or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple releases new 15" MacBook Pro
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple releases new 15" MacBook Pro - Page 9

post #321 of 384
...as someone mentioned above, MacBooks are for consumers; MacBook Pro's are for professionals. It has been stated that the MBP 17" will have an option for matte. It's just too bad that the 15" MBP doesn't offer this, since for a lot of us, 17" is over-kill considering we have a pro display when working in the studio.

The 15" with matte would have fit my mobile needs perfectly this time around. I have a 3 year old 17" MBP already, and it looks like it was a good decision not to offer it to a colleague at a great price just yet.

I think Apple just might make matte available at the next update in Jan. when they introduce the new 17" MBP. Just too many pros out there complaining regarding the lack of an option.

I'm thinking positive today
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 #322 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogue68 View Post

Someone's set up a petition on the gloss issue:-

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/m...pro/index.html

Can't hurt to lobby for the option a lot of us need - whether the fanboys think we need it or not.


oh yeah?

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/whining/
:-D * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Reply
:-D * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Reply
post #323 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzyalex View Post

Well, your comment is a great explanation why Apple made this glossy choice - because they want to please consumers, save cash and don't care anymore about pros

Please do not compare Samsung and Viewsonic (though there is a good LED Viewsonic model now) to new iMac screens. It's a comparison between a very bad and a suitable for home models.

Your understanding of glossy vs. matter advantage is ... not correct, say it softly.
Glossy screen deliver oversaturated, unrealistic colors which may look great to you, and it is a disaster when you intend to produce an image, which will look good on the paper and other computers.

Previous iMac and Apple Cinema monitors were used by thousands (millions?) of photo and design pros and sem-pros. Color accuracy on old Cinema was not the best in the world, yet very good. Now it's over.

I disagree with you. And Samsung makes a couple of the best RGB LED backlit color critical monitors around.

The iMac monitor is actually pretty good.

And you've never heard of turning the saturation down?
post #324 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by luke... View Post

put it over a photo and you can see thru a bit, now raise that paper above the photo about 1/8 inch or so and you will find that the clarity becomes even worse. this is why those anti-glare films are not a solution, besides being just another expense on top of an already expensive machine]

The same thing it true for the matte surface.

Quote:
So like I said, sure the matte screen may be a bit less contrasty, or not as dark or rich, but it is alot closer to what will be printed on almost every paper [except the really high end. hard to find glossy stuff]

Again, not true.

If you are one of the people here who doesn't understand what must be done to do proper color work, and soft proofing, and are relying on a matte surface from an uncorrected monitor, and knows nothing about PS's corrections for this purpose for the monitor, then I guess I am begining to understand the comments preferring matte.

Other than the fact that laptop monitors aren't near being good enough for real color work yet, doing color work under random lighting conditions will never allow you to produce high quality output.
post #325 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

From what I remember they used parallel 2 and SCSI ports.

The last Apple machine that used parallel was the pre Mac "E".

All Macs have had serial and SCSI, until Apple eliminated SCSI.
post #326 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Sure, Apple could have included itfor another $99.

What do you think, it should be free just because you don't want to pay for it?

I don't expect them to throw in things for free, but I find $99 for an adapter seems beyond ridiculous. I can buy 50ft of shielded HDMI 1.3 cable that is gold plated with ferrite cores for about the same price. Are you going to tell me it costs as much money to produce a mini-displayport to Dual link DVI cable with about a foot or two of cable as it does to make a 50ft HDMI cable? Furthermore, why does it cost $99 for the miniDP to dual-link, but only $29 for the miniDP to single link cable? Given the picture shows slightly more cable on the dual version of the cable, but beyond adding a few additional pins the production costs are virtually identical. Apple is really making an absolute killing profit wise for the adapter.
post #327 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post

So that's why at Photokina here in Germany last month (the largest convention devoted to pro photogs), the entire software and hardware areas were outfitted with either Barco's with anti-glare and blinds, or Eizo's, also ALL matte. A few sprinklings of ACDs were also seen. Hardly any other display maker (certainly NOT Acer, Dell, or even ViewSonic!).

Positive note for APPL was that it was about 95% Macs everywhere...including HP's huge stand showing off there printers. Also, in most instances where iMacs or MBP's were seen, they were invariably also attached to a Second display of the makes I mentioned above.

False SATURATION and blacks is the problem with glossy screens for pro and print work. Period. Great though for watching movies and consumers, considering that almost all printers out of the box over-saturate the prints, which subjectively will match the screen for those users. However in a pro-calibrated workflow, you will definately have problems fine tuning the BW and Sat.

Yes, glossy screens went when the high end BARCO CRT models faded from the scene.

But there is no such thing as false saturation.

It's either saturated, or not.
post #328 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandau View Post

oh yeah?

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/whining/

For one thing that petition has currently zero signatures, and for another, what's your point? That close to 200 people from fanboy forums alone are all wrong about their professional or physical requirement for a matte screen?

Y'know, some of us don't sit and jack-off over our Macs, we actually use them for business.

Shiny wipe-down surfaces alone won't cut it.
MATTE MATTERS
Reply
MATTE MATTERS
Reply
post #329 of 384
Glossy screen defenders have been watching too much Star Trek:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVus5_aeJvE&NR=1
post #330 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

Glossy screen defenders have been watching too much Star Trek:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVus5_aeJvE&NR=1

Classic!
MATTE MATTERS
Reply
MATTE MATTERS
Reply
post #331 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Targon View Post

The mentality of people posting comments such as this are becoming unnerving.

Matte screens had no glare issues, these mirror finish displays have huge glare issues which are acknowledged by everyone, yet you and offer a work around to a problem that was introduced. You tell us the glare is no problem but you tell us in the same line that you always just move the display to avoid the glare. So which is it? Why do you bother moving if the glare is not a problem? Do you people not consider closing the blinds in a room when the TV has reflections and glare on obstructing the picture? Why do they make home theatre rooms without windows?

You people are making zero sense.

