial printing: As soon as any calibration is applied to the screen, the LCD no longer displays 256 shades per color channel and the actual number of colors decrease quite rapidly. Banding can be visible and bothersome for a trained eye. (See note below about No of colors).

BUT: digital cameras and scanners have both the optical zoom/res and digital zoom/res stated either on the packaging or in the documentation. This is where Apple failed with these new displays. Apple should have made a mention of this in the specs. Although if you look at specs of all recent (2004 and up, haven't checked older ones) Apple computers with built in displays, or at the specs of teh Apple Cinema Displays, there is absolutely no mention of true bit/color on any model. They state: "support for millions of colors" in every case, with no more elaboration on the subject.

Now some will say that nobody else does so why should Apple do it? My answer to that is that Apple has been separating itself from mainstream computer makers by it's innovation and higher standards of both hardware components AND honestly about it's claims (although there were some exception, I have to admit, but Apple has generally a very good track record). They "could" have been honest about their software enhancement to achieve "millions of colors".

So basically, one expects to buy a better machine when he/she buys an Apple machine.

To get back to the 2 photographers who initiated the suit:
1-a real "pro" would not expect a laptop to perform at the same level then a real pro workstation.
2-a real "pro" would have tested the laptops BEFORE buying them to make sure they would be sufficient to their needs, as they would if they purchased a new workstation.
3-The innacuracy of the display has absolutely no impact on the actual photos taken by those photographers. If they need to see "truer" colors, they simply need to view their pictures on a better calibrated workstation.
4-Apple never claimed to have true 8 bit color on those laptops.
5-The fact that they couldn't find enough people to join their claim speaks for itself: quite far-fetched...
I honestly think that they are simply opportunists who tried to capitalize on a technicality. Then again maybe they just wanted to give publicity to this issue in an attempt to make the population aware of this deception - but I doubt this very much.

What did this attempt to sue achieved?
Well the fact that we actually are debating it in this forum is proof that this IS a valid issue in the eyes of certain users.

I have been working in Pre-Press for almost 20 years, and my eye is quite picky when it comes to displays.
I personally tested both the new MacBook and MacBook Pro 15". I would not purchase a MacBook even though its specs are very decent and it performs quite well, simply because of the crappy display, even if it was just for web browsing and menial tasks. for starters, the viewing angle is horrendous, and the glare of the glossy display simply unbearable.
For the MacBook Pro, I find the display to be quite superior then the MacBook's. The fact that they are available in non-gloss is a HUGE bonus for me. The viewing angle is also far better, and color seem more accurate. I would consider buying one for myself, but I would not remotely hope to be able to use it for color correction of photos.


How to calculate actual colors in relation to bit depth per chanel - with a few examples:

The formula is:
2 (no of variable in a "bit", 0 or 1) at the power of x (x=bit per color value) take the total and bring it at the power of 3 [No of color channels in a RGB color display]

Mac Book displays
6 bit color: (2 at the power of 6) at the power of 3 = 64 (colors per channel) at the power of 3 = 262,144

Apple Cinema Display 20" ($700) 23" ($900)
8 bit color: (2 at the power of 8) at the power of 3 = 256 at the power of 3 = 16,777,216

Going Higher end:
Eizo ColorEdge CE Series and CG19 ($1,200 - $1,700 for a 19"), LaCie 324 LCD Monitor ($1460 24" including colorimeter)
10 bit color: (2 at the power of 10) at the power of 3 = 1,024 at the power of 3 = 1,073,741,824

Eizo ColorEdge CG Series ($2,000 21" - $5,700 30"), LaCie 321 LCD Monitor ($1680 21" including colorimeter)
12 bit color: (2 at the power of 12) at the power of 3 = 4,096 at the power of 3 = 68,719,476,736

16 bit per color Scanners (claimed by some manufacturers - true or interpolated?):
16 bit color: (2 at the power of 12) at the power of 3 = 65,536 at the power of 3 = 281,474,976,710,656 - whoa, no display can actually show you this !

NOTE: In the case of Eizo's CG301W ($5,700), the "mother of all screens" IMHO, and it's baby brother the CG221, the manufacturer CLEARLY STATES that the underlying technology is made up of 12 bit per channel hardware but they are using 16 bit processing (internal calculation - same principle Apple is using in the 6 bit displays) to achieve better then 12 bit native color rendering. Hence the hefty price tag...
http://www.eizo.com/products/graphic...ures.asp#16bit

Conclusion:
I personally think that not only Apple but ALL screen manufacturers and comps with built in displays manufacturers SHOULD be forced to have the "true" color depth CLEARLY stated. It might not be an issue for most, but it is a deception regardless.
I agree with using maistream components or lower end technology in a specific product line-up to make it's pricing competitive, but there is no need to camouflage the specs.
Did Apple deserve a lawsuit for this? I think not, but I believe they deserved the (negative) publicity that ensued, as all other deceptive manufacturers do.

Simply beautiful dude. Very elegant.

Absolutely. More to the point, surely it is not fair on these expensive brands who produce professional colour screens in competition against regular TN 6-bit screens.

Not entirely true, they do not list the reference to millions of colors on the Apple Store page, but it is still listed in the actual Product Pages and the Apple Specs Database:

http://www.apple.com/macbook/specs.html
http://support.apple.com/specs/macbo...Late_2007.html

http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/specs.html
http://support.apple.com/specs/macbo...Late_2007.html

http://www.apple.com/macbookair/specs.html
http://support.apple.com/specs/macbo...cBook_Air.html

http://www.apple.com/imac/specs.html
http://support.apple.com/specs/imac/iMac_Mid_2007.html

I don't remember if they had previously stated in the Apple Store the actual number of colors, but if they did and corrected it, it would show that Apple decided the issue was worth a corrective action...

Except that wasn't the claim was it? Just "millions of colors".

6 bit + 2x2 dithering (half-toning) or 6 bit FRC or 6 bit + Hi-FRC should all do "millions" with some artifacting.

16.2M? That's bit of a marketing statistic for FRC but with 3 tones it's (256-3)^3=16.2M.
Interestingly Hi-FRC claims 16.7M colors because of its mapping.


Sure. And type. 8-bit TN isn't all that either.

I miss the days when everyone had 2-bit color in their Apple IIs, and no one gave a damn.

If I could vote you up, sir, I would.

Jimzip