Work at CERN or Fermi? Brookhaven? NASA? JPL? Standford? Anywhere actually DOING physics? No? Then you aren't a "physicist" but a random guy with some sort of physics degree in his past.
LOL...I saw your profile. Are you at least a post-doc somewhere? Claim grandeur when you HAVE a PhD and have a permanent research position somewhere.
No, I didn't go on to get a PhD, and no I'm not currently working in the field but those were choices I've made to follow other passions. That doesn't change that I've been trained to think scientifically.
I'm not trying to piss all over psychology either. I find a lot of it fascinating, I really do. I just think it must be distinguished that perception is an unreliable human faculty.
By the way, I was one of the first people in this thread to mention that displays only emit red green and blue photons and different intensities anyway, so I'm not really sticking up for either side here.
No, I didn't go on to get a PhD, and no I'm not currently working in the field but those were choices I've made to follow other passions. That doesn't change that I've been trained to think scientifically.
It also doesn't make you a Physicist as you are neither trained nor a practioner. I guess you were just proven wrong. I certainly am glad you live for it.
Bowser was also trained to think scientifically...AND managed to prove so by doing independent research at least once in his life (PhD thesis). In fact...that might make him...better trained to think scientifically, no?
Quote:
I'm not trying to piss all over psychology either.
And yet you did by questioning it is a science. I would say this statement is wrong.
Quote:
I find a lot of it fascinating, I really do. I just think it must be distinguished that perception is an unreliable human faculty.
And yet it isn't unreliable. The limits of human visual perception are quantifiable and repeatable. If it were NOT then all the tricks for moving pictures, color, etc would not reliably work on a day to day basis for the vast majority of the populace. When I say vast majority I mean nearly all as only a very few detect artifacting when the techniques are applied correctly. In other words: most people can go to a theater and see moving images even though they are in reality a series of static pictures replaced at a rate too fast for most humans to see.
So how is this "unreliable"? Are we wrong again?
Quote:
By the way, I was one of the first people in this thread to mention that displays only emit red green and blue photons and different intensities anyway, so I'm not really sticking up for either side here.
No, you were not. Hattig brought it up in post #34 on page 1, there were posts discussing the point and THEN you repeated it late on page 2 in post #66 . In fact that discussion was occurring in the very post BEFORE (Wiggin, post #41 ) the one you obviously read from Bowser (#42 ) and responded to. Pad your resume much? Or can you really be one of the first when you are in reality one of the last? Perhaps that's just a human perception issue or more likely...merely wrong.
Not sticking up for either side? Are you kidding? You're the guy with the monkey urine analogy.
It also doesn't make you a Physicist as you are neither trained nor a practioner. I guess you were just proven wrong. I certainly am glad you live for it.
So if you were to stop being a programmer, yet retained all the skills and knowledge of programming, you wouldn't consider yourself a programmer? That's too much of a night-and-day definition to me. "Once a marine, always a marine," as the saying goes. If you've been trained to act and think in a different way, that training sticks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Bowser was also trained to think scientifically...AND managed to prove so by doing independent research at least once in his life (PhD thesis). In fact...that might make him...better trained to think scientifically, no?
I, too, (even at the undergrad level) was required to carry out independent research on an advanced topic in Physics, where professors were forbidden from anything but mild guidance. I'm not claiming PhD status or abilities, but my degree should stand as proof that I'm capable of thinking like a scientist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
And yet you did by questioning it is a science. I would say this statement is wrong.
No, I didn't question it as a science. I noted the debate and stated an example of where perception can't be trusted. I personally did not attack the realm of psychology. I just noted places where natural science usurps it.
And I don't understand why you're so hesitant to accept my example... It clearly proves that perception can't be trusted. It doesn't have to do with color.
My statement stands: perception cannot always be trusted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
No, you were not. Hattig brought it up in post #34 on page 1, there were posts discussing the point and THEN you repeated it late on page 2 in post...
Many people stated "63 different reds, blues and greens." I made the clarification in Post #68 that actually displays only produced three single wavelengths period. One red wavelength, one green wavelength, and one blue wavelength in different intensities.
Re: my position
At first I was entirely for the plaintiffs, after reading many worthy arguments, I've reconsidered my position. I don't know exactly how Apple marketed the display at the time of sale and, quite frankly, don't even care anymore. The only point I've been trying to make in the last few posts is that though most humans may perceive a {6-bit plus...} display the same as an {8-bit native} display they are fundamentally different. Now how that would come into effect versus Apple's marketing technique in a court of law, I do not know, so I am not commenting legally on whether I think Apple is right or wrong.
Since you finally admitted there was, in fact, a difference, I am content. Yet you continue to attack me...
So if you were to stop being a programmer, yet retained all the skills and knowledge of programming, you wouldn't consider yourself a programmer? That's too much of a night-and-day definition to me. "Once a marine, always a marine," as the saying goes. If you've been trained to act and think in a different way, that training sticks.
1st the criteria for being a programmer are fairly low. To claim programmer status, at most you need a BS and at a minimum programming language skill. Not all that rigorous. This is why claiming to be a programmer is no big deal.
2nd if you haven't been programming a while you become fairly out of date rather quickly. So to a great extent, after a few years as a non-practitioner, you really aren't a coder anymore. Most folks would say "I used to be a programmer" at that point.
3rd, your claiming to be a Physicist is a like someone claiming to be a Marine that didn't finish boot camp. The minimum training required to be a practicing physicist is a PhD. Somewhat more rigorous than a mere programmer.
Take any undergrad bio courses? Care to claim "I am a Doctor, I live to save lives"?
Quote:
I, too, (even at the undergrad level) was required to carry out independent research on an advanced topic in Physics, where professors were forbidden from anything but mild guidance. I'm not claiming PhD status or abilities, but my degree should stand as proof that I'm capable of thinking like a scientist.
Yah. Right. Proof? Hardly.
Bar dropping here a bit? Now merely "thinks like a scientist"? I think like a millionaire. Doesn't make me one.
Quote:
No, I didn't question it as a science. I noted the debate and stated an example of where perception can't be trusted. I personally did not attack the realm of psychology. I just noted places where natural science usurps it.
Right. You noted it. Because it is highly relevant? Or because you were TRYING to toot your horn as a "Physicst" which is a hard science vs a PhD in Cognitive Psych? Bullshit. At least own up to what you were trying to do.
I note that some people are considered jerks. Oh wait, was that a personal attack, or simply illustration that some insults are stupidly transparent? It is the latter.
Quote:
And I don't understand why you're so hesitant to accept my example... It clearly proves that perception can't be trusted. It doesn't have to do with color.
Because unless you commonly have a large gravitational source between you and your monitor this natural phenomena is irrelevant.
My statement stands: perception cannot always be trusted.
Which has ZERO to do with human visual perception of color. Shifted wavelengths are indeed perceived as the right shifted color.
Again, you ignore that human perception of color is a quantifiable thing and depended on for reproduction of color DAILY. It CAN be trusted to behave in certain ways.