Ill have a matte display to begin with then I won't have problems with reflections and thus I wont have to reconfigure my work area to avoid them. talk about having your headz up your a$$'s

It seems you have problem reading. I didn't say glossy screens are better or worst and I didn't say that you have to reconfigure your work area. What I said is that when I have glare problems I reposition the display at 90 degrees and the problem is gone. So, Stop making sh*t up.
post #332 of 384
aesthetically, after seeing the unboxing photos, i like this new mbp even more now. it is a beautiful piece of industrial design.

i like the iMac-esque black surround for the monitor, with glass to the edge of the lid. it gives the impression that the screen extends to the edge of the lid, rather than being encased in a silver frame. the glass and glossy screen is a non-issue for me, or rather perhaps even a positive - i've had several clients comment on the "beautiful" screen of the glossy iMac that i work on.

whilst i do dabble with Color, i don't do critical colour grading and wouldn't expect a laptop screen to be able to do it. calibrate your screen as best possible and be aware of the limitations of your set-up. or buy a $20k grading monitor.

i like the black keys - both their contrast against the aluminium body and tying in to the black screen surround - even if they are a throwback of sorts to the TiBook, which i don't see as a negative. and the iMac/mba-style keyboard is much better to use than the old pro-keyboards. visually, i found the silver keyboard on the old mbp to be it's weakest point.

ports - i would prefer to have a fw400 port on there, but can adapt. either an 800-400 adapter, or i have also seen a pcmcia card with one usb2 and one fw400 port. eSATA would have been nice, though can also pcmcia it.

blue ray - not fussed at this point in time, without support in ProApps.

actually the deal-breaker on the 15" for me is the screen resolution. i would have liked it to be able to go up to 1680x1050 as at home i most likely won't be hooking up to an external monitor. i'll wait to see what the 17" is like before i purchase...
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #333 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

aesthetically, after seeing the unboxing photos, i like this new mbp even more now. it is a beautiful piece of industrial design.

i like the iMac-esque black surround for the monitor, with glass to the edge of the lid. it gives the impression that the screen extends to the edge of the lid, rather than being encased in a silver frame. the glass and glossy screen is a non-issue for me, or rather perhaps even a positive - i've had several clients comment on the "beautiful" screen of the glossy iMac that i work on.

whilst i do dabble with Color, i don't do critical colour grading and wouldn't expect a laptop screen to be able to do it. calibrate your screen as best possible and be aware of the limitations of your set-up. or buy a $20k grading monitor.

i like the black keys - both their contrast against the aluminium body and tying in to the black screen surround - even if they are a throwback of sorts to the TiBook, which i don't see as a negative. and the iMac/mba-style keyboard is much better to use than the old pro-keyboards. visually, i found the silver keyboard on the old mbp to be it's weakest point.

ports - i would prefer to have a fw400 port on there, but can adapt. either an 800-400 adapter, or i have also seen a pcmcia card with one usb2 and one fw400 port. eSATA would have been nice, though can also pcmcia it.

blue ray - not fussed at this point in time, without support in ProApps.

actually the deal-breaker on the 15" for me is the screen resolution. i would have liked it to be able to go up to 1680x1050 as at home i most likely won't be hooking up to an external monitor. i'll wait to see what the 17" is like before i purchase...

The MacBook Pro don't use PCMCIA, it use ExpressCard/34 slot but there is firewire 400 just as the oldest standard.
post #334 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Yes, glossy screens went when the high end BARCO CRT models faded from the scene.

But there is no such thing as false saturation.

It's either saturated, or not.

Yes there is false saturation... or possibly I should have said the false "vividness" of the colors. A glossy screen boosts the saturation and colors "on screen". However, the "vividness" i.e. saturation of what you see on the monitor, is NOT what your prints will look like... or should look like if using a calibrated printing/proofing system to ISO standards. Needless to say, you do NOT calibrate your proofing machine to match your display, it's the other way around.

BTW: I just got back from a client who has just updated 10 workstations too 24" iMacs. Half of the designers love 'em... half don't. The half that doesn't because they are too close to windows, lighting - both direct and indirect (coming from glassed conference rooms etc.). Even the ones that love 'em though, also have to admit that when concepting with someone else (like me today), the person outside of center is at a definite disadvantage. Blacks and contrast of images was dead wrong from about 20-35 degrees off-center... plus, the glare was definitely distracting. We went to a 23" ACD, and needless to say, no problems, even though this person's workstation is directly to the side of a bank of windows. A lot of sun here on the Rhine today

As far as I'm concerned... gloss is a no-go IF you can avoid it... since there is no need FOR it in a professional creative environment. I again will hope that APPL makes matte an option for the 15" MBP's in January, as they will with the upcoming 17".
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 #335 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post

Yes there is false saturation... or possibly I should have said the false "vividness" of the colors. A glossy screen boosts the saturation and colors "on screen".

People repeat this, but I am still skeptical. With the matte screen, what you get is incident light diffusing over the entire screen, raising black to be grayer, reducing the contrast that the user sees. The brighter the incident light, the more the contrast is washed out. I don't see how this cutting out this diffused incident light adds a false saturation, in other words, I don't see a similarly adequate explanation of how this supposed glossy false saturation works.
post #336 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post

BTW: I just got back from a client who has just updated 10 workstations too 24" iMacs. Half of the designers love 'em... half don't. The half that doesn't because they are too close to windows, lighting - both direct and indirect (coming from glassed conference rooms etc.). Even the ones that love 'em though, also have to admit that when concepting with someone else (like me today), the person outside of center is at a definite disadvantage. Blacks and contrast of images was dead wrong from about 20-35 degrees off-center... plus, the glare was definitely distracting. We went to a 23" ACD, and needless to say, no problems, even though this person's workstation is directly to the side of a bank of windows. A lot of sun here on the Rhine today

As far as I'm concerned... gloss is a no-go IF you can avoid it... since there is no need FOR it in a professional creative environment. I again will hope that APPL makes matte an option for the 15" MBP's in January, as they will with the upcoming 17".

I played around with the new MacBook Pro and the 17-inch MacBook Pro in an Apple Store and had the same experience: the glare put me off, especially when there was a lot of black on the screen, like a dark photo. And all the time I looked right into the reflection of the ceiling lights! The 17-inch matte screen looked perfect from any angle.

