or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple hit with another "millions of colors" lawsuit
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple hit with another "millions of colors" lawsuit - Page 2

post #41 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Londor View Post

The bottom of the line iMac has always had a TN panel so I do not know why people is surprised that the 20" panel in the current iMac is TN.

If you go back and read the original article, you will see that previous 20" iMac had higher quality 8-bit (per channel) LCD.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobertoq View Post

how many colors can the Macbook, MacBook pro 15", MacBook Pro 17", and all the cinima display show?

As far as I know, all MacBooks and 20" iMac are 6-bit TN. Rest are 8-bit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidm77 View Post

Obviously a display is capable of really only showing some shade of the three colors red, green and blue. It's only through an optical effect that they appear as these other "millions" of colors.

This whole series of lawsuits is silly.

Not entirely true. Since individual pixel is made off of 3 subpixels (red, green, and blue), when each subpixel is capable of varying 8 levels of brightness, they combine to form 16.7 million colors.
post #42 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

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 which is where that number comes from. I don't know how they officially count 2x2 dithering or even if all of Apple's TN panels use 2x2 dithering or some might do FRC or Hi-FRC.

Interestingly Hi-FRC claims 16.7M colors because of the way it does mapping of the lower bits. I think lower bits anyway. It's been a while since I read about it but it does mean even when you see that 16.7M number you may not be getting a 8-bit panel.

Not that it matters that much if it is a TN panel anyway. They ARE (typically) faster but the trade is generally with color repro. And, of course, S-IPS panels are a heck a lot more expensive.

So, do 6-bit panels do "millions of colors"? Yes, with spatial or temporal dithering. Many folks won't notice the difference without a higher quality panel next to it as a reference.

They sure as heck would with a 6-bit panel that only did 262K colors.

PS For the person with issue with Dell monitors, typically you want the UltraSharp models that I believe were largely S-IPS and way more expensive...or were when I was looking at it a while ago. YMMV today since panel usage varies from year to year or even within years. The 30" HC is pretty nice. The 24" is S-PVA though but 8-bit.

Thanks for straightening these knuckle heads out. They act like there really is such a thing as a 16M color display. Folks no such display has ever been made in the history of human kind. Every display FAKES the eye into seeing 16M colors and both the 16bit and 8bit display to that. Granted the 8bit display have more head room and can look more stunning but that's a different story.
post #43 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightoftheWord View Post

I'm sorry but you are wrong. I am a bit pissed at this with Apple. I got some of these iMacs and put some of them in our Photography Department of our newspaper. We went through a complete colour calibration overhaul and brought in experts in the field. Guys who do this with newspapers for a living. Even with calibration the screens in both the 24 and 20 inch versions do not give true colour accuracy. It's true, when compared side by side with the "proper" Apple standalone displays there are differences.

If I had have known that this was the case with the iMacs I would not have bought them and simply got Mac Pro's and the accompanying quality displays. So care to give us the real world example where you claim this is rubbish?

So let me get this straight: You thought you could get Pre-press color quality Displays in an All-In-One system versus having to suck it up and invest in Mac Pros and separate S-IPS displays; and that if you had not been deceived you would have ponied up the original bones instead of saving a bunch getting the cheaper systems?

You knew what you were buying. If Apple was able to sell Cinema display panels in their iMacs they would be cannibalizing their high end sales. Every company for that matter would as well.

Please, by all means come in and create a user account as some disgruntled business manager/owner looking for sympathy.

You won't find any in an area where people pride themselves with actually knowing the technology and it's inherent limitations.
post #44 of 134
It's real simple folks: Go to the manufacturers who make the panels.

Download their PDFs that list their panel offerings. Compare who uses their panels and problem solved.

SAMSUNG has really cheapened on their consumer panels this year and it's going to get worse.

Hitachi, Philips and others are doing the same.

Finding a quality S-IPS monitor starts at nearly $1k for a 20".

Go download LG-Philips documents on their panels. The prices are going upwards, not downwards even though LCDs are more common today than at any previous time.
post #45 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by filburt View Post

Not entirely true. Since individual pixel is made off of 3 subpixels (red, green, and blue), when each subpixel is capable of varying 8 levels of brightness, they combine to form 16.7 million colors.