Quote:
Many people stated "63 different reds, blues and greens." I made the clarification in Post #68 that actually displays only produced three single wavelengths period. One red wavelength, one green wavelength, and one blue wavelength in different intensities.
Yes, Hattig was imprecise however the POINT remains the same. Color is still simulated through spatial color fusion in the human visual system.
A trick because the sensor in question can't resolve the RGB sources.
Quote:
Since you finally admitted there was, in fact, a difference, I am content. Yet you continue to attack me...
Because you've been making attacks on others.
And there is no "finally". There has always been an acknowledged difference between 8-bit and 6-bit displays. The POINT is that human perceive of millions of colors even with 6-bit displays.
The minimum training required to be a practicing physicist is a PhD. Somewhat more rigorous than a mere programmer.
Not true at all. My sister has a B.A. in Chemistry, works for a company in a lab where she uses her degree in the work she does every day, conducting research in scientific uncharted territory. Is she not, then, a Chemist?
I've already acknowledged that I'm not practicing phsyics at a company, in a school or with a research group, but I am working on a physics paper which is an extension of my Senior Thesis. I'm still using the phsycis I learned in this self-initiated project. Just because I'm not in a lab means I'm not a physicist?
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Take any undergrad bio courses? Care to claim "I am a Doctor, I live to save lives"?
Hyperbole much? A) I point-blank stated that I did not have a PhD. It takes more than just a bio-degree to be a Doctor who saves lives. It does not take more than a Physics degree to be considered a Physicist. In fact, I could conceive of a case where one wouldn't even need a degree to be a Physicist. A degree is just a piece of paper showing that someone noticed you knew a shit about something. You can still learn about Physics and Scientific Method without doing so at an overpriced establishment. You can still use that knowledge to research, plan, and carry out experiments that are meaningful to the Physics community. Would such a person still not be a physicist in your eyes?
The world is not as black-and-white as you wish it to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Yah. Right. Proof? Hardly.
Bar dropping here a bit? Now merely "thinks like a scientist"? I think like a millionaire. Doesn't make me one.
If you want me to agrue like you, I will. Since you like your "definitions" so much, let's look at the definition of a Scientist according to M/W:
Main Entry: sci·en·tist
Pronunciation: \\ˈsī-ən-tist\\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin scientia
Date: 1834
1: a person learned in science and especially natural science : a scientific investigator
There you have it in the black-and-white that you love to cling to so much. I am a scientist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Right. You noted it. Because it is highly relevant? Or because you were TRYING to toot your horn as a "Physicst" which is a hard science vs a PhD in Cognitive Psych? Bullshit. At least own up to what you were trying to do.
I note that some people are considered jerks. Oh wait, was that a personal attack, or simply illustration that some insults are stupidly transparent? It is the latter.
Because unless you commonly have a large gravitational source between you and your monitor this natural phenomena is irrelevant.
Oh, wait, perhaps that's your ego.
Now that is a personal attack.
You repeatedly fail to miss the point of my hypothetical situations: Perception is not accurate. I'm not saying there's a large gravitational source between an observer and his display. I'm not saying the the display is traveling at you at speeds significant enough to witness a Doppler shift. I'm saying that the techniques that make 6-bit plus displays resemble 8-bit native displays are an illusion that takes advantage of human limitations. The point is that Apple and other display manufactures need to be careful about what they advertise because there is a difference between millions of simulated colors (per pixel) and millions of colors (per pixel). If you claim you're so willing to accept this portion of my argument, then why are you trying so vigorously to put down all of my examples?
And why all of a sudden resort to shallow put-downs? I've been very careful not to personally attack or insult anyone, despite the number of names I've had the urge to call you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Because you've been making attacks on others.
Where?
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
And there is no "finally". There has always been an acknowledged difference between 8-bit and 6-bit displays. The POINT is that human perceive of millions of colors even with 6-bit displays.
I'm not disputing that either. The conflict is how Apple (and others) marketed the displays. I'm suggesting that maybe it should be marketed as "Millions of simulated colors per pixel." "Millions of colors" seems pretty ambiguous. Besides, if {6-bit plus} displays were identical to {8-bit native} displays, why would they produce the latter? There must be SOME visual difference, no?
They did research it ? Apple claimed the panels were capable of displaying millions of colours and that should be all the research that's required.
Their only mistake, as far as I can see, was trusting Apple.
You can argue about dithering etc. until you are blue in the face, but at the end of the day Apple, like any other manufacturer, has a responsibility to make accurate representations about their products.
In this case, it's obvious that Apple made a claim that simply wasn't true. Calling the two plaintiffs names and questioning their professionalism doesn't change that fact.
Apple have a long culture of making misleading or unquantifiable statements about their products - the 'server grade' hard disk in the Time Capsule is another perfect example. That's another piece of marketing jargon that implies that the Time Capsule offers increased reliability over a product that doesn't feature a server grade hard disk mechanism. If you were to take that to court you'd soon realise that 'server grade' doesn't actually mean anything at all, and if you were to strip-down a Time Capsule you would see that Apple is in fact using a run-of-the-mill hard disk drive that doesn't offer any benefits over any other hard disk drive out there.
I for one am pleased that Apple have been caught with their fingers in the honey jar this time around. I hope that Apple will come to realise that misleading their customers will only damage their brand.
I have noticed while buying 500 GIG drives recently the choice between 'Server Grade' and 'Standard' and there is a price difference. This is from companies like Western Digital and I am talking about plain internal drives here, no other parts such as power supplies etc.. So I assume they are actually manufactured to a higher tolerance and perhaps have better MTBF figures ...? Just pointing out here the hard drive example might not be correct in your comments. I have no idea not having opened one but perhaps Apple are using higher or server grade drives. If not then they are going to be called on it for sure ...
Perhaps this entire thread is getting totally out of perspective. I am sure the guys that sued where simply clever enough to see a marketing error and call a lawyer. I also doubt their work was severely damaged by using a MacBook Pro. Having said that, if MacBook Pros show 'stepping' in graduated tints I would be pretty ticked off if I had bought one for the purpose of working in color graphics. I don't know if they do or not to be honest, I would not consider doing serious computer graphics on a laptop anyway.
As I said early on in this thread, after 25 years in the color / print/ computer business I can humbly suggest that a proof is always subject to variances and unless your Mac is running profiles tied to the specific press, paper and ink you are never truly able to be accurate (and not even then at times).
I also suspect that Apple didn't mean to mislead rather they had always had those terms like 'thousands' and 'millions' in the control panels of Macs going back to the first color Macs while PCs had VGA etc. It was probably more a tradition than anything and meant low, medium and high to me at least.
Not true at all. My sister has a B.A. in Chemistry, works for a company in a lab where she uses her degree in the work she does every day, conducting research in scientific uncharted territory. Is she not, then, a Chemist?
Ah...normally, out of politeness, I would accept that fiction. However, in reality, folks with master degrees (or less) are often considered (and job categorized as) "technicians". These typically work under someone with a PhD in the relevant field.