I went home and ordered a brand new old model 15-inch MacBook Pro. Sorry, no glossy screen for me. I'll wait what Apple has in store for me in 4 years time...
post #337 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

so you have absolutely never had issues with visibility on a matte screen? interesting.

Not really. Possibly when the sun was really bright and directly on the screen, I would tip my screen a bit but that was extremely rare. I can't even do this with glossy because on a bright day, I see everything reflected no matter where the screen points.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross

Because they require extreme accuracy in every characteristic. It's just interesting that they would also be glossy. Medical personnel aren't interested in trends, they just want the best quality image they can get.

Hospitals are normally well closed off from outside light and the interior lights are well diffused. Not the rooms with patient beds but the examination rooms where they look at all the X-Rays etc.

They also aren't looking for color accuracy generally but data read-outs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross

Editing. It's not a nightmare.

I just don't understand why a few people say this here.

It's because you might dismiss something as a screen reflection not realising it's in shot or vice versa. When you composite elements together in green screening it's hard enough looking at hair strands to check your mask is ok without a hundred semi-transparent background objects floating everywhere on top.

Diffused light does not interfere with the shapes on screen. At worst, it only affects the overall contrast/brightness which you can compensate if you really feel the need. Usually you don't ever have to do anything after the display is calibrated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross

If you can't do that, it's a lost cause anyway, because in bad lighting, your matt screen will not give you what you would get in good lighting anyway.

That's not the point, the point is that when you can't control your lighting (which with a laptop is quite often), matte is and always will be superior to glossy so Apple shouldn't have removed the option.

In controlled lighting: glossy = matte because there is no diffusion
In bad lighting: matte >>>>> glossy because matte doesn't reflect anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM

I don't see how this cutting out this diffused incident light adds a false saturation, in other words, I don't see a similarly adequate explanation of how this supposed glossy false saturation works.

It could be that LCD panels have been designed to overcome the diffusion and removing the diffusing layer leaves over-saturated images. Whatever it is, the panels are designed in a way that over-saturates images. I actually like more saturated images as it makes them more vibrant and interesting to look at. Without the reflections, I'd probably be ok with the glossy screens.
post #338 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

It could be that LCD panels have been designed to overcome the diffusion and removing the diffusing layer leaves over-saturated images. Whatever it is, the panels are designed in a way that over-saturates images. I actually like more saturated images as it makes them more vibrant and interesting to look at. Without the reflections, I'd probably be ok with the glossy screens.

Maybe, but it seems that Apple should be able to set up a different color profile that accounts for the differences in the screen.
post #339 of 384
For people considering using an overlay to diffuse light, here is an interesting video that shows one being applied to a glossy screen. You can see the improvement that diffused light has - it's much easier to ignore large fuzzy shapes than high contrast shapes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LtX1D3T1cQ

(if you don't want to sit through it all, skip to 7:30 where he peels the overlay off the screen and you can see the difference).

You can also see how ineffective the overlays are because they don't really diffuse enough. They basically reflect the same objects but make them fuzzy.

Here is a video of a matte screen with some bright lights:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJFxhSP1QOY

Having a bright direct light like that makes it difficult to use the screen no matter what screen you have, few would argue against that. But as the display is moved around, especially rotated, you can clearly see that there are no objects in the screen that would distract you while you worked with the laptop.

You cannot for example see the person moving the laptop, the camera nor the room behind them. The black colors also look very deep even though judging from the viewing angle it is likely a cheap panel.

Here's another video of the new laptop unboxing. Look when they place the MBP in front of the matte screen. Look at the blacks in the matte screen at the back vs the glossy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBOYQKKgTIo



and here's an outdoors clip of the glossy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxft68r01fA
post #340 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogue68 View Post

I'm typing this on a new 13" Macbook in an Apple store.

I was looking forward to buying an MBP but I'm not gonna bother. I'll maybe get a 12" PB off ebay and trick it out the best I can til something with a screen I can look at comes along.

The screen on this thing is TERRIBLE. As it happens I'm a TV exec who uses laptops for editing and graphics work frequently. I wouldn't even use this for sending emails. Even at max lux all the colours look dark and greyed out, and I really don't wanna have to look at people walking around behind me or my own hands typing while I work.

The gloss screen factor is a real shame because in every other way (except the new power key, which looks too small and cheap compared to the previous style) both the MBP and new MB are beautiful. The new trackpad is extremely easy to use. I love the new graphics chip. I'm just not prepared to risk migraines using this thing.

Classic shot to the foot Steve.

I would note that the 17" MacBook Pro is still available in matte. Perhaps they figure that anyone doing "serious" work needing the best possible screen is going to be buying that one, anyway. But I agree that not even having the _option_ of matte is ridiculous.

That said, I disagree that the screen is terrible. I didn't find the colors to be dark -- the brightness must have been turned down. The one I saw was very bright, just glossy which obviously is not popular (I don't like it either).

Kind of doesn't make me feel as bad about keeping my current MBP.
post #341 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post

Yes there is false saturation... or possibly I should have said the false "vividness" of the colors. A glossy screen boosts the saturation and colors "on screen". However, the "vividness" i.e. saturation of what you see on the monitor, is NOT what your prints will look like... or should look like if using a calibrated printing/proofing system to ISO standards. Needless to say, you do NOT calibrate your proofing machine to match your display, it's the other way around.

BTW: I just got back from a client who has just updated 10 workstations too 24" iMacs. Half of the designers love 'em... half don't. The half that doesn't because they are too close to windows, lighting - both direct and indirect (coming from glassed conference rooms etc.). Even the ones that love 'em though, also have to admit that when concepting with someone else (like me today), the person outside of center is at a definite disadvantage. Blacks and contrast of images was dead wrong from about 20-35 degrees off-center... plus, the glare was definitely distracting. We went to a 23" ACD, and needless to say, no problems, even though this person's workstation is directly to the side of a bank of windows. A lot of sun here on the Rhine today

As far as I'm concerned... gloss is a no-go IF you can avoid it... since there is no need FOR it in a professional creative environment. I again will hope that APPL makes matte an option for the 15" MBP's in January, as they will with the upcoming 17".