But it's still only truly displaying those 3x8 actual colors (or shades of colors), everything else is just an optical elusion as they are merged together by our brains when our eyes view them. This lawsuit is dumb because fundamentally, all these displays are faking these millions of colors by exploiting a feature of our vision. It's just that one type is better at it than another.
post #46 of 134
People should be well informed about what they are purchasing and the implications involved.

Anyone knows what is the story with the screens in the MB and MBP?

Apple should make good on this (8 bit screens) for previous buyers and make it cristal clear for new buyers.

I am sure someone will disagree.
post #47 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Endo View Post

I think this suit is just another money grab by lawyers.

I don't think that anyone bought the system based on the Ad that it can display millions of colours. That should be the basis of defending the suit.

Again, another case of ever heard of the term Caveat Emptor?

-Endo

Money grabbing if Apple would have made a distiction, which they did not. If you attempt to calibrate the screen andthe printer, you expect to get very similar colors, if dithering is used the colors will be off. Photographers and video people care. Those using the computer only for web browsing may not.

Each Apple computer comes with iPhoto and iMovie, so there is an expectation from Apple that lots of users will experiment and there is an expectation from the buyers that the screen quality and colors are there to get the same results regardless of which Mac the user uses.
Moving an image from one Mac to the other with a calibrated monitors should look the same and print the same.
post #48 of 134
Apple on its website says: "No matter what you like to do on your computer watch movies, edit photos, play games, even just view a screen saver its going to look stunning on an iMac."

I would have thought it all depends what your definition of 'Stunning' is.

To stop all these law suits from the wanna 'get rich quick' brigade, Apple should start having those fast spoken disclaimers at the end of all commercials ...

"Check with your Computer consultant before taking a Mac. Side effects are generally rare and mild. Results may vary, in some cases blindness and even death may occur or worse, wanting to use a Dell has happened on rare occasions"
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
post #49 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Londor View Post

The bottom of the line iMac has always had a TN panel so I do not know why people is surprised that the 20" panel in the current iMac is TN.



Good luck finding a laptop with a 8-bit panel. You are gonna really need it.

I'm buying an EXTERNAL DELL monitor to plug into the MBP. Does it have to be spelled out to you??
2011 13" 2.3 MBP, 2006 15" 2.16 MBP, iPhone 4, iPod Shuffle, AEBS, AppleTV2 with XBMC.
Reply
2011 13" 2.3 MBP, 2006 15" 2.16 MBP, iPhone 4, iPod Shuffle, AEBS, AppleTV2 with XBMC.
Reply
post #50 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takeo View Post

Wow. I'm glad I opted for the 24". I had no idea the 20" screen was inferior.

That is exactly the point, most people are not geeks and not AI members. They have nothing but Apple web site to guide them. Since every Apple comes with iMovie and iPhoto, the expectation is that an image will be as good in every Mac with the exception that it may be slower rendering the image or movie based on the power of the system.

Apple is not informing people what they are getting and not listing the technology for the screen being used either so people can not research it that well either.

Even if Apple does not feel they done something wrong, there is the impression of trust being hurt here.

I hope Apple comes clean and fix the issue or at least document it properly so people can make an informed decision.
post #51 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

It's real simple folks: Go to the manufacturers who make the panels.

Download their PDFs that list their panel offerings. Compare who uses their panels and problem solved.

SAMSUNG has really cheapened on their consumer panels this year and it's going to get worse.

Hitachi, Philips and others are doing the same.

Finding a quality S-IPS monitor starts at nearly $1k for a 20".

Go download LG-Philips documents on their panels. The prices are going upwards, not downwards even though LCDs are more common today than at any previous time.

Where do you find the manufactorer and model of a given panel without opening the machione to the point you void the warranty?
Apple does not publish those details, so how can general public people do the research?

I never seen anywhere in Apple web site where it says who manufactures their screens for a particular Mac screen, neither have I seen that the screen uses either 6 or 8 bits, and never seen if it is TN or S-IPS.

Unless you repair these systems and look at the part numbers (which may change from time to time with no notice from Apple), one would not know.

People can not easily become informed if their screen provides millions of colors or just the illusion of millions of colors.