So, not so much.
Quote:
I've already acknowledged that I'm not practicing phsyics at a company, in a school or with a research group, but I am working on a physics paper which is an extension of my Senior Thesis. I'm still using the phsycis I learned in this self-initiated project. Just because I'm not in a lab means I'm not a physicist?
Yes, you are not. You are a "student" in this specific case.
Jeez, how hard is it to understand? You claimed authoritative knowledge you do not possess and a title you are not qualified to have to try to trump someone else. Then you dis'd his profession to boot.
At least he's not a poseur.
Quote:
Hyperbole much? A) I point-blank stated that I did not have a PhD.
You point-blank stated you were a Physicist. The implications are that...you would at least qualify to be one if you were actually practicing physics.
Just having a BS in physics (if you even have that) does not qualify you to be a physicist. Try getting a job as one at NASA or CERN or wherever. The hyperbole is yours, sir.
Quote:
A degree is just a piece of paper showing that someone noticed you knew a shit about something.
Yes, in this case it would be "proof" that you at least had the minimal understanding of a field.
Otherwise we would have to ask you to cite your independent research and published papers in the field then evaluate that work. Which is rather a chore.
Quote:
You can still learn about Physics and Scientific Method without doing so at an overpriced establishment.
Any accredited university would do. I'm sure there are a couple that are not overpriced.
Quote:
You can still use that knowledge to research, plan, and carry out experiments that are meaningful to the Physics community. Would such a person still not be a physicist in your eyes?
Meaningful research is the key. The answer in this day and age is "highly unlikely a lay person could conduct meaningful Physics experiments". With the understanding that "meaningful" means advancing human knowledge somewhere along the frontier of physics.
Quote:
The world is not as black-and-white as you wish it to be.
I didn't say it was. I simply stated that to call oneself a "physicist" requires more than taking a couple courses. There is a high bar if you wish to do so in order to claim authority.
Quote:
If you want me to agrue like you, I will. Since you like your "definitions" so much, let's look at the definition of a Scientist according to M/W:
Main Entry: sci·en·tist
Pronunciation: \\ˈsī-ən-tist\\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin scientia
Date: 1834
1: a person learned in science and especially natural science : a scientific investigator
There you have it in the black-and-white that you love to cling to so much. I am a scientist.
Arguably you are not learned in science. You can follow that chain of definitions if you wish but it ends with erudition and the phrase "extensive knowledge". Can you claim extensive knowledge in science if you have not even begun to learn? As in that gaining a PhD is not the END of learning but merely the acknowledgment that you now has sufficient basis for advanced learning in a field.
Arrogant much?
Quote:
You repeatedly fail to miss the point of my hypothetical situations: Perception is not accurate.
I'm not missing your point. I'm saying it's irrelevant to the topic. That you can fool the human visual system is depended on.
Your hypotheticals are no more relevant than your monkey urine and coffee analogy.
Quote:
I'm saying that the techniques that make 6-bit plus displays resemble 8-bit native displays are an illusion that takes advantage of human limitations.
The objective of a 6-bit display is not to resemble an 8-bit display but to render an image.
Likewise an 8-bit display is designed to render an image.
How closely both of these displays accurately renders an image differs but both rely on illusion.
Quote:
The point is that Apple and other display manufactures need to be careful about what they advertise because there is a difference between millions of simulated colors (per pixel) and millions of colors (per pixel).
So you see "per pixel" anywhere? They say the display can show millions of colors. If the human visual system has sufficient acuity to see at the sub-pixel level at normal viewing distances you wouldn't see the same picture but a field of red, green and blue dots even for an 8-bit display.
Here's a little physics experiment for you Mr. Scientist. If you smear a small drop of water on your display what do you see? Red green and blue perhaps?
I am not responsible if you electrocute yourself or ruin your display.
Quote:
If you claim you're so willing to accept this portion of my argument, then why are you trying so vigorously to put down all of my examples?
Did I accept your argument? No, I did not. See there are nuances there if you read carefully. Or at all.
Quote:
And why all of a sudden resort to shallow put-downs? I've been very careful not to personally attack or insult anyone, despite the number of names I've had the urge to call you.
Where?
Please. You dis'd an entire category of science.
Quote:
I'm not disputing that either. The conflict is how Apple (and others) marketed the displays. I'm suggesting that maybe it should be marketed as "Millions of simulated colors per pixel."
What's this "per pixel" stuff? If they are (as it appears) to be using 6 + 2 spatial dithering the perceived color is not on a per pixel basis. What they say is the display is capable of millions of colors.
An 8-bit display is capable of "Millions of simulated colors per pixel" by design because the RGB components are in a sub-pixel level.
Quote:
"Millions of colors" seems pretty ambiguous. Besides, if {6-bit plus} displays were identical to {8-bit native} displays, why would they produce the latter? There must be SOME visual difference, no?
Yes there are differences. But that does not mean that a 6 bit display cannot do millions of color.
You are impossibly stubborn. Your inflexibility is unbearable. To avoid going legally insane on account of this trite bickering, I must back down. I'm not going to continue wasting my time explaining the same arguments over and over when you simply will not even consider another point of view. Before you charge me of hypocracy, remember that I was the one willing to reconsider my position on this legal case.
Adieu, and good luck in life. I sense you will need it.
You are impossibly stubborn. Your inflexibility is unbearable.
...
Adieu, and good luck in life. I sense you will need it.
-Clive
You too buddy. A simple apology regarding your psych crack would have sufficed but you can't even admit to what you were trying to do. "I was only noting..."
Amusingly, I never claim to be a real "scientist" but that's only funny if you know who I am. In any case, it doesn't serve you well to claim something you aren't.
You too buddy. A simple apology regarding your psych crack would have sufficed but you can't even admit to what you were trying to do. "I was only noting..."
IMHO, in recent years Apple has been deceiving the public in lowering their "higher standards" when comparing their products with the competition, and this doesn't apply solely to the displays which is the issue here, but I'll stay on topic!
The benefit of using more mainstream components in their computers is more affordable machines. In the case of the MacBook, well, it's an entry level laptop, what can one expect! for the pricier MacBook Pro, it's a totally different beast, one would expect to have much better components - especially the screen - then it's lower end counterpart.
I tend to compare the 6 bit color + "software enhancement" to 8 bit color as the zoom on a digital camera or the resolution of a scanner:
Digital cameras typically have an Optical Zoom of (#)X, that can be enhanced with the use of digita enhancement, or as we call it by doing interpolation. The same applies to scanners, which have a set "optical resolution" and a Maximum resolution which is achieved by software interpolation as well.
Depending on the visual acuity of the user, the artifacts, banding, or whatever you want to call it will be more or less visible and/or bothersome to the eye. NOT ALL EYES ARE CREATED EQUAL !!! Especially true for some "professionals" whose trained eyes are more sensitive to those artifacts then the general public. Claiming that boosting a displays colors via software from 262,144 to 16,777,216 while NOT BEING PERCEPTIBLE BY THE HUMAN EYE is quite a bold claim and I don't buy it for a minute. I agree it will not be visible for some, but I can plainly see the difference.