Glossy screens don't boost saturation, matte screens cut it down.

I'st the difference between looking through a clean window, and one with a fine haze over it.

Besides, as I've said, you can cut the saturation down if you need to. It's better than having to boost it up. This is what happens when you calibrate your monitor, which you do, of course.
post #342 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSA View Post

I don't expect them to throw in things for free, but I find $99 for an adapter seems beyond ridiculous. I can buy 50ft of shielded HDMI 1.3 cable that is gold plated with ferrite cores for about the same price. Are you going to tell me it costs as much money to produce a mini-displayport to Dual link DVI cable with about a foot or two of cable as it does to make a 50ft HDMI cable? Furthermore, why does it cost $99 for the miniDP to dual-link, but only $29 for the miniDP to single link cable? Given the picture shows slightly more cable on the dual version of the cable, but beyond adding a few additional pins the production costs are virtually identical. Apple is really making an absolute killing profit wise for the adapter.

Yes, they are. I mean, have you seen the stock market? They are doing what they can to keep up margins. Because frankly I think their margins went down on the actual machine based on the solid-body construction. Thus they are cutting included accessories, charging an arm and a leg for extras, and what's worse, putting a sub-standard LCD (sorry it could be better on the MBP) and no Blu Ray.

I want to see a 17" model with dual HD bays, dual NVIDIA 9800M GT discrete GPUs, and an 8-bit-per-channel matte LCD (don't care if it's LED-backlit or not, frankly), four USB 2.0 ports, Blu-Ray burner, HDMI *in* and out (so you can use the internal display as a preview monitor for your DSLR or video camera, or PS3/360, not necessarily to capture from HDMI sources, just to display them). Oh and support for 8GB of RAM and hopefully it has a quad-core CPU as well.

Lenovo has a laptop with built-in color calibration and a 8-bit display. Not to mention a Wacom tablet built-in! As a pro photographer it is VERY tempting to switch from Mac just to have that 'top. But I can't justify switching from Mac. But I feel that Apple is burning me by not addressing my needs and not coming out with something that matches what I want in a laptop.

I don't care as much about thinness or cost, or really even battery life. I think Apple needs to put something out there that says, "We have THE top-of-the-line system among any laptops out there, bar none. Yeah it's $2999 or 3999 or whatever, but who cares, IT'S FOR PROFESSIONALS." Because people like me will buy it. If it means I don't have to buy an external monitor for color proofing, then that would be phenomenal. If it could hold dual HD's that would be phenomenal. I need this.
post #343 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

People repeat this, but I am still skeptical. With the matte screen, what you get is incident light diffusing over the entire screen, raising black to be grayer, reducing the contrast that the user sees. The brighter the incident light, the more the contrast is washed out. I don't see how this cutting out this diffused incident light adds a false saturation, in other words, I don't see a similarly adequate explanation of how this supposed glossy false saturation works.

They're used to matte cutting down on the saturation, turning blacks into dark greys, and losing contrast.

Because they are used to this, it is normal for them, and therefore, it is "right".

Along come glossy screens again, and they are confused, so they think what they see is "wrong".

The difficulty is that reflections can be a problem, its true. But for most work, reflections are more important than the color contrast problem, so most people rather have matte, because it's easier to deal with.

But people want to deal with easy when they shouldn't.

It's not all their fault. Years ago, only shops prepared to deal with the problems did this kind of work. now everyone thinks they can do it. But the best work is still done under the proper conditions.

People should get to the Photo Expo here in NYC next week, they'll see all the solutions offered for color matching. They'll also speak to people who know, who will tell them that editing should be done under subdued lighting, with no light directly impinging the screen
post #344 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Hospitals are normally well closed off from outside light and the interior lights are well diffused. Not the rooms with patient beds but the examination rooms where they look at all the X-Rays etc.

They also aren't looking for color accuracy generally but data read-outs.

Editing rooms are also supposed to have subdued lighting. The fact that some don't is saying more about the low standards of the company than what should be done, and is done elsewhere.

As far as accurate color goes, that's not that tough. You buy the highest grade monitor you can get a hold of, you calibrate it with a professional calibrator. You then get a proper 5,00k light box for your prints that are being matched, and you do the work in a properly lit room.

Anyone who doesn't want to maintain standards is the one at fault.

Hospitals need to see the finest differences in shading and color possible, that's why they use glossy screens. They calibrate those monitors as well, because they need consistency between monitors, as well as consistency day to day in any individual monitor. They're not looking for data readouts, but for differences in color and contrast in images from various sources.

Quote:
It's because you might dismiss something as a screen reflection not realising it's in shot or vice versa. When you composite elements together in green screening it's hard enough looking at hair strands to check your mask is ok without a hundred semi-transparent background objects floating everywhere on top.

Anyone doing that is not very skilled at their job. You might as well say that people who mistake a washed out portion of the screen as part of the image are also not looking carefully enough.

I just can't get over the idea that people here are doing serious work in such poor conditions. In that case, matte or not, garbage in, garbage out.

Quote:
Diffused light does not interfere with the shapes on screen. At worst, it only affects the overall contrast/brightness which you can compensate if you really feel the need. Usually you don't ever have to do anything after the display is calibrated.

That's a poor excuse. Detail lost in the shadows due to diffuse reflections on the screen, and the poor blacks displayed by LCD monitors is a known, serious problem.

Quote:
That's not the point, the point is that when you can't control your lighting (which with a laptop is quite often), matte is and always will be superior to glossy so Apple shouldn't have removed the option.

I'm not arguing that you can't always control your situation. I know you can't. but, mostly, the situation isn't that bad. Companies such as Cyberguys sell "blinders" for monitors, and companies such as LaCie, ship them with their graphic monitors as a matter of course. Even with matte monitors, reflections are considered to be a very big problem.

Quote:
In controlled lighting: glossy = matte because there is no diffusion
In bad lighting: matte >>>>> glossy because matte doesn't reflect anything.