They also do not make any distintion between glossy or matt outside of the glare issue. As far as people know they are absolutly th same panel with a different coating.
post #52 of 134
My mother board blew out on my iMac PPC G5 (The last of Apple's brood before the Intels). While I was at the Apple store, I decided to buy a new iMac. The clerk showed me how different the 20" iMac was to the 24" iMac just by tilting the display. Yeowza! There was quite a noticible difference between the two displays. The 20" seemed washed out looking from top to bottom. The 24" looked the same from top to bottom. Anyhewww, that helped me decide to spend more money and get the 24" iMac. But I probably would have bought the 24" anyway because I love the screen 'real estate"
post #53 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Endo View Post

I think this suit is just another money grab by lawyers.

I don't think that anyone bought the system based on the Ad that it can display millions of colours. That should be the basis of defending the suit.

Again, another case of ever heard of the term Caveat Emptor?

-Endo

Class actions suits over consumer products are typically a scam run by lawyers, taking advantage of companies and gullible consumers. The members of the class get a pittance, generally a gift certificate or something similar, which is typically barely worth the time it takes to fill out the paperwork. The lawyers get a percentage of all of those awards, and take home a big payday. Apple understands this--the lawyers don't want to go to court, because that could potentially end up costing them money. Apple doesn't want the bad publicity. So Apple pays the extortion, which isn't that high, because the lawyers are only interested in their own cut, not actually getting anything of substance for the class members. The lawyers go away happy, and the poor suckers who signed on to the suit go "You mean this is all I get?"
post #54 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

So let me get this straight: You thought you could get Pre-press color quality Displays in an All-In-One system versus having to suck it up and invest in Mac Pros and separate S-IPS displays; and that if you had not been deceived you would have ponied up the original bones instead of saving a bunch getting the cheaper systems?

You knew what you were buying. If Apple was able to sell Cinema display panels in their iMacs they would be cannibalizing their high end sales. Every company for that matter would as well.

Please, by all means come in and create a user account as some disgruntled business manager/owner looking for sympathy.

You won't find any in an area where people pride themselves with actually knowing the technology and it's inherent limitations.

Obviously people did NOT know exactly what they were buying. That is the whole point of this. Apple have lost a class action suit based on this very fact.

If you have something constructive to bring to this rather than making assumptions as to why I am here and who I am then let's hear it. Apple have been found out in this. I take no pride in that and as you say I will have to "suck it up". The bottom line is that Apple are still wrong in what they said these screens were capable of. There is no escaping that fact nor any amount of vitriol from you will change that.
post #55 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightoftheWord View Post

Obviously people did NOT know exactly what they were buying. That is the whole point of this. Apple have lost a class action suit based on this very fact.

Let's not mistake the facts for what they aren't.

As far as I can tell, Apple settled to get them out of their hair. Apple didn't lose the case.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...n_lawsuit.html

I recall that the complaintant couldn't get class action status and it didn't even go to court, I don't remember where I read that. But they didn't lose the case.
post #56 of 134
First of all, Apple bumped up the size of the low-end iMac display and simultaneously lowered the price. I believe that's why they went with a cheaper screen and in order to keep a good margin, that's what a business does.

Secondly, if a 20" iMac user appears to see millions of colors on a monitor using dithering techniques...wait...WHAT? They ARE seeing millions of colors through dithering?

Isn't that what the specs claim? Shows millions of colors? It doesn't say "millions of colors from quality 8-bit displays". It says "millions of colors at all resolutions" and apparently dithering achieves that.
post #57 of 134
as far as i am concerned, editing photos on the macbook pro (i do not have the imac) is near impossible. every camera i have used has either had 12bit or 14bit colour and takes very godo photos (currently i am using d200).

in raw or jpeg, with my macbook pro, i either get yellowish or very bright highlights that make sky, clouds or reflections terrible. colours that fade to black? they don't. they drop off into black suddenly with a graininess.

i would be so happy for apple to just take the charge in the sometimes outrageous prices the charge say for the macbook. the pro i find rather comparable and for the quality of the casing, i don't mind the cost, but to market it for pros and then assume the pro will get along with it is absurd.

it is also absurd to think that a pro must always have a spair cinema display at her service to do editing. if she is in the bush or hiring a room and needs to get some stuff finished, she just whips out her cinema display from her backpack and plugs it in? a laptop should be self contained especially if marketted for the high end with a high-end bracket.

what is say i know is not new at all and has been mirrored in countless threads elsewhere, but i am glad of this press and i hope that until apple change things, they will get hit with this sort of suit. i am incensed by the 2007 display quality of macbook pro (2.4 led).
TouchMyApps - All things iPhone for those who like to touch
Reply
TouchMyApps - All things iPhone for those who like to touch
Reply
post #58 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by EagerDragon View Post

People should be well informed about what they are purchasing and the implications involved.

