I own a older PowerMac 17inch and have been thinking of the MBP as a upgrade. I may save for the deaktop instead. I have a point to bring up that seems to not have been said on this thread. The LCD display may be a 6-bit one but I doubt very much that the video display tech is limited to that. A test for you MPB owners:
Connect another display to your MPB - it should be a 20" or larger LCD or a CRT display.
Put the MPB in mirror display mode.
Choose or make a image with a color gradient - the color picker in most programs will work fine.
Compare the two displays.
If the dithering on the 6-bit LCD is poor you should see a difference between the LCD display and the external display. This should even work with the s-video out which should not be bit limited either.
The next test shows is with just your LCD and shows the quality of the dithering on your display. Pur a picture or gradient or other image on the display. go to display preferences and dial the display down to thousands from millions. See how much a difference it makes.
I guess the suit may be de-railable cause Apple can claim the MPB can display millions of colors, just not on it's own LCD.
That is a bad analogy. The weather station does not make weather. Apple specifies the products and can control the marketing, and is thus responsible for the product if it is not as advertised.
Agreed. And I think its such a cop-out to fall back on the "Well, everybody else does it!" or "Companies lie, get used to it!" cliches.
Suuuure, companies lie, cheat, steal... unless they know they're going to be held accountable. And 'everyone else does it' has ever been the whiny excuse of the criminal or the jerk, trying to excuse their own piss-poor behavior. Apple can obviously do better than that, and should be held to a higher standard than that.
So really, regardless of its merit, I have zero problem with the class action lawsuit, because stuff like this keeps corporations on their toes. And its not like they don't have the resources to represent themselves well... tens of billions of dollars in yearly revenues would seem to take care of that.
Thus, there's really no need for us to 'defend' Apple, as Apple can defend itself quite excellently. At the same time, people should not pile on and Apple-bash, as it remains to be seen how valid the suit is. Open minds, people.
... here in Switzerland, the displays were superb. And my Dad's Rev 2 MB has crystal clear colors as well.
Anyway, Americans would sue the shoe company after slipping out on an icy stairstep, that's got nothing to do with rights or lawfulness, that's simply a new industry branch for losers to quickly squeeze some money out of big companies.
As opposed to the Swiss, who are content to get by hoarding Nazi gold? \
Every nation obviously has its issues. No need to hurl stones, unless you live in a non-glass house, and no one really does.
Maybe because instead of taking Apple's word for it, other people are running the LCD diagnostic utilities as was pointed out in post #73 and tracing the LCD back to the actual manufacturer:
"Yes that's right. 20ms response time, improbable viewing angles, 45% gamut (this is the pro version of the Macbook in case you forgot), and best of all: 262K colors ONLY!"
So much for the "only actual truth on the subject".
Who is forgetting "to actually check the facts" now? Who should be retracting now?
Running a third party utility that checks on hardware boot reports without actually having current reference board drivers? You call that fact? Hell, even that site says they aren't sure that it's not a bootcamp issue, which it probably is.
Apple states 24 bits per pixel. Not 16.7 million color displayable. That categorically states an 8 bit per channel pixel display. The software utility reports are just speculation since all the boards are custom tweaked for Apple, even if they start with Intel reference designs. Until someone pulls a display out and gets a hard part number that is a low bpp display this is just so much hot air.
If anyone actually bothered to look at Apple's own discussion boards before leaping to the defensive, they would see there has been a raging battle this last year about this exact subject. Apple has 3 different suppliers for the screens, and quality varies. My brand new MBP is getting its screen replaced under warranty, because I took it back in less than 2 weeks and complained about the crap screen. The Genius agreed with me. Just because you got a good one does not mean that somebody else didn't get burned. There are other issues I am surprised the lawsuit fails to mention: Highly uneven backlighting with strong vignetting & banding. Here is a digital photo I took of the screen, centered dead on 90 degrees to the screen, which shows why I am getting a new screen:
Absolutely pathetic. So fanboys, get a life. Apple ships crap sometimes. Those too stupid to know the difference live with it. At least Apple is fixing the problem in my case. Gotta give them credit for that.
That is a bad backlight. Not an LCD problem, but is a valid "display" problem. Fluorescent backlight quality control is hard, and one of the reasons Apple is moving to LCD backlights.
Running a third party utility that checks on hardware boot reports without actually having current reference board drivers? You call that fact? Hell, even that site says they aren't sure that it's not a bootcamp issue, which it probably is.
Actually, the author of the site in question seems pretty sure that its NOT a Bootcamp issue. What he actually said was that Apple Store London told him that it was probably a Bootcamp issue, something that the author of that site clearly does not concur with.
I'm not saying that Apple is wrong or right here, I'm simply saying that you misunderstood the guy's 'English as a second language' writing (he's not a native speaker), which is understandable... I didn't get what he meant the first time either, on the passage where he talks about Apple Store London. \
English is not my native tongue as well, so I think I made more sense from this French guy's page :-) The situation was like that:
1) he used some PC utility (ASTRA32) under bootcamp to read EDID information from the monitor
2) he found Samsung's model number of the screen and checked the web to discover that this is in fact 262K display
3) he went to 'genius in London' and asked him: why exactly Apple writes about 'Milllions' while the screen can do only 262K? And was told that PC utility reads wrong data, because Windows utility under boot camp can not be trusted. This is hardly the case, because the utility should get data directly from the screen's EEPROM, not from driver or from BIOS/EFI firmware emultaion.
I think this happened because Apple stuff is not properly trained how to deal with the situation and just found the first opportunity to blame the result on Windows support limitations...