That's not true. Even in the dark, there is a difference, though not as much. The diffusion from the matter stillcuts down on saturation and blacks, though the fact that your eyes are seeing differently due to the dark room makes it appear lees than it is.

You know, sometimes even companies that offer only matte screens minimize the difference, while needing to admit there is one. Apple isn't the only one with an agenda. Ezio has one as well.

Quote:
It could be that LCD panels have been designed to overcome the diffusion and removing the diffusing layer leaves over-saturated images. Whatever it is, the panels are designed in a way that over-saturates images. I actually like more saturated images as it makes them more vibrant and interesting to look at. Without the reflections, I'd probably be ok with the glossy screens.

It would be nice if that were true, but it isn't. Even Ezio admits that glossy has more saturation, contrast, and blacks. They admit that in a way that shows they know it's better.

But as they don't want to offer glossy and matte graphics monitors, because most people today are so used to matte, they don't.

And again, we can go back to reviews of monitors. The ones with the highest ratings for IQ always have the highest qualities in those areas, as well as in sharpness, stability, evenness across the screen, widest color gamut, etc.
post #345 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

But people want to deal with easy when they shouldn't.

Kennedy:
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.
It is for these reasons that I regard the decision last year to shift our efforts in space from low to high gear as among the most important decisions that will be made during my incumbency in the office of the Presidency."

Replace moon and space with glossy, Kennedy with Jobs and Presidency with CEO.

Why may I ask shouldn't we want easy? Doing something simply because it makes life harder is utterly pointless. Every other avenue in life is designed to make life easier: transport, fast-food, communication. Some things are bad despite being easy, using matte is not one of these things.

What you seem to be suggesting is that while I'm on a train journey and the reflections are running over the display, I should be thankful that my screen is now unusable and it's extremely difficult to get any work done. Well, that's not the case. I buy a laptop to be productive on the move. Glossy is counter-productive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It's not all their fault.

It's not a fault at all. We don't like glossy and it's not something that people need to apologize for because it's not a better screen design.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

People should get to the Photo Expo here in NYC next week, they'll see all the solutions offered for color matching. They'll also speak to people who know, who will tell them that editing should be done under subdued lighting, with no light directly impinging the screen

The pro editing discussions are not the deciding factor here. The point is that it is harder to edit with glossy than matte. It's fine taking the time to setup a studio properly but this is a laptop. Making all sorts of adjustments wherever you go is work you didn't need to do with matte.

Imagine the case that you get everyone in AI round a booth with perfect lighting and a glossy is next to a matte and the glossy shows better colors, what has been proved here? That a portable glossy machine looks better in one controlled location? All you need to do is move the laptop into the cafe and glossy is worse, take it outside and it's worse. Take it anywhere except a controlled lighting area and it's worse because in all those locations you get on-screen reflections.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross

You might as well say that people who mistake a washed out portion of the screen as part of the image are also not looking carefully enough.

But this doesn't happen. Washed out pictures on one portion don't happen to real-life film so it's not an issue. The degree of washing out is exaggerated too. Matte displays simply don't wash out noticeably under a huge variety of lighting conditions. Glossy reflects in almost all but the lowest ambient light environments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross

Detail lost in the shadows due to diffuse reflections on the screen, and the poor blacks displayed by LCD monitors is a known, serious problem.

Look at the image in my last post. Which has better blacks, matte or glossy?

Reflections show up worst in blacks so you will be seeing details that shouldn't be there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross

Glossy screens don't boost saturation, matte screens cut it down.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross

It would be nice if that were true, but it isn't. Even Ezio admits that glossy has more saturation, contrast, and blacks.

Whichever it is, they show images that people don't expect. This may require a change in perception but until they sort out the reflections, people who prefer to get work done will be sticking to matte wherever they can and this perception will remain.

You'd think that physicists would have a type of glass that eliminates all reflections from a glass plate by now. For example, absorbing all light from the outside and transmitting all light from the inside.
post #346 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by arlomedia View Post

I teach private computer lessons which usually consist of a student and me sitting side by side with both our laptops on the table in front of us. My office has large windows and lots of natural light, which I enjoy very much. However, in every lesson where the student has a glossy screen PC laptop, I find myself constantly squirming and shifting in my seat, craning my neck trying to read the student's screen. The students often complain about not being able to read their own screens, too. The problem is even more dramatic when I glance over at my matte-screen MacBook Pro and can read everything with no difficulty.

Maybe Apple can do this better, but personally I'm glad I bought a new machine earlier this year and don't need to buy one of these glass things.

By the way, I also own a white MacBook with the new style keyboard and I prefer the old style keyboard on my MBP. I can't get used to those squared-off keys on the MB.

I have seen the new MacBook Pro 15" and had very eagerly waiting for their (delayed) appearance in Apple stores. Surprisingly not one of the 4 "valley" stores in AZ had them on the day Steve said they would be there. Anyway, I went to 2 stores figuring what I saw had to be a defect. From only a slight angle there is a color shift. Similiar to iMac 20" but more severe and at less of an angle. The silver / gray of iTunes becomes an ugly yellowish color. Same problem in 2 Apple stores, appears not to occur on MacBook 13" and confirmed by Apple store employees who themselves were shocked by this problem. How could Steve Jobs crew build such an amazing machine with such a cheap screen. (It was my understanding that this problem is an result of a cheaper way to manufacture LCD screens). The color shift is so bad that even my wife says NO. She said what were they thinking? My daughter shows her pictures all the time on her laptop and they both cannot looking at it straight on at the same time. It is a deal killer and I cannot understand why it is not a bigger issue. Am I missing something here? Comments please.
post #347 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Kennedy:
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.
It is for these reasons that I regard the decision last year to shift our efforts in space from low to high gear as among the most important decisions that will be made during my incumbency in the office of the Presidency."

Replace moon and space with glossy, Kennedy with Jobs and Presidency with CEO.

You're kidding, right?

You're going to take a statement made in the heat of the Cold War with the USSR, when the space race was, even though we didn't officially put it into that context, a technological, economic, and millitary challange that the USA had to rise to in the face of the USSR moving into space first, and compare it to people and companies today trying to do things on the cheap and easy?