I am sure someone will disagree.

I disagree. While it may be easy for you to understand the mechanics of your computer and have a basic idea of what to look for when researching a new machine you can't expect the average person to be able to do that. Do you know all the technical aspects of your car? How it differs from the previous year's version? Even if you know some aspect of that question you can't possibly know most of it unless you build the car from scratch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbansprawl View Post

Isn't that what the specs claim? Shows millions of colors? It doesn't say "millions of colors from quality 8-bit displays". It says "millions of colors at all resolutions" and apparently dithering achieves that.

That is what the lawsuit may determine if it gets to court. Does the human eye perceiving millions of colours through dithering considered truth in advertising for the claim of million of colours? i don't think it does.

I can't think of a good example, so I'll use a bad one ):
If I advertise that my Ducati for sale and state it has gone 500mph, but don't state that it only has gone that fast while traveling in the cargo hold of a cargo plane am I lying?
What if I say the farthest I ever jumped was 5 miles in one leap, but dont' clarify that the leap was out of a plane and the miles were vertical?
These are exaggerated examples of the truth for the sake of argument, but it's quite easy to conceive of examples that the average person would accept without pondering.

As an aside, I believe that is why when being sworn in you swear to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", instead of just being asked to tell "the truth"
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #59 of 134
No, if you want a good example you say, "Stating a machine as Vista-capable but the machine runs slower than $h!t".

But that has serious merit as it damages the experience of all users.

Believe me, I want a quality display too. And now that I know this information, I wouldn't buy the 20". But then again, I don't edit high quality photos, and it probably wouldn't affect me anyway.

And there are tons of people like me.
post #60 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbansprawl View Post

No, if you want a good example you say, "Stating a machine as Vista-capable but the machine runs slower than $h!t".

But that has serious merit as it damages the experience of all users.

Believe me, I want a quality display too. And now that I know this information, I wouldn't buy the 20". But then again, I don't edit high quality photos, and it probably wouldn't affect me anyway.

And there are tons of people like me.

funny. not related at all but, i had an image of literally tonnes of people (measured literally by weight) lifted or transplanted in transports being shifted somewhere. probably how are viewed by these large companies. like some of the comments i see on mac forums here and other places: the customer will swallow that for instance. we are being fattened up to purchase even bigger and more expensive products.

but this does not supplant loyalty to a great product.
TouchMyApps - All things iPhone for those who like to touch
Reply
TouchMyApps - All things iPhone for those who like to touch
Reply
post #61 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by trrll View Post

Class actions suits over consumer products are typically a scam run by lawyers, taking advantage of companies and gullible consumers. The members of the class get a pittance, generally a gift certificate or something similar, which is typically barely worth the time it takes to fill out the paperwork. The lawyers get a percentage of all of those awards, and take home a big payday. Apple understands this--the lawyers don't want to go to court, because that could potentially end up costing them money. Apple doesn't want the bad publicity. So Apple pays the extortion, which isn't that high, because the lawyers are only interested in their own cut, not actually getting anything of substance for the class members. The lawyers go away happy, and the poor suckers who signed on to the suit go "You mean this is all I get?"

Hey Perry Mason, thanks for explaining!

You're conveniently forgetting to mention that most members of a CAS understand what they'll receive, and that the true value of a CAS is punitive. If the offending company is penalized enough, it's that less likely that they'll repeat their illegal behavior.
post #62 of 134
Just my perspective on the issue (and if you don't like it...I don't really care so save your breath replying)

I own two of the 20" iMacs in question. When I made the purchases I had read all of the specs detailing the differences in the displays. The 24" display is different on virtually all specs from the 20" display - viewing angle, brightness and contrast. I don't think Apple made any effort to hide the fact that these are different quality displays. I went to my local Apple store and compared the displays side by side to make my decision. In the end, for my purposes, the lower cost was more important than what I perceived as a real but not earth shattering difference in the display quality (and size). I am typing this on one of the iMacs now and I remain happy with my decision.

That being said...I did not know there was a difference in the color depth of the liquid crystals as no mention is made of this on the spec sheet....

Looking at the spec sheet the statement is

Display: "Millions of colors at all resolutions".