This is why manufacturers of high-end monitors come up with 10 bit and 12 bit displays. I personally find that the Apple Cinema Displays - acknowledging the fact that they are superior to most mainstream display, but then again, they are not mainstream! - with their true 8 bit color are not precise enough for professional photo editing, especially for commercial printing: As soon as any calibration is applied to the screen, the LCD no longer displays 256 shades per color channel and the actual number of colors decrease quite rapidly. Banding can be visible and bothersome for a trained eye. (See note below about No of colors).
BUT: digital cameras and scanners have both the optical zoom/res and digital zoom/res stated either on the packaging or in the documentation. This is where Apple failed with these new displays. Apple should have made a mention of this in the specs. Although if you look at specs of all recent (2004 and up, haven't checked older ones) Apple computers with built in displays, or at the specs of teh Apple Cinema Displays, there is absolutely no mention of true bit/color on any model. They state: "support for millions of colors" in every case, with no more elaboration on the subject.
Now some will say that nobody else does so why should Apple do it? My answer to that is that Apple has been separating itself from mainstream computer makers by it's innovation and higher standards of both hardware components AND honestly about it's claims (although there were some exception, I have to admit, but Apple has generally a very good track record). They "could" have been honest about their software enhancement to achieve "millions of colors".
So basically, one expects to buy a better machine when he/she buys an Apple machine.
To get back to the 2 photographers who initiated the suit:
1-a real "pro" would not expect a laptop to perform at the same level then a real pro workstation.
2-a real "pro" would have tested the laptops BEFORE buying them to make sure they would be sufficient to their needs, as they would if they purchased a new workstation.
3-The innacuracy of the display has absolutely no impact on the actual photos taken by those photographers. If they need to see "truer" colors, they simply need to view their pictures on a better calibrated workstation.
4-Apple never claimed to have true 8 bit color on those laptops.
5-The fact that they couldn't find enough people to join their claim speaks for itself: quite far-fetched...
I honestly think that they are simply opportunists who tried to capitalize on a technicality. Then again maybe they just wanted to give publicity to this issue in an attempt to make the population aware of this deception - but I doubt this very much.
What did this attempt to sue achieved?
Well the fact that we actually are debating it in this forum is proof that this IS a valid issue in the eyes of certain users.
I have been working in Pre-Press for almost 20 years, and my eye is quite picky when it comes to displays.
I personally tested both the new MacBook and MacBook Pro 15". I would not purchase a MacBook even though its specs are very decent and it performs quite well, simply because of the crappy display, even if it was just for web browsing and menial tasks. for starters, the viewing angle is horrendous, and the glare of the glossy display simply unbearable.
For the MacBook Pro, I find the display to be quite superior then the MacBook's. The fact that they are available in non-gloss is a HUGE bonus for me. The viewing angle is also far better, and color seem more accurate. I would consider buying one for myself, but I would not remotely hope to be able to use it for color correction of photos.
How to calculate actual colors in relation to bit depth per chanel - with a few examples:
The formula is:
2 (no of variable in a "bit", 0 or 1) at the power of x (x=bit per color value) take the total and bring it at the power of 3 [No of color channels in a RGB color display]
Mac Book displays
6 bit color: (2 at the power of 6) at the power of 3 = 64 (colors per channel) at the power of 3 = 262,144
Apple Cinema Display 20" ($700) 23" ($900)
8 bit color: (2 at the power of 8) at the power of 3 = 256 at the power of 3 = 16,777,216
Going Higher end:
Eizo ColorEdge CE Series and CG19 ($1,200 - $1,700 for a 19"), LaCie 324 LCD Monitor ($1460 24" including colorimeter)
10 bit color: (2 at the power of 10) at the power of 3 = 1,024 at the power of 3 = 1,073,741,824
Eizo ColorEdge CG Series ($2,000 21" - $5,700 30"), LaCie 321 LCD Monitor ($1680 21" including colorimeter)
12 bit color: (2 at the power of 12) at the power of 3 = 4,096 at the power of 3 = 68,719,476,736
16 bit per color Scanners (claimed by some manufacturers - true or interpolated?):
16 bit color: (2 at the power of 12) at the power of 3 = 65,536 at the power of 3 = 281,474,976,710,656 - whoa, no display can actually show you this !
NOTE: In the case of Eizo's CG301W ($5,700), the "mother of all screens" IMHO, and it's baby brother the CG221, the manufacturer CLEARLY STATES that the underlying technology is made up of 12 bit per channel hardware but they are using 16 bit processing (internal calculation - same principle Apple is using in the 6 bit displays) to achieve better then 12 bit native color rendering. Hence the hefty price tag...
I personally think that not only Apple but ALL screen manufacturers and comps with built in displays manufacturers SHOULD be forced to have the "true" color depth CLEARLY stated. It might not be an issue for most, but it is a deception regardless.
I agree with using maistream components or lower end technology in a specific product line-up to make it's pricing competitive, but there is no need to camouflage the specs.
Did Apple deserve a lawsuit for this? I think not, but I believe they deserved the (negative) publicity that ensued, as all other deceptive manufacturers do.
IMHO, in recent years Apple has been deceiving the public in lowering their "higher standards" when comparing their products with the competition, and this doesn't apply solely to the displays which is the issue here, but I'll stay on topic!
Did Apple deserve a lawsuit for this? I think not, but I believe they deserved the (negative) publicity that ensued, as all other deceptive manufacturers do.
I personally think that not only Apple but ALL screen manufacturers and comps with built in displays manufacturers SHOULD be forced to have the "true" color depth CLEARLY stated. It might not be an issue for most, but it is a deception regardless.
Absolutely. More to the point, surely it is not fair on these expensive brands who produce professional colour screens in competition against regular TN 6-bit screens.
So then why have all references to "MILLIONS OF COLRS" been removed from the website? Sounds like part of the "settlement" regarding precisely what you are in denial about.
Not entirely true, they do not list the reference to millions of colors on the Apple Store page, but it is still listed in the actual Product Pages and the Apple Specs Database:
I don't remember if they had previously stated in the Apple Store the actual number of colors, but if they did and corrected it, it would show that Apple decided the issue was worth a corrective action...
Claiming that boosting a displays colors via software from 262,144 to 16,777,216 while NOT BEING PERCEPTIBLE BY THE HUMAN EYE is quite a bold claim and I don't buy it for a minute.
Except that wasn't the claim was it? Just "millions of colors".
6 bit + 2x2 dithering (half-toning) or 6 bit FRC or 6 bit + Hi-FRC should all do "millions" with some artifacting.
16.2M? That's bit of a marketing statistic for FRC but with 3 tones it's (256-3)^3=16.2M.
Interestingly Hi-FRC claims 16.7M colors because of its mapping.
Quote:
I personally think that not only Apple but ALL screen manufacturers and comps with built in displays manufacturers SHOULD be forced to have the "true" color depth CLEARLY stated.
