Wonderful news. I've been in the market for a hardware calibrated display. Mostly because software calibration is limited by the 8 bit external signal path for reasons that are too technical to get into now. But these displays are not cheap: NEC's flagship 32" is about $3k and the Eizo 31" 4K is $6k.
10 bit signals will allow software calibration to do a much better job. Maybe good enough that I can forget the hardware calibration displays.
And generally on matte vs glossy, can we agree to disagree? I see the pros and cons of both. I use both. Get whatever works for you and get on with life.
To keep a few idiots that don't understand the technology happy, I think not. I can honestly say that buying a matte screen was one of the worst things I've done in my years of purchasing technology.
So, by your own admission, you are one of the idiots that don't understand technology and you made a bad purchase because of it.
Not only does it do last year's 5K iMac, but external monitors also get it as well. I've got a 24-inch monitor next to my iMac I purchased in February, and both show 30-bit color in System Report.
How would that be possible? We already can see every possible frequency of visible light from infrared to ultra violet.
I think he's joking.
The human eye is estimated to be only able to see 10 000 000 colours anyway. There are other reasons for going higher depth though, like alpha channels and stuff I don't understand.
Yeah. He did. And it was somewhat awkward then just as it sounds now.
But the UI at that time was pretty dang awesome for its day. Nothing was like it. And it spawned an entire era of "glossy" design over the world.
It was a fad, yes, but at least that fad allowed intuitive and discoverable GUI design to survive. Today's flat garbage fad has destroyed GUI usability and design sucks in most every case of its use.
It was a fad, yes, but at least that fad allowed intuitive and discoverable GUI design to survive. Today's flat garbage fad has destroyed GUI usability and design sucks in most every case of its use.
Yeah, the Mac really wouldn't have worked back in 1984 without all the drop-shadows and 3D effects and textures.
So again I see a lot of apple haters proclaiming that pros want matte screen, well I can tell you most pros (doing critical work) work in darkened rooms (with hoods sometimes) and so the specific reflectivity of the screen is secondary to artifacting (like luma bloom) Virtually all of the "matte" PC screens I see out there suffer terribly from gross artifacting (like luma bloom) and are unsuitable to a professional.
You do get that Apple's screens are better (more accurate) than 99% of PC screens. yes?
Before Apple started selling glossy displays, a lot of Mac users at the time were complaining about glossy displays on PC laptops.
Wonder why no matte screen option given the 4K resolution is perfectly suited for professional photographers who prefer glare free displays.
Because adding a grainy sheet of textured plastic on top of the display completely destroys the benefit of having a retina panel.
You don't spend massive cash on building a display with pixels smaller than the eye can discern, only to then add a layer to it that diffuses the light from those pixels at a much lower resolution. It made some sense with sub-100-dpi displays, but not on these.
Before Apple started selling glossy displays, a lot of Mac users at the time were complaining about glossy displays on PC laptops.
And yet, all serious color-proofing was done on glossy CRTs such as the LaCie Electron Blue series, or the high-end Eizos - with controlled lighting and huge hoods over the displays.
When Apple switched to all-glossy displays on the 2008 unibody MBP, they also upped the brightness by something like 80% IIRC and massively increased the contrast. The new displays were just way better than the previous ones, despite the reflections.
Before Apple started selling glossy displays, a lot of Mac users at the time were complaining about glossy displays on PC laptops.
The glossy displays on PC displays were (and are) typically untreated shiny plastic, yes that is a problem. Apple uses non mate glass (on the iMacs) but it is anti glare treated (similar to what they use on filters and lenses for cameras (and as an option on prescription glasses (both plastic and glass lenses))).)
There is a world of difference between the two even though neither is "matted"
Again... simply putting a (cheap) glossy piece of plastic in front of the display is not the answer (nor was it when certain consumer PC monitors began doing it)
I think for mobile devices you want some kind of anti-reflective coating, because people will try and use them outside in the sun. Apple in fact have increased the anti-glare properties of their mobile devices over time.
But for desktop computers that are mainly used inside, glossy is bearable. I have used glossy iMacs in the past and they were ok, though currently I have a matte display.
The key to making a glossy screen look best whether indoors or outdoors is an anti-reflective (AR) coating.
There is a difference between "anti-glare" and "anti-reflective." Anti-glare works via diffusion which is scattering of light (not as good), while anti-reflection works via phase cancellation, or "destructive interference." An AR coating actually consists of multiple layers, whose thicknesses are related to the wavelengths of light that need to be controlled. As light reflects off of the various layers, reflections come back out of phase, which cancels out the first (top layer) surface reflections.
Because a matte screen effectively remove resolution and sharpness. Why would Apple ship an incredibly high quality screen and then smear honey all over the screen? Seriously why? To keep a few idiots that don't understand the technology happy, I think not. I can honestly say that buying a matte screen was one of the worst things I've done in my years of purchasing technology. Anybody that actually thinks a matte screen is the right solution to a problem is grossly out of touch.
Exactly!
Professionals should stop being idiots and out of touch with technology - - and accept the troglodyte / cave dwelling lifestyle of zero light sources other than your display that Apple has mapped out for them.