I suppose referring to the display as a whole gives them the out that dithering and other such techniques to allow the display to generate more colors than the underlying LCD unit make the claim defensible. For me the issue are

1) If color reproduction is critical to your buying decision - go look at the display yourself - regardless of any manufacturer claims.

2) Don't buy a consumer grade machine and expect professional quality.

3) If color is really important don't look at an LCD at all.

4) Consumers should be entitled to full and accurate technical specifications of products

I think any consumer who was "harmed" by Apple's less than complete disclosure carries at least an equal share of fault as Apple. Apple should be reprimanded and fined, but the $ amount should be small.

I will not apply for my share as I knew full well what I was buying.
post #63 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by filburt View Post

Regarding "16,777,216 colours - 262,144 colours", since 6-bit TN panels can display only 262,144 colors, what do you mean the number is still in the millions? How is 262,144 in the millions?

I think it's just a misunderstanding. I initially took it that it displayed 16.5 million colors instead of 16.7, as the person you're referring to did.

Obviously 260K instead of 16.7 million is a bigger difference.

I'm not sure how I feel about this lawsuit. I guess it might seem merited, what with that big color number difference and all. But at the same time, claiming Apple is deceiving us because our "stunning displays" are made of the "cheapest components" is a little silly. If it works, so be it!
post #64 of 134
I personally think they should get sued for this, but leaving aside that issue entirely, I CAN'T BELIEVE Apple is using TN panels on ANY of their desktop models. That's INSANE considering the prices people are paying for iMacs, and that many use them for photo and design work. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not suggesting that Apple should be putting professional A-TW-IPS hooded panels in their consumer computers, but my god they should at least be using S-IPS/H-IPS panels in all their desktop screens. TN panels are a complete joke.
This really pisses me off! Apple keeps making more and more money with their sales at astronomical levels, and yet they continue to get GREEDIER! Why can't they actually IMPROVE the quality of their products while getting more popular??
post #65 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoboomafoo View Post

I think it's just a misunderstanding. I initially took it that it displayed 16.5 million colors instead of 16.7, as the person you're referring to did.

Obviously 260K instead of 16.7 million is a bigger difference.

I'm not sure how I feel about this lawsuit. I guess it might seem merited, what with that big color number difference and all. But at the same time, claiming Apple is deceiving us because our "stunning displays" are made of the "cheapest components" is a little silly. If it works, so be it!

Except with dithering the color is typically listed as 16M or 16.2M depending on the technology used (except with the noted Hi-FRC above). So it's not really 260K unless folks really think they couldn't instantly notice that difference.
post #66 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

So let me get this straight: You thought you could get Pre-press color quality Displays in an All-In-One system versus having to suck it up and invest in Mac Pros and separate S-IPS displays; and that if you had not been deceived you would have ponied up the original bones instead of saving a bunch getting the cheaper systems?

You knew what you were buying. If Apple was able to sell Cinema display panels in their iMacs they would be cannibalizing their high end sales. Every company for that matter would as well.

Please, by all means come in and create a user account as some disgruntled business manager/owner looking for sympathy.

You won't find any in an area where people pride themselves with actually knowing the technology and it's inherent limitations.

Oh Thank YOU for writing that reply and saving ME the time to do it myself!!!
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #67 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by winterspan View Post

But my god they should at least be using S-IPS/H-IPS panels in all their desktop screens. TN panels are a complete joke.

Or PVA. On the other hand, the 20" is now the bottom end and for general consumer users and not pro's or prosumers really. The additional screen real-estate is worth the $300 bump from the top end 20" and the low end 24".

To me the 2.4Ghz 20" is the lowest value among the iMac line and not quite wroth the $300 bump from the bottom end.

Quote:
This really pisses me off! Apple keeps making more and more money with their sales at astronomical levels, and yet they continue to get GREEDIER! Why can't they actually IMPROVE the quality of their products while getting more popular??

Well, if we skip the G5 to Intel jump the 2006 iMac 17" was $1299 in comparison to the $1199 20" iMac today. It went from 1.83Ghz Core 2 to 2.0Ghz Core 2 Duo, from 802.11G to 802.11N, 160GB HD to 250GB and 512MB to 1GB memory.

Should the middle 20" have a better panel? Possibly. But going from TN to PVA/IPS one is typically a $150 bump on 20" monitors. That would put the 20" 2.4Ghz pretty darn close to the 24" price. For an AIO with a built in monitor, not doing $150-$200 for the larger real-estate is kinda pennywise pound foolish.