That really must be a joke!

I suppose you think this is a major national challenge, and that the government must pour billions of dollars into convincing Ad shops to do things the right way, or else our national standing will be seriously damaged, and we will lose the "Color Correction Race".

Quote:
Why may I ask shouldn't we want easy? Doing something simply because it makes life harder is utterly pointless. Every other avenue in life is designed to make life easier: transport, fast-food, communication. Some things are bad despite being easy, using matte is not one of these things.

You seen to be getting it backwards.

Quote:
What you seem to be suggesting is that while I'm on a train journey and the reflections are running over the display, I should be thankful that my screen is now unusable and it's extremely difficult to get any work done. Well, that's not the case. I buy a laptop to be productive on the move. Glossy is counter-productive.

I'm not against matte screens. I never was. But, if you're trying to do critical color work while on the train, using a laptop monitor as your standard, then your standards are low to begin with.

If that's good enough for the people you work for, you're lucky.

Quote:
It's not a fault at all. We don't like glossy and it's not something that people need to apologize for because it's not a better screen design.

That's just fine. For most regular things, I prefer matte as well. But I recognize that for certain things, glossy is better.

Quote:
The pro editing discussions are not the deciding factor here. The point is that it is harder to edit with glossy than matte. It's fine taking the time to setup a studio properly but this is a laptop. Making all sorts of adjustments wherever you go is work you didn't need to do with matte.

The problem here is that some of us ARE talking about high end color work, which IS very critical. High end work is still done by those who specialize in it, and have no problem adhering to tight standards, and also have no problems in buying the best systems available, and design their work areas to match.

If you don't need high standards, or work to Pantone specs, where you can just spec a spot color, then it isn't as important.

Hell, I can correct some color work in B/W, as every good professional doing this work can, because we know the numbers.

Quote:
Imagine the case that you get everyone in AI round a booth with perfect lighting and a glossy is next to a matte and the glossy shows better colors, what has been proved here? That a portable glossy machine looks better in one controlled location? All you need to do is move the laptop into the cafe and glossy is worse, take it outside and it's worse. Take it anywhere except a controlled lighting area and it's worse because in all those locations you get on-screen reflections.

You are missing the point, while allowing that I may be right.

There will always be those who have little need for high quality. Anything is good for them, even laptop screens, under poor lighting conditions.

Look, I'm not saying that Apple should have discontinued matte on their pro line. In fact, I think they shouldn't have, because not all pros do color work. most likely don't.

I'm just giving reasons why it's likely Apple did, and why, under most conditions, it doesn't matter, and why glossy is better than matte under other conditions.

Also, there are cheap methods to keep this stray light from hitting the screen. Even, as I pointed out, pro monitors that are matte, often come with them, or are offered as an option. There is that understanding, that for high quality work, reflections from matte screens is BAD. It's insidious, because many reflections from matte screens are more difficult to separate out from the image, than those from glossy screens, despite someone here saying otherwise.

Quote:
But this doesn't happen. Washed out pictures on one portion don't happen to real-life film so it's not an issue. The degree of washing out is exaggerated too. Matte displays simply don't wash out noticeably under a huge variety of lighting conditions. Glossy reflects in almost all but the lowest ambient light environments.

I disagree here as well. Cameras often have images that are somewhat washed out over a portion of the image from the lighting. This is sometimes missed, even in the studio with digital. Sometimes that image is the best image, despite the problems, and it's our job to fix it. I've had to do that numerous times.

Matte screens wash out almost all the time, constantly. That's why, as I pointed out above, as I have before, that "blinders" are sold with, or are an option for, almost every single graphics display sold. And for those that don't offer it, third parties do.

The cost is from $20 to $40 depending on the size, and from whom you buy them. A cheap enough solution, if you care about your work.

Quote:
Look at the image in my last post. Which has better blacks, matte or glossy?

Reflections show up worst in blacks so you will be seeing details that shouldn't be there.

As I, and a few others have pointed out already, these photos posted serve no purpose. We don't use equipment the way they look in these photos, and you need to sit down in front, and move things around a bit.

If light is still a problem, fellow professional, open your wallet and spend those big bucks I showed you above, and get blinders for your computer.

Quote:
Whichever it is, they show images that people don't expect. This may require a change in perception but until they sort out the reflections, people who prefer to get work done will be sticking to matte wherever they can and this perception will remain.

When a monitor is properly set up, then the differences will be less. But, the blacks will still be better, and detail in darker areas will still show up better.

You can then use PS's color control to lower monitor saturation (if still needed for CMYK) to lower the screen saturation to match your output, which you have to do anyway with a matte monitor.

Quote:
You'd think that physicists would have a type of glass that eliminates all reflections from a glass plate by now. For example, absorbing all light from the outside and transmitting all light from the inside.

Canon has come up with a new antireflection coating for its lenses that is much better than anything else around.

It's expensive, so I'm not sure if it could be used for a glass monitor, though, maybe someday.

It doesn't use the standard flat coatings that are used now, in multiple layers. The coating actually has sharp cone-like bumps standing out from the surface, which bends the light gradually, depending on the wavelength. This is far better than any other coating.

Canon is using it on two new lenses, and internal optical parts, and is expected to use it on more, as they rework them over time.

Who knows what we'll see in the future?

We're not as far apart on this as you may think.
post #348 of 384
… owmygod, this was well worth the wait! It has made my week. I'd like to be grateful to Jony & his team to make the world dream again. This design truly is otherworldly! It is very exceptional that designers go the extra mile. Thank you

I am only puzzled by the use of the flickering battery status lights Isn't that going to be annoying after a while? They created eight tiny lights, each representing 30 minutes of power?
post #349 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

You're kidding, right?

Yep but I do see it as a big marketing push and I don't like it. Glossy displays are taking over shop fronts across the country.

It's simply pandering to the 'ooooh look it's shiny' consumer viewpoint.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

if you're trying to do critical color work while on the train, using a laptop monitor as your standard, then your standards are low to begin with.

I can't do any work under those conditions. I can't see anything on the screen. If I was epileptic I'd be in serious trouble.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The problem here is that some of us ARE talking about high end color work, which IS very critical.