Comments
Work at CERN or Fermi? Brookhaven? NASA? JPL? Standford? Anywhere actually DOING physics? No? Then you aren't a "physicist" but a random guy with some sort of physics degree in his past.
LOL...I saw your profile. Are you at least a post-doc somewhere? Claim grandeur when you HAVE a PhD and have a permanent research position somewhere.
I'm not trying to piss all over psychology either. I find a lot of it fascinating, I really do. I just think it must be distinguished that perception is an unreliable human faculty.
By the way, I was one of the first people in this thread to mention that displays only emit red green and blue photons and different intensities anyway, so I'm not really sticking up for either side here.
No, I didn't go on to get a PhD, and no I'm not currently working in the field but those were choices I've made to follow other passions. That doesn't change that I've been trained to think scientifically.
It also doesn't make you a Physicist as you are neither trained nor a practioner. I guess you were just proven wrong. I certainly am glad you live for it.
Bowser was also trained to think scientifically...AND managed to prove so by doing independent research at least once in his life (PhD thesis). In fact...that might make him...better trained to think scientifically, no?
I'm not trying to piss all over psychology either.
And yet you did by questioning it is a science. I would say this statement is wrong.
I find a lot of it fascinating, I really do. I just think it must be distinguished that perception is an unreliable human faculty.
And yet it isn't unreliable. The limits of human visual perception are quantifiable and repeatable. If it were NOT then all the tricks for moving pictures, color, etc would not reliably work on a day to day basis for the vast majority of the populace. When I say vast majority I mean nearly all as only a very few detect artifacting when the techniques are applied correctly. In other words: most people can go to a theater and see moving images even though they are in reality a series of static pictures replaced at a rate too fast for most humans to see.
So how is this "unreliable"? Are we wrong again?
By the way, I was one of the first people in this thread to mention that displays only emit red green and blue photons and different intensities anyway, so I'm not really sticking up for either side here.
No, you were not. Hattig brought it up in post #34 on page 1, there were posts discussing the point and THEN you repeated it late on page 2 in post #66 . In fact that discussion was occurring in the very post BEFORE (Wiggin, post #41 ) the one you obviously read from Bowser (#42 ) and responded to. Pad your resume much? Or can you really be one of the first when you are in reality one of the last? Perhaps that's just a human perception issue or more likely...merely wrong.
Not sticking up for either side? Are you kidding? You're the guy with the monkey urine analogy.
So wrong again. Are we living the life yet buddy?
It also doesn't make you a Physicist as you are neither trained nor a practioner. I guess you were just proven wrong. I certainly am glad you live for it.
So if you were to stop being a programmer, yet retained all the skills and knowledge of programming, you wouldn't consider yourself a programmer? That's too much of a night-and-day definition to me. "Once a marine, always a marine," as the saying goes. If you've been trained to act and think in a different way, that training sticks.
Bowser was also trained to think scientifically...AND managed to prove so by doing independent research at least once in his life (PhD thesis). In fact...that might make him...better trained to think scientifically, no?
I, too, (even at the undergrad level) was required to carry out independent research on an advanced topic in Physics, where professors were forbidden from anything but mild guidance. I'm not claiming PhD status or abilities, but my degree should stand as proof that I'm capable of thinking like a scientist.
And yet you did by questioning it is a science. I would say this statement is wrong.
No, I didn't question it as a science. I noted the debate and stated an example of where perception can't be trusted. I personally did not attack the realm of psychology. I just noted places where natural science usurps it.
And I don't understand why you're so hesitant to accept my example... It clearly proves that perception can't be trusted. It doesn't have to do with color.
If you want one that does, take a look at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect#Astronomy to see that color is not always what it seems either.
My statement stands: perception cannot always be trusted.
No, you were not. Hattig brought it up in post #34 on page 1, there were posts discussing the point and THEN you repeated it late on page 2 in post...
Many people stated "63 different reds, blues and greens." I made the clarification in Post #68 that actually displays only produced three single wavelengths period. One red wavelength, one green wavelength, and one blue wavelength in different intensities.
Re: my position
At first I was entirely for the plaintiffs, after reading many worthy arguments, I've reconsidered my position. I don't know exactly how Apple marketed the display at the time of sale and, quite frankly, don't even care anymore. The only point I've been trying to make in the last few posts is that though most humans may perceive a {6-bit plus...} display the same as an {8-bit native} display they are fundamentally different. Now how that would come into effect versus Apple's marketing technique in a court of law, I do not know, so I am not commenting legally on whether I think Apple is right or wrong.
Since you finally admitted there was, in fact, a difference, I am content. Yet you continue to attack me...
So if you were to stop being a programmer, yet retained all the skills and knowledge of programming, you wouldn't consider yourself a programmer? That's too much of a night-and-day definition to me. "Once a marine, always a marine," as the saying goes. If you've been trained to act and think in a different way, that training sticks.
1st the criteria for being a programmer are fairly low. To claim programmer status, at most you need a BS and at a minimum programming language skill. Not all that rigorous. This is why claiming to be a programmer is no big deal.
2nd if you haven't been programming a while you become fairly out of date rather quickly. So to a great extent, after a few years as a non-practitioner, you really aren't a coder anymore. Most folks would say "I used to be a programmer" at that point.
3rd, your claiming to be a Physicist is a like someone claiming to be a Marine that didn't finish boot camp. The minimum training required to be a practicing physicist is a PhD. Somewhat more rigorous than a mere programmer.
Take any undergrad bio courses? Care to claim "I am a Doctor, I live to save lives"?
I, too, (even at the undergrad level) was required to carry out independent research on an advanced topic in Physics, where professors were forbidden from anything but mild guidance. I'm not claiming PhD status or abilities, but my degree should stand as proof that I'm capable of thinking like a scientist.
Yah. Right. Proof? Hardly.
Bar dropping here a bit? Now merely "thinks like a scientist"? I think like a millionaire. Doesn't make me one.
No, I didn't question it as a science. I noted the debate and stated an example of where perception can't be trusted. I personally did not attack the realm of psychology. I just noted places where natural science usurps it.
Right. You noted it. Because it is highly relevant? Or because you were TRYING to toot your horn as a "Physicst" which is a hard science vs a PhD in Cognitive Psych? Bullshit. At least own up to what you were trying to do.
I note that some people are considered jerks. Oh wait, was that a personal attack, or simply illustration that some insults are stupidly transparent? It is the latter.
And I don't understand why you're so hesitant to accept my example... It clearly proves that perception can't be trusted. It doesn't have to do with color.
Because unless you commonly have a large gravitational source between you and your monitor this natural phenomena is irrelevant.
Oh, wait, perhaps that's your ego.
Now that is a personal attack.
If you want one that does, take a look at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect#Astronomy to see that color is not always what it seems either.
My statement stands: perception cannot always be trusted.
Which has ZERO to do with human visual perception of color. Shifted wavelengths are indeed perceived as the right shifted color.