Going from a 17" IPS to a 20" TN is kinda a wash price wise so the bottom end iMac represents either the same or better value than the 2006 17" given it IS $100 cheaper.
post #68 of 134
This one lawsuit I absolutely agree with, and if it goes class action, I'm going to look into joining it.

I am absolutely appalled by the poor quality monitor on my 20" Aluminum iMac. The old 20" iMac has great screens, so I had no reason to question if this one would. Even the low-end 22" LG LCD I have hooked up as a second monitor absolutely blows this iMac screen out of the water. It's by far the worst quality monitor I've ever had, and I never would have bought it if I had any idea.
post #69 of 134
Damn this is disappointing and sad, it sounds like what Microsoft is doing. And Apple must not be Microsoft!!!!
Apple is a hardware company, dont believe me? Read this Article!. For those who understand my message, help me spread this info to those who dont get it.
Reply
Apple is a hardware company, dont believe me? Read this Article!. For those who understand my message, help me spread this info to those who dont get it.
Reply
post #70 of 134
By far the best scenario on the thread(concerning the newspaper guy). I didn't buy my imac to do safari and ilife. I'm a pro tools user who needs to trust specs to facilitate my job/passion. Fortunately I have the 1st gen 20". If apple was to claim a spec concerning my imac's ability to resolve audio at x or y resolution and it ultimately could not, I would try to sue them as well. It doesn't matter what you use you computer for. This newspaper guy has to live with a decision he made based on specs that are still posted on the imac website. He (or any one really, not even my grandmother) should not have to research the dark back alleys of cupertino to see if the manufacturer's claim "actually" pans out before purchase as some have suggested. What if the aluminum in the keyboard wasn't really aluminum. It's just cosmetic right? No one really uses it for its metallurgical properties right? I guess we shouldn't complain about that either.

BTW the issue about the eye not resolving millions of color is BS. That's not the point. Technically we're not suppose to hear anything beyond 20KHZ either but that region of audio has long beet touted for its psychoacoustic effects. You won't find a decent studio in the land that doesn't run Macs or can't process audio beyond 20KHZ.
post #71 of 134
Hold on a minute!

Since when did the 24" iMacs have 8-bit screens?

If that's a proper 8-bit screen then we're all screwed!
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
post #72 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoboomafoo View Post

I think it's just a misunderstanding. I initially took it that it displayed 16.5 million colors instead of 16.7, as the person you're referring to did.

Obviously 260K instead of 16.7 million is a bigger difference.

I'm not sure how I feel about this lawsuit. I guess it might seem merited, what with that big color number difference and all. But at the same time, claiming Apple is deceiving us because our "stunning displays" are made of the "cheapest components" is a little silly. If it works, so be it!

The temporal/FRC dithering fools the eye into seeing 16.2 million colours. The number of colours isn't the problem with the TN display in the 20" iMac, many TN displays can look perfectly good, albeit with the viewing angle limitations that TN displays have. The fast response makes them good for games though.

Clearly the issue is that besides being a TN display, it is a poor TN display. It might mean that it isn't even using temporal/FRC dithering. It could have a poor colour gamut and/or use a poor backlight.

Fact remains that it is the low-end iMac, and you can try before you buy. I do think that Apple could give the panel type in the detailed specifications. It's still arguably good enough for most users, and professionals shouldn't be buying all-in-one low-end computers to do graphics on anyway.
post #73 of 134
is this on both the 20" 2.0 ghz and the 20" 2.4 ? ... i am about to purchase the 2.4, but know i am unsure. i need to watch movies, ad edit photos. is this really a big deal ?
post #74 of 134
I think the one of the reason apple uses TN display for the iMac because some home users uses it for games (Windows convert) whereas they dont really expect professional photo editor to use iMac, I guess they thought professional photographers will be using MacPro instead of iMac which is aimed for consumers.

You wont have problem it watching movies or edit photos unless your work is really for professional use. Normal people usually wont notice the colour difference.
Apple is a hardware company, dont believe me? Read this Article!. For those who understand my message, help me spread this info to those who dont get it.
Reply
Apple is a hardware company, dont believe me? Read this Article!. For those who understand my message, help me spread this info to those who dont get it.
Reply
post #75 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by wheelhot View Post

they dont really expect professional photo editor to use iMac

Perhaps they should stop showing Aperture running on an iMac then...
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
post #76 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cartman356 View Post

is this on both the 20" 2.0 ghz and the 20" 2.4 ? ... i am about to purchase the 2.4, but know i am unsure. i need to watch movies, ad edit photos. is this really a big deal ?