If your not capable of being a vampire mimic / xeroderma pigmentosum shunned aphotic recluse... you should probably use inferior products like all the other surface dwellers.
Comments
10 bit signals will allow software calibration to do a much better job. Maybe good enough that I can forget the hardware calibration displays.
This age-old complaint has me wondering if this poster is a long-banned troll under a different name that just would not let it go.
I do tons of photography work. IMac screens are just fine. So fine that I just purchased the 5K model an hope to receive it next week.
To keep a few idiots that don't understand the technology happy, I think not. I can honestly say that buying a matte screen was one of the worst things I've done in my years of purchasing technology.
So, by your own admission, you are one of the idiots that don't understand technology and you made a bad purchase because of it.
-kpluck
Just in case anyone is wondering...
8-bit color: 2(8x3) = 16,777,216 unique colors
10-bit color: 2(10x3) = 1,073,741,824 unique colors. That's a 64-fold increase.
I'm hoping future spec bumps will give us more RGB colors than there are in nature.
I'm hoping future spec bumps will give us more RGB colors than there are in nature.
How would that be possible? We already can see every possible frequency of visible light from infrared to ultra violet.
How would that be possible? We already can see every possible frequency of visible light from infrared to ultra violet.
I think he's joking.
The human eye is estimated to be only able to see 10 000 000 colours anyway. There are other reasons for going higher depth though, like alpha channels and stuff I don't understand.
i think you mean glossy out of touch.
It was a fad, yes, but at least that fad allowed intuitive and discoverable GUI design to survive. Today's flat garbage fad has destroyed GUI usability and design sucks in most every case of its use.
Or at least lets us work in native ultraviolet and infrared. You know how many times I've needed that in my work with honey bees and pit vipers???
:-D
Yeah, the Mac really wouldn't have worked back in 1984 without all the drop-shadows and 3D effects and textures.
So again I see a lot of apple haters proclaiming that pros want matte screen, well I can tell you most pros (doing critical work) work in darkened rooms (with hoods sometimes) and so the specific reflectivity of the screen is secondary to artifacting (like luma bloom) Virtually all of the "matte" PC screens I see out there suffer terribly from gross artifacting (like luma bloom) and are unsuitable to a professional.
You do get that Apple's screens are better (more accurate) than 99% of PC screens. yes?
Before Apple started selling glossy displays, a lot of Mac users at the time were complaining about glossy displays on PC laptops.
Because adding a grainy sheet of textured plastic on top of the display completely destroys the benefit of having a retina panel.
You don't spend massive cash on building a display with pixels smaller than the eye can discern, only to then add a layer to it that diffuses the light from those pixels at a much lower resolution. It made some sense with sub-100-dpi displays, but not on these.
And yet, all serious color-proofing was done on glossy CRTs such as the LaCie Electron Blue series, or the high-end Eizos - with controlled lighting and huge hoods over the displays.
When Apple switched to all-glossy displays on the 2008 unibody MBP, they also upped the brightness by something like 80% IIRC and massively increased the contrast. The new displays were just way better than the previous ones, despite the reflections.
Before Apple started selling glossy displays, a lot of Mac users at the time were complaining about glossy displays on PC laptops.
The glossy displays on PC displays were (and are) typically untreated shiny plastic, yes that is a problem. Apple uses non mate glass (on the iMacs) but it is anti glare treated (similar to what they use on filters and lenses for cameras (and as an option on prescription glasses (both plastic and glass lenses))).)
There is a world of difference between the two even though neither is "matted"
Again... simply putting a (cheap) glossy piece of plastic in front of the display is not the answer (nor was it when certain consumer PC monitors began doing it)
I think for mobile devices you want some kind of anti-reflective coating, because people will try and use them outside in the sun. Apple in fact have increased the anti-glare properties of their mobile devices over time.
But for desktop computers that are mainly used inside, glossy is bearable. I have used glossy iMacs in the past and they were ok, though currently I have a matte display.
The key to making a glossy screen look best whether indoors or outdoors is an anti-reflective (AR) coating.
There is a difference between "anti-glare" and "anti-reflective." Anti-glare works via diffusion which is scattering of light (not as good), while anti-reflection works via phase cancellation, or "destructive interference." An AR coating actually consists of multiple layers, whose thicknesses are related to the wavelengths of light that need to be controlled. As light reflects off of the various layers, reflections come back out of phase, which cancels out the first (top layer) surface reflections.
Because a matte screen effectively remove resolution and sharpness. Why would Apple ship an incredibly high quality screen and then smear honey all over the screen? Seriously why? To keep a few idiots that don't understand the technology happy, I think not. I can honestly say that buying a matte screen was one of the worst things I've done in my years of purchasing technology. Anybody that actually thinks a matte screen is the right solution to a problem is grossly out of touch.
Exactly!
Professionals should stop being idiots and out of touch with technology - - and accept the troglodyte / cave dwelling lifestyle of zero light sources other than your display that Apple has mapped out for them.
If your not capable of being a vampire mimic / xeroderma pigmentosum shunned aphotic recluse... you should probably use inferior products like all the other surface dwellers.