Again, you ignore that human perception of color is a quantifiable thing and depended on for reproduction of color DAILY. It CAN be trusted to behave in certain ways.
Many people stated "63 different reds, blues and greens." I made the clarification in Post #68 that actually displays only produced three single wavelengths period. One red wavelength, one green wavelength, and one blue wavelength in different intensities.
Yes, Hattig was imprecise however the POINT remains the same. Color is still simulated through spatial color fusion in the human visual system.
A trick because the sensor in question can't resolve the RGB sources.
Since you finally admitted there was, in fact, a difference, I am content. Yet you continue to attack me...
Because you've been making attacks on others.
And there is no "finally". There has always been an acknowledged difference between 8-bit and 6-bit displays. The POINT is that human perceive of millions of colors even with 6-bit displays.
The minimum training required to be a practicing physicist is a PhD. Somewhat more rigorous than a mere programmer.
Not true at all. My sister has a B.A. in Chemistry, works for a company in a lab where she uses her degree in the work she does every day, conducting research in scientific uncharted territory. Is she not, then, a Chemist?
I've already acknowledged that I'm not practicing phsyics at a company, in a school or with a research group, but I am working on a physics paper which is an extension of my Senior Thesis. I'm still using the phsycis I learned in this self-initiated project. Just because I'm not in a lab means I'm not a physicist?
Take any undergrad bio courses? Care to claim "I am a Doctor, I live to save lives"?
Hyperbole much? A) I point-blank stated that I did not have a PhD.
The world is not as black-and-white as you wish it to be.
Yah. Right. Proof? Hardly.
Bar dropping here a bit? Now merely "thinks like a scientist"? I think like a millionaire. Doesn't make me one.
If you want me to agrue like you, I will. Since you like your "definitions" so much, let's look at the definition of a Scientist according to M/W:
Main Entry: sci·en·tist
Pronunciation: \\ˈsī-ən-tist\\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin scientia
Date: 1834
1: a person learned in science and especially natural science : a scientific investigator
There you have it in the black-and-white that you love to cling to so much. I am a scientist.
Right. You noted it. Because it is highly relevant? Or because you were TRYING to toot your horn as a "Physicst" which is a hard science vs a PhD in Cognitive Psych? Bullshit. At least own up to what you were trying to do.
I note that some people are considered jerks. Oh wait, was that a personal attack, or simply illustration that some insults are stupidly transparent? It is the latter.
Because unless you commonly have a large gravitational source between you and your monitor this natural phenomena is irrelevant.
Oh, wait, perhaps that's your ego.
Now that is a personal attack.
You repeatedly fail to miss the point of my hypothetical situations: Perception is not accurate. I'm not saying there's a large gravitational source between an observer and his display. I'm not saying the the display is traveling at you at speeds significant enough to witness a Doppler shift. I'm saying that the techniques that make 6-bit plus displays resemble 8-bit native displays are an illusion that takes advantage of human limitations. The point is that Apple and other display manufactures need to be careful about what they advertise because there is a difference between millions of simulated colors (per pixel) and millions of colors (per pixel). If you claim you're so willing to accept this portion of my argument, then why are you trying so vigorously to put down all of my examples?
And why all of a sudden resort to shallow put-downs? I've been very careful not to personally attack or insult anyone, despite the number of names I've had the urge to call you.
Because you've been making attacks on others.
Where?
And there is no "finally". There has always been an acknowledged difference between 8-bit and 6-bit displays. The POINT is that human perceive of millions of colors even with 6-bit displays.
I'm not disputing that either. The conflict is how Apple (and others) marketed the displays. I'm suggesting that maybe it should be marketed as "Millions of simulated colors per pixel." "Millions of colors" seems pretty ambiguous. Besides, if {6-bit plus} displays were identical to {8-bit native} displays, why would they produce the latter? There must be SOME visual difference, no?
-Clive
They did research it ? Apple claimed the panels were capable of displaying millions of colours and that should be all the research that's required.
Their only mistake, as far as I can see, was trusting Apple.
You can argue about dithering etc. until you are blue in the face, but at the end of the day Apple, like any other manufacturer, has a responsibility to make accurate representations about their products.
In this case, it's obvious that Apple made a claim that simply wasn't true. Calling the two plaintiffs names and questioning their professionalism doesn't change that fact.
Apple have a long culture of making misleading or unquantifiable statements about their products - the 'server grade' hard disk in the Time Capsule is another perfect example. That's another piece of marketing jargon that implies that the Time Capsule offers increased reliability over a product that doesn't feature a server grade hard disk mechanism. If you were to take that to court you'd soon realise that 'server grade' doesn't actually mean anything at all, and if you were to strip-down a Time Capsule you would see that Apple is in fact using a run-of-the-mill hard disk drive that doesn't offer any benefits over any other hard disk drive out there.
I for one am pleased that Apple have been caught with their fingers in the honey jar this time around. I hope that Apple will come to realise that misleading their customers will only damage their brand.
I have noticed while buying 500 GIG drives recently the choice between 'Server Grade' and 'Standard' and there is a price difference. This is from companies like Western Digital and I am talking about plain internal drives here, no other parts such as power supplies etc.. So I assume they are actually manufactured to a higher tolerance and perhaps have better MTBF figures ...? Just pointing out here the hard drive example might not be correct in your comments. I have no idea not having opened one but perhaps Apple are using higher or server grade drives. If not then they are going to be called on it for sure ...
As I said early on in this thread, after 25 years in the color / print/ computer business I can humbly suggest that a proof is always subject to variances and unless your Mac is running profiles tied to the specific press, paper and ink you are never truly able to be accurate (and not even then at times).
I also suspect that Apple didn't mean to mislead rather they had always had those terms like 'thousands' and 'millions' in the control panels of Macs going back to the first color Macs while PCs had VGA etc. It was probably more a tradition than anything and meant low, medium and high to me at least.
Not true at all. My sister has a B.A. in Chemistry, works for a company in a lab where she uses her degree in the work she does every day, conducting research in scientific uncharted territory. Is she not, then, a Chemist?
Ah...normally, out of politeness, I would accept that fiction. However, in reality, folks with master degrees (or less) are often considered (and job categorized as) "technicians". These typically work under someone with a PhD in the relevant field.
So, not so much.
I've already acknowledged that I'm not practicing phsyics at a company, in a school or with a research group, but I am working on a physics paper which is an extension of my Senior Thesis. I'm still using the phsycis I learned in this self-initiated project. Just because I'm not in a lab means I'm not a physicist?
Yes, you are not. You are a "student" in this specific case.
Jeez, how hard is it to understand? You claimed authoritative knowledge you do not possess and a title you are not qualified to have to try to trump someone else. Then you dis'd his profession to boot.
At least he's not a poseur.
Hyperbole much? A) I point-blank stated that I did not have a PhD.
You point-blank stated you were a Physicist. The implications are that...you would at least qualify to be one if you were actually practicing physics.
