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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
"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.
… 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?
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 that?s 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.
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.
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.
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.
A quote from the Mac Book Pro page at apple.com in July 2006:
>>>
Finishing coat
MacBook Pro offers an antiglare coated widescreen display that?s 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.
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.
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.
This is what I've been saying, but it's getting twisted out of shape.
It seems as though too many people don't understand the issues of critical color, or don't believe that it still exists.
They really need to come to the Pro Photo Expo here in NYC this coming Thurs, Fri, and Sat.
Comments
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Glossy screens don't boost saturation, matte screens cut it down.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I am only puzzled by the use of the flickering battery status lights
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 that?s 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.
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.
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.
"producers" don't "direct" from "broadcast monitoring rooms".
They do if they are in a broadcast studio.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A quote from the Mac Book Pro page at apple.com in July 2006:
>>>
Finishing coat
MacBook Pro offers an antiglare coated widescreen display that?s 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.
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.
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.
This is what I've been saying, but it's getting twisted out of shape.
It seems as though too many people don't understand the issues of critical color, or don't believe that it still exists.
They really need to come to the Pro Photo Expo here in NYC this coming Thurs, Fri, and Sat.
Or go to the NAB convention next year.