But what I'm saying is that the discussions about pro color work generally are made to highlight that if pros prefer matte (which is evident from the majority of pro display types) then there is a reason for this and it affects consumers who want to use lower end hardware for the same job.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

We don't use equipment the way they look in these photos, and you need to sit down in front, and move things around a bit.

If light is still a problem, fellow professional, open your wallet and spend those big bucks I showed you above, and get blinders for your computer.

But I use matte screens now and I have no problems. My issue is that buying glossy means I have to do all this extra stuff. I'd be paying to get rid of problems I don't need and don't have now for minor advantages. Again we're talking about portable machines. People simply don't carry blinders around with them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

We're not as far apart on this as you may think.

You're right, I really just want to see better display quality overall too.

I actually currently use a mix of CRT and matte LCD.

The first time I saw a glossy display in store, I was amazed by it. It was a Sony X-black glossy display and the machine stood out head and shoulders above the matte displays next to it.

At that point, I wished Apple made machines with glossy and vowed I wouldn't replace my CRT with a matte LCD until they did.

Then they did and I had an opportunity to use one for a while. The colors were nice - like I say, I really like heavily saturated images. I think everyone does. But the reflections were just impossible to deal with. When I watched films with people, I could see them in the display and it's uncomfortable staring at them all the time. It's also easy to get distracted from what's on screen when something moves in the reflection.

As matte LCD technology improved, I eventually got one of those and I discovered that there were no reflections and that if the display is setup properly, you can actually get nice colors and blacks. I admit it's not as close to the CRT that glossy gets but it's close enough and is far easier to deal with lighting-wise.

So what I'm saying is that the ideal solution for a laptop is to have a matte screen so that it is usable in a wide variety of lighting conditions and simply expect people to use an external matte or glossy in a controlled lighting environment such as the new glossy Cinema display.

If they had managed to remove all reflections on the internal screen then I wouldn't have a problem with their decision here at all but they haven't. I can only hope that by people complaining about the glare, it leads someone to manufacture a coating of some sort to cut down glare significantly. This way we will get both vivid images and screens that are easy to use no matter the environment.

It may just require a new display technology to be used such as laser technology or OLED. Then they can market this as 'the same brightness as glossy without the glare' and people will buy another round of displays/computers.
post #350 of 384
Mel Gross, can you stop telling those of us who don't want to work with a glossy screen what conditions we "should" be working under?

As a pro TV exec I have to work under all kinds of conditions you obviously have no idea of: outdoors, at night, surrounded by lights, in total darkness, in transit, under moving lights, in both ideal conditions and conditions very far from ideal... So do many other tv people, filmakers, photographers, designers, SFX people and other pros who rely on their laptops as tools of industry, not playthings.

It's ridiculous to expect us to buy something that doesn't work under the conditions we need it to, and it's ridiculous to expect those of us who've been loyal to Apple for many years not to be disappointed we've been cut out of the picture.

Get a clue or get over it.
MATTE MATTERS
Reply
MATTE MATTERS
Reply
post #351 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogue68 View Post

Mel Gross, can you stop telling those of us who don't want to work with a glossy screen what conditions we "should" be working under?

As a pro TV exec I have to work under all kinds of conditions you obviously have no idea of: outdoors, at night, surrounded by lights, in total darkness, in transit, under moving lights, in both ideal conditions and conditions very far from ideal... So do many other tv people, filmakers, photographers, designers, SFX people and other pros who rely on their laptops as tools of industry, not playthings.

It's ridiculous to expect us to buy something that doesn't work under the conditions we need it to, and it's ridiculous to expect those of us who've been loyal to Apple for many years not to be disappointed we've been cut out of the picture.

Get a clue or get over it.

I'm speaking to people who want to discuss this. If you don't want to, you're not obligated to.

This is a discussion forum, as you might have noticed. We all have our views, and they are not always the same.

I've been in the industry for quite a bit of time, and know the conditions you're speaking about. But, even you may have noticed that video editing is done today in rooms that are dark. Even broadcast monitoring rooms where the producer directs from are dark.

There are good reasons for that.

I'm not telling you what to do. You do whatever you want to. I don't really care.
post #352 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I'm speaking to people who want to discuss this. If you don't want to, you're not obligated to.

This is a discussion forum, as you might have noticed. We all have our views, and they are not always the same.

I've been in the industry for quite a bit of time, and know the conditions you're speaking about. But, even you may have noticed that video editing is done today in rooms that are dark. Even broadcast monitoring rooms where the producer directs from are dark.

There are good reasons for that.

I'm not telling you what to do. You do whatever you want to. I don't really care.

You're not discussing this. You're telling people what circumstances they either should or actually do work under without knowing anything about their jobs or lifestyles.

Your knowledge of "the industry" is pitiful.

For a start, few edit suites are completely dark. Many have windows & ambient lighting at the very least. Secondly. "producers" don't "direct" from "broadcast monitoring rooms". The galleries and TX trucks producers monitor live shows on are rarely dark. They might look that way on TV shows you've seen because the walls are often carpeted or painted black, but dark or unlit? Nope.

Before you get with the "even you may have noticed", check who you're talking to and that you know what the hell you're talking about. I've been a TV producer for 14 years and an exec for ten, making everything from the world's biggest reality shows to documentaries and entertainment series.

I'm not even going to ask you to justify your misinformation. Just get off the case of people with work to do and a need for viable machines to do it on.
MATTE MATTERS
Reply
MATTE MATTERS
Reply
post #353 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The same thing it true for the matte surface.

Again, not true.

If you are one of the people here who doesn't understand what must be done to do proper color work, and soft proofing, and are relying on a matte surface from an uncorrected monitor, and knows nothing about PS's corrections for this purpose for the monitor, then I guess I am begining to understand the comments preferring matte.

Other than the fact that laptop monitors aren't near being good enough for real color work yet, doing color work under random lighting conditions will never allow you to produce high quality output.