Just having a BS in physics (if you even have that) does not qualify you to be a physicist. Try getting a job as one at NASA or CERN or wherever. The hyperbole is yours, sir.
A degree is just a piece of paper showing that someone noticed you knew a shit about something.
Yes, in this case it would be "proof" that you at least had the minimal understanding of a field.
Otherwise we would have to ask you to cite your independent research and published papers in the field then evaluate that work. Which is rather a chore.
You can still learn about Physics and Scientific Method without doing so at an overpriced establishment.
Any accredited university would do. I'm sure there are a couple that are not overpriced.
You can still use that knowledge to research, plan, and carry out experiments that are meaningful to the Physics community. Would such a person still not be a physicist in your eyes?
Meaningful research is the key. The answer in this day and age is "highly unlikely a lay person could conduct meaningful Physics experiments". With the understanding that "meaningful" means advancing human knowledge somewhere along the frontier of physics.
The world is not as black-and-white as you wish it to be.
I didn't say it was. I simply stated that to call oneself a "physicist" requires more than taking a couple courses. There is a high bar if you wish to do so in order to claim authority.
If you want me to agrue like you, I will. Since you like your "definitions" so much, let's look at the definition of a Scientist according to M/W:
Main Entry: sci·en·tist
Pronunciation: \\ˈsī-ən-tist\\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin scientia
Date: 1834
1: a person learned in science and especially natural science : a scientific investigator
There you have it in the black-and-white that you love to cling to so much. I am a scientist.
Arguably you are not learned in science. You can follow that chain of definitions if you wish but it ends with erudition and the phrase "extensive knowledge". Can you claim extensive knowledge in science if you have not even begun to learn? As in that gaining a PhD is not the END of learning but merely the acknowledgment that you now has sufficient basis for advanced learning in a field.
Arrogant much?
You repeatedly fail to miss the point of my hypothetical situations: Perception is not accurate.
I'm not missing your point. I'm saying it's irrelevant to the topic. That you can fool the human visual system is depended on.
Your hypotheticals are no more relevant than your monkey urine and coffee analogy.
I'm saying that the techniques that make 6-bit plus displays resemble 8-bit native displays are an illusion that takes advantage of human limitations.
The objective of a 6-bit display is not to resemble an 8-bit display but to render an image.
Likewise an 8-bit display is designed to render an image.
How closely both of these displays accurately renders an image differs but both rely on illusion.
The point is that Apple and other display manufactures need to be careful about what they advertise because there is a difference between millions of simulated colors (per pixel) and millions of colors (per pixel).
So you see "per pixel" anywhere? They say the display can show millions of colors. If the human visual system has sufficient acuity to see at the sub-pixel level at normal viewing distances you wouldn't see the same picture but a field of red, green and blue dots even for an 8-bit display.
Here's a little physics experiment for you Mr. Scientist. If you smear a small drop of water on your display what do you see? Red green and blue perhaps?
I am not responsible if you electrocute yourself or ruin your display.
If you claim you're so willing to accept this portion of my argument, then why are you trying so vigorously to put down all of my examples?
Did I accept your argument? No, I did not. See there are nuances there if you read carefully. Or at all.
And why all of a sudden resort to shallow put-downs? I've been very careful not to personally attack or insult anyone, despite the number of names I've had the urge to call you.
Where?
Please. You dis'd an entire category of science.
I'm not disputing that either. The conflict is how Apple (and others) marketed the displays. I'm suggesting that maybe it should be marketed as "Millions of simulated colors per pixel."
What's this "per pixel" stuff? If they are (as it appears) to be using 6 + 2 spatial dithering the perceived color is not on a per pixel basis. What they say is the display is capable of millions of colors.
An 8-bit display is capable of "Millions of simulated colors per pixel" by design because the RGB components are in a sub-pixel level.
"Millions of colors" seems pretty ambiguous. Besides, if {6-bit plus} displays were identical to {8-bit native} displays, why would they produce the latter? There must be SOME visual difference, no?
Yes there are differences. But that does not mean that a 6 bit display cannot do millions of color.
Ah... [blah blah blah]
You are impossibly stubborn. Your inflexibility is unbearable. To avoid going legally insane on account of this trite bickering, I must back down. I'm not going to continue wasting my time explaining the same arguments over and over when you simply will not even consider another point of view. Before you charge me of hypocracy, remember that I was the one willing to reconsider my position on this legal case.
Adieu, and good luck in life. I sense you will need it.
-Clive
You are impossibly stubborn. Your inflexibility is unbearable.
...
Adieu, and good luck in life. I sense you will need it.
-Clive
You too buddy. A simple apology regarding your psych crack would have sufficed but you can't even admit to what you were trying to do. "I was only noting..."
Amusingly, I never claim to be a real "scientist" but that's only funny if you know who I am. In any case, it doesn't serve you well to claim something you aren't.
You too buddy. A simple apology regarding your psych crack would have sufficed but you can't even admit to what you were trying to do. "I was only noting..."
Is Clive going to be your new grudge?
IMHO, in recent years Apple has been deceiving the public in lowering their "higher standards" when comparing their products with the competition, and this doesn't apply solely to the displays which is the issue here, but I'll stay on topic!
The benefit of using more mainstream components in their computers is more affordable machines. In the case of the MacBook, well, it's an entry level laptop, what can one expect! for the pricier MacBook Pro, it's a totally different beast, one would expect to have much better components - especially the screen - then it's lower end counterpart.
I tend to compare the 6 bit color + "software enhancement" to 8 bit color as the zoom on a digital camera or the resolution of a scanner:
Digital cameras typically have an Optical Zoom of (#)X, that can be enhanced with the use of digita enhancement, or as we call it by doing interpolation. The same applies to scanners, which have a set "optical resolution" and a Maximum resolution which is achieved by software interpolation as well.
Depending on the visual acuity of the user, the artifacts, banding, or whatever you want to call it will be more or less visible and/or bothersome to the eye. NOT ALL EYES ARE CREATED EQUAL !!! Especially true for some "professionals" whose trained eyes are more sensitive to those artifacts then the general public. Claiming that boosting a displays colors via software from 262,144 to 16,777,216 while NOT BEING PERCEPTIBLE BY THE HUMAN EYE is quite a bold claim and I don't buy it for a minute. I agree it will not be visible for some, but I can plainly see the difference.
This is why manufacturers of high-end monitors come up with 10 bit and 12 bit displays. I personally find that the Apple Cinema Displays - acknowledging the fact that they are superior to most mainstream display, but then again, they are not mainstream! - with their true 8 bit color are not precise enough for professional photo editing, especially for commercial printing: As soon as any calibration is applied to the screen, the LCD no longer displays 256 shades per color channel and the actual number of colors decrease quite rapidly. Banding can be visible and bothersome for a trained eye. (See note below about No of colors).
BUT: digital cameras and scanners have both the optical zoom/res and digital zoom/res stated either on the packaging or in the documentation. This is where Apple failed with these new displays. Apple should have made a mention of this in the specs. Although if you look at specs of all recent (2004 and up, haven't checked older ones) Apple computers with built in displays, or at the specs of teh Apple Cinema Displays, there is absolutely no mention of true bit/color on any model. They state: "support for millions of colors" in every case, with no more elaboration on the subject.