I have the 2.4. It's particularly bad for those purposes, because you often get an odd posterized effect in the shadows and heavily saturated areas. like I said in my previous post, my quick and dirty solution was to add a second monitor that had better image quality. Working with dual monitors is pretty nice anyway, so it's not all negative.
post #77 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

I think I will abstain from this "millions of colors" thread. I am still annoyed from last time.

I will say this though: When it comes to using technology indetectable by humans - be it microscopic engraving, super-fast framrates w/ temporal dithering, or what-have-you - we are at the mercy of manufactures to tell us the truth about what we're getting. If they tell us we're getting the best when in reality we're getting the worst, only a handful may notice... but we are being lied to regardless.

-Clive

Apply that same thinking to the drug companies and it takes on whole new level of importance!
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
post #78 of 134
I think we need to clear up some of the technical issues as there's a bit of mis-information and confusion here.

First up: 8 bits per sub-pixel doesn't mean those sub-pixels have only eight colour levels. 8 bits have 2^8 = 256 different combinations.

Second up: people are talking about spatial and temporal dithering but some may not understand what this means.

Most people are familiar with the traditional "spatial" dithering, in that each pixel on a screen actually exists as three seperate sub-pixels - pure red, pure green and pure blue. As the sub-pixels are so closely spaced together, at normal viewing distances the human eye cannot discern the individual colours and the pixel appears as a single entity that can display 256*256*256 = 16,777,216 different colours, the red, green and blue primary channels mixing together. If the sub-pixels are 6 bits rather than 8, each one can display 2^6 = 64 different levels, leading to 64*64*64 = 262,144 different colours per pixel.

Again, this is "spatial" dithering, relying on the eye's limited "spacial acuity", or "resolution" if you like, to mix the three primary-channel colours of the sub-pixels together into a single colour.

Another dithering method is "temporal" dithering, which relies on the eye's limited "response time" to mix colours together. Imagine a 6-bit red sub-pixel than can display 64 different levels of red. If that red sub-pixel is rapidly changed from level 50 to level 51, it will appear to the human eye to deliver level "50.5", if it's at level 50 for 50% of the time, and level 51 for the other 50%. "temporal" dithering is used in conjunction with "spatial" dithering in 6-bit TN displays to deliver millions of colours, so they're relying on both the eye's lack of acuity and limited response time to deliver that level of colour.

The problem here isn't that Apple have used a TN panel in the 20" iMac, it's that they have quite blatantly implied that both the 20" and 24" iMac have the same "quality" display, when they do not. The 20" uses a TN panel and the 24" an IPS panel. By all accounts, IPS typically delivers better colour accuracy and slower response time compared to a TN panel. Some people, especially gamers, prefer the TN technology as it can handle motion better.

I find that Apple's marketing in this respect is deceptive and they deserve to lose this suit. It would be much better if they just clearly state that the 20" uses a TN panel and the 24" uses an IPS panel and leave out the traditional (for Apple) arrogant marketing hyperbole.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #79 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by filburt View Post

If you go back and read the original article, you will see that previous 20" iMac had higher quality 8-bit (per channel) LCD.

It seems that you fail to realise that the 20" iMac is now the bottom of the line and is also cheaper than the old 20".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

The problem here isn't that Apple have used a TN panel in the 20" iMac, it's that they have quite blatantly implied that both the 20" and 24" iMac have the same "quality" display, when they do not. The 20" uses a TN panel and the 24" an IPS panel. By all accounts, IPS typically delivers better colour accuracy and slower response time compared to a TN panel. Some people, especially gamers, prefer the TN technology as it can handle motion better.

Sorry but that is not true. If you read the specs for both displays at the Apple website you will see how they are completely different so if you assume that both screens are the same quality it is your mistake.
post #80 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Londor View Post

Sorry but that is not true. If you read the specs for both displays at the Apple website you will see how they are completely different so if you assume that both screens are the same quality it is your mistake.

I'm not talking about the specs. page (where the only clue that the 20" is a TN-panel is that it has a lower viewing-angle than the 24"), I'm talking about the information provided here.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple hit with another "millions of colors" lawsuit