A quote from the Mac Book Pro page at apple.com in July 2006:

>>>
Finishing coat
MacBook Pro offers an antiglare coated widescreen display thats perfect for color-minded professionals. For a more immersive viewing experience, you can configure MacBook Pro with a glossy finish. This gives everything you see a richer, more saturated feel.
>>>

"Antiglare.... perfect for color-minded professionals." Sounds like all designers, videographers and photographers to me... instead we get the "saturated feel" by default. Thanks Apple. We can always plug in one of your new screens instead, oh hang on. What have they done to that too. Yes. Turned it into a mirror. Very professional.
post #354 of 384



There's your problem that's supposed to be the same colour.

The benefits that glossy displays exhibit in lab/theoretical conditions, quickly go out the window when you place them in the real world.

How are you meant to accurately retouch an image when you have reflections like that to deal with.
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
post #355 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogue68 View Post

For a start, few edit suites are completely dark. Many have windows & ambient lighting at the very least.

This can depend on the office, but their are many editing suites with dim lighting and no windows. Bright light on the screen is a terrible color environment whether you are working with glossy or matte.

Matte screens are not anti-reflective. Matte screens don't eliminate the reflection, they work by diffusing the reflection. Which means they take a spectral highlight and spread it across a larger surface so that it blooms into a softer spot instead of a hard shiny spot.

Quote:
"producers" don't "direct" from "broadcast monitoring rooms".

They do if they are in a broadcast studio.

Quote:
The galleries and TX trucks producers monitor live shows on are rarely dark. They might look that way on TV shows you've seen because the walls are often carpeted or painted black, but dark or unlit? Nope.

This can depend on the configuration of the truck. If the monitors are well inside the truck and not near the door their rarely is direct light shining right on them.
post #356 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Messiah View Post

How are you meant to accurately retouch an image when you have reflections like that to deal with.

rofl. that's not a real image, it's 3d and PS. the reflection is for artistic effect.

i'm not saying it's not an issue for some ppl, but that's not a good example to use.
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #357 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogue68 View Post

For a start, few edit suites are completely dark.

melgross never said that they were "completely dark", just dark. our edit suites are also dark, but not completely dark.

i think the point is if ppl are so concerned about critical colour and image representation, then getting so worked up about a glossy screen on a laptop is not worth it as you are complaining about something that is an imperfect and sub-standard set-up in the first place - as is a matte laptop screen also. "out in the field", matte may suit some ppl more, but again that is an imperfect set up for critical work.
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #358 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogue68 View Post

You're not discussing this. You're telling people what circumstances they either should or actually do work under without knowing anything about their jobs or lifestyles.

I'm doing what everyone else here does. I'm expressing my viewpoint. This is what I know. Others have been stating what they know. We're not relating it as questions. We are relating it as information.

Quote:
Your knowledge of "the industry" is pitiful.

I'm glad you think so. You're not saying as much as you think you are. You haven't discussed standards one whit. Besides, most of this discussion is out of your purview, from what you're saying of yourself, as most of the discussion has been about still photos, not movies or video, though it's been mentioned briefly.

Quote:
For a start, few edit suites are completely dark. Many have windows & ambient lighting at the very least. Secondly. "producers" don't "direct" from "broadcast monitoring rooms". The galleries and TX trucks producers monitor live shows on are rarely dark. They might look that way on TV shows you've seen because the walls are often carpeted or painted black, but dark or unlit? Nope.

I think it's interesting that you say that some editing suites are completely dark, as even I didn't make that claim, though its true.

As for not broadcasting from a monitoring room, yes they do. In a studio.

What I have said, several times, is that editing suites (or rooms) are usually painted black, or dark grey. I've said that the lights are set up so that they don't impinge directly on the faces of the monitors, so that there are no reflections (as much as possible), washing out of the screens, and the best possible blacks. When I say they are dark, it's because most people who enter those rooms, if they're not from the industry, usually comment, "It's dark in here!".

I've never denied that some editing rooms are less than ideal.

I've never said anything else.

As regards to monitors, I HAVE said that we always thought that glossy faces (under the proper conditions) were better for critical color work. I still believe that, and people who have worked under those color correction conditions have come on here to agree.

And critical color work is all I've been talking about.

Quote:
Before you get with the "even you may have noticed", check who you're talking to and that you know what the hell you're talking about. I've been a TV producer for 14 years and an exec for ten, making everything from the world's biggest reality shows to documentaries and entertainment series.

I'm not even going to ask you to justify your misinformation. Just get off the case of people with work to do and a need for viable machines to do it on.

I said that to you, because you have either not read most of my posts, and so have the wrong idea of what I said, and were, well, rather obnoxious about it.

Yes, I checked your "bio" here. It says you are a Tv producer.

Are you willing to share?

I go by my real name, and I've told of my own companies many times. I'm not shy about it.

As a producer of some of the worlds biggest reality shows, you are a household name. You shouldn't be shy. I'm sure your network won't mind, after all, this an innocuous subject.

Other than this discussion, I'm sure you have interesting things to talk about.

We would be interested.
post #359 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyskiv View Post

A quote from the Mac Book Pro page at apple.com in July 2006:

>>>
Finishing coat
MacBook Pro offers an antiglare coated widescreen display thats perfect for color-minded professionals. For a more immersive viewing experience, you can configure MacBook Pro with a glossy finish. This gives everything you see a richer, more saturated feel.
>>>

"Antiglare.... perfect for color-minded professionals." Sounds like all designers, videographers and photographers to me... instead we get the "saturated feel" by default. Thanks Apple. We can always plug in one of your new screens instead, oh hang on. What have they done to that too. Yes. Turned it into a mirror. Very professional.

Yes, I know what they say, and I'm not going to bother repeating everything over again.
post #360 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Messiah View Post




There's your problem that's supposed to be the same colour.

The benefits that glossy displays exhibit in lab/theoretical conditions, quickly go out the window when you place them in the real world.

How are you meant to accurately retouch an image when you have reflections like that to deal with.

First of all, I doubt that's a "real" situation. It seems to be very CGI'd to me. If you look at Apple's icons on the computer, and particularly on the iPhone/itouch, you'll see that they love that reflected look. I seems as though that's what they've done here.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple releases new 15" MacBook Pro