Now some will say that nobody else does so why should Apple do it? My answer to that is that Apple has been separating itself from mainstream computer makers by it's innovation and higher standards of both hardware components AND honestly about it's claims (although there were some exception, I have to admit, but Apple has generally a very good track record). They "could" have been honest about their software enhancement to achieve "millions of colors".
So basically, one expects to buy a better machine when he/she buys an Apple machine.
To get back to the 2 photographers who initiated the suit:
1-a real "pro" would not expect a laptop to perform at the same level then a real pro workstation.
2-a real "pro" would have tested the laptops BEFORE buying them to make sure they would be sufficient to their needs, as they would if they purchased a new workstation.
3-The innacuracy of the display has absolutely no impact on the actual photos taken by those photographers. If they need to see "truer" colors, they simply need to view their pictures on a better calibrated workstation.
4-Apple never claimed to have true 8 bit color on those laptops.
5-The fact that they couldn't find enough people to join their claim speaks for itself: quite far-fetched...
I honestly think that they are simply opportunists who tried to capitalize on a technicality. Then again maybe they just wanted to give publicity to this issue in an attempt to make the population aware of this deception - but I doubt this very much.
What did this attempt to sue achieved?
Well the fact that we actually are debating it in this forum is proof that this IS a valid issue in the eyes of certain users.
I have been working in Pre-Press for almost 20 years, and my eye is quite picky when it comes to displays.
I personally tested both the new MacBook and MacBook Pro 15". I would not purchase a MacBook even though its specs are very decent and it performs quite well, simply because of the crappy display, even if it was just for web browsing and menial tasks. for starters, the viewing angle is horrendous, and the glare of the glossy display simply unbearable.
For the MacBook Pro, I find the display to be quite superior then the MacBook's. The fact that they are available in non-gloss is a HUGE bonus for me. The viewing angle is also far better, and color seem more accurate. I would consider buying one for myself, but I would not remotely hope to be able to use it for color correction of photos.
How to calculate actual colors in relation to bit depth per chanel - with a few examples:
The formula is:
2 (no of variable in a "bit", 0 or 1) at the power of x (x=bit per color value) take the total and bring it at the power of 3 [No of color channels in a RGB color display]
Mac Book displays
6 bit color: (2 at the power of 6) at the power of 3 = 64 (colors per channel) at the power of 3 = 262,144
Apple Cinema Display 20" ($700) 23" ($900)
8 bit color: (2 at the power of 8) at the power of 3 = 256 at the power of 3 = 16,777,216
Going Higher end:
Eizo ColorEdge CE Series and CG19 ($1,200 - $1,700 for a 19"), LaCie 324 LCD Monitor ($1460 24" including colorimeter)
10 bit color: (2 at the power of 10) at the power of 3 = 1,024 at the power of 3 = 1,073,741,824
Eizo ColorEdge CG Series ($2,000 21" - $5,700 30"), LaCie 321 LCD Monitor ($1680 21" including colorimeter)
12 bit color: (2 at the power of 12) at the power of 3 = 4,096 at the power of 3 = 68,719,476,736
16 bit per color Scanners (claimed by some manufacturers - true or interpolated?):
16 bit color: (2 at the power of 12) at the power of 3 = 65,536 at the power of 3 = 281,474,976,710,656 - whoa, no display can actually show you this !
NOTE: In the case of Eizo's CG301W ($5,700), the "mother of all screens" IMHO, and it's baby brother the CG221, the manufacturer CLEARLY STATES that the underlying technology is made up of 12 bit per channel hardware but they are using 16 bit processing (internal calculation - same principle Apple is using in the 6 bit displays) to achieve better then 12 bit native color rendering. Hence the hefty price tag...
http://www.eizo.com/products/graphic...ures.asp#16bit
Conclusion:
I personally think that not only Apple but ALL screen manufacturers and comps with built in displays manufacturers SHOULD be forced to have the "true" color depth CLEARLY stated. It might not be an issue for most, but it is a deception regardless.
I agree with using maistream components or lower end technology in a specific product line-up to make it's pricing competitive, but there is no need to camouflage the specs.
Did Apple deserve a lawsuit for this? I think not, but I believe they deserved the (negative) publicity that ensued, as all other deceptive manufacturers do.
Very touchy.
IMHO, in recent years Apple has been deceiving the public in lowering their "higher standards" when comparing their products with the competition, and this doesn't apply solely to the displays which is the issue here, but I'll stay on topic!
Did Apple deserve a lawsuit for this? I think not, but I believe they deserved the (negative) publicity that ensued, as all other deceptive manufacturers do.
Simply beautiful dude. Very elegant.
I personally think that not only Apple but ALL screen manufacturers and comps with built in displays manufacturers SHOULD be forced to have the "true" color depth CLEARLY stated. It might not be an issue for most, but it is a deception regardless.
Absolutely. More to the point, surely it is not fair on these expensive brands who produce professional colour screens in competition against regular TN 6-bit screens.
So then why have all references to "MILLIONS OF COLRS" been removed from the website? Sounds like part of the "settlement" regarding precisely what you are in denial about.
Not entirely true, they do not list the reference to millions of colors on the Apple Store page, but it is still listed in the actual Product Pages and the Apple Specs Database:
http://www.apple.com/macbook/specs.html
http://support.apple.com/specs/macbo...Late_2007.html
http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/specs.html
http://support.apple.com/specs/macbo...Late_2007.html
http://www.apple.com/macbookair/specs.html
http://support.apple.com/specs/macbo...cBook_Air.html
http://www.apple.com/imac/specs.html
http://support.apple.com/specs/imac/iMac_Mid_2007.html
I don't remember if they had previously stated in the Apple Store the actual number of colors, but if they did and corrected it, it would show that Apple decided the issue was worth a corrective action...
Claiming that boosting a displays colors via software from 262,144 to 16,777,216 while NOT BEING PERCEPTIBLE BY THE HUMAN EYE is quite a bold claim and I don't buy it for a minute.
Except that wasn't the claim was it? Just "millions of colors".
6 bit + 2x2 dithering (half-toning) or 6 bit FRC or 6 bit + Hi-FRC should all do "millions" with some artifacting.
16.2M? That's bit of a marketing statistic for FRC but with 3 tones it's (256-3)^3=16.2M.
Interestingly Hi-FRC claims 16.7M colors because of its mapping.
I personally think that not only Apple but ALL screen manufacturers and comps with built in displays manufacturers SHOULD be forced to have the "true" color depth CLEARLY stated.
Sure. And type. 8-bit TN isn't all that either.
I miss the days when everyone had 2-bit color in their Apple IIs, and no one gave a damn.
If I could vote you up, sir, I would.
Jimzip
I'm just a lowly programmer. I have no delusions of grandeur.
But that doesn't mean other programmers can't, does it?