As for the Apple's Developer Note -- this one is mostly for programmers who want to know capabilities of interfaces the hardware has. So, they speak about graphic card rather than the screen itself in passages like "display depths up to 24 bits per pixel at all supported screen resolutions" for MacBook and (it is more obviuos here because of '3D accceleration'): "the display supports 3D acceleration and display depths up to 24 bits per pixel at all supported screen resolutions" for MacBook Pro
Speaking about the screen itself they use more evaisive phrases like "the 17-inch MacBook Pro supports an LCD display size of 1440 x 900 pixels at 110 dpi and shows up to millions of colors".
I do not think that the situation with 17-in MBP is quite different from the one with 17-inch iMac for which they state more clearly: "the 17-inch model supports an LCD display size of 1440 x 900 pixels at 100 dpi. The graphics card temporally dithers the 6 bits per component to show up to millions of colors" -- these 6-bits there they mention there are just to differ 17in iMac from 20-inch model with "the 20-inch model supports an LCD display size of 1680 x 1050 pixels at 98 dpi and supports 8 bits per component to show up to millions of colors".
Well, I do not insists that I understood these Dev Notes right because my own English is rather poor... :-(
I do not think that the situation with 17-in MBP is quite different from the one with 17-inch iMac for which they state more clearly: "the 17-inch model supports an LCD display size of 1440 x 900 pixels at 100 dpi. The graphics card temporally dithers the 6 bits per component to show up to millions of colors" -- these 6-bits there they mention there are just to differ 17in iMac from 20-inch model with "the 20-inch model supports an LCD display size of 1680 x 1050 pixels at 98 dpi and supports 8 bits per component to show up to millions of colors".
WOW, you seem to be the first person to have found a confirmation that some Apple products (17" iMac) use 6 bit displays plus dithering and that others (20" iMac and 24" iMac) use 8 bit displays. For the MacBooks and the MacBook Pros Apple's language is more evasive (saying up to 24 bit). Either they simply had wanted to conceal that 6 bit-ness by vague language or (I rather doubt it) they have different suppliers, some providing 6 bit and others 8 bit.
They also state clearly that with the 6 bit display "the graphics card temporally dithers the 6 bits per component to show up to millions of colors". I don't know what that means exactly. Could it be that in order to show a color that can not be shown natively, each pixel (pixel defined by the black grid of the screen, I know that each pixels consists of three colors that are mixed) changes at a high frequency between two native colors giving the impression of a an additional color in between the two native ones?
Once again, congratulation for finding this. I think if this information had been available for the laptops (and not only for the iMacs) and stated in the technical specifications and not just the developer notes this lawsuit would not have happened.
Thanks! (In fact we should thank Hiro for quoting this Dev Note in first place :-) ).
Quote:
Originally Posted by noirdesir
...or they have different suppliers, some providing 6 bit and others 8 bit.
This could be true to some extent.
While there are no 15 or 17 inch screens with more than 262K mentioned on LG Philips web page. Samsung's web site -- Samsung is (or was) the main supplier of at least 15" non-glossy screens for PowerBooks and MBPs -- lists more mysterious information:
Among majority of 262K models there is one ( http://www.samsung.com/Products/TFTL...5/LTN154X5.htm ) that is claimed to have "1,670K" colors. It is unclear if Apple uses (or ever used) this screen (French screenshot shows newer LTN154X7 model in his MBP) and it is probably too heavy to be used in MBPs. Moreover "1,670K" sounds like a typo or error in Samsung's specification.
Nevertheless, Apple could consider using this or similar screen at some point, therefore -- developer notes speaks about resolutions and 3D acceleration of graphic card instead of number of colors the screen has...
For dead pixels, 6-bit color, etc, the 13.3" 1280x800 screen is pretty okay because of the size, and the intended target market for the MacBook.
The MacBookPro, however, for it to have 6-bit color, grainier screens, etc, is a concern. Also because of the bigger size, perhaps it is easier to see artifacts due to 6-bit color.
Honestly, (yes call me Apple Apologist) Apple has responded very well in the past with all the complaints etc. and stuff.
Again, the method of lawsuit and whatever may be dubious, but the end result is hopefully the MacBookPro really starting to get more PRO. Apple's margins on the MacBookPro must be prettydarn high.
Well I dont know what all the fuss is about. I'm sure everyone will appreciate this but I'll say it anyway...
My Powerbook display (17inch, 1680x1050), my old Powerbook (15inchTiBook), my older Powerbook G3, my wifes iBook, and step-sons Dell... oh and all my handheld devices, my Televisions, camera LCDs etc all show only three colours.... Red, Green and Blue.
All the other colours are "percieved" and are made up of varying intensities of adjacent RGB pixels on a display screen. As such all intermediate hues are an illusion. At no point do Apple say how these millions of colours will be created for the user to see. The whole way display screens work is an optical illusion, dithering is just a digital refinement of that process.
As display pixel sizes decrease, there may be apparent sparkles and hue shifts, which will vary from person to person, and will vary according to distance from the screen and distance between the eyes of the viewer. Only the one eyed will get consistency. This is due to frequency beating and the associated differing effect for each eye relative to their direct angle of view with any given pixel group.
Try covering one eye and see how much less "sparkle" there appears to be on your laptop screen, and how much less the sparkle changes as you move your head from side to side.
Until a single pixel is represented by a single display pixel, which can show all hues and intensities, instead of a seperate RGB pixel cluster per pixel then this will always be the case.
Yes I agree that true 8bit per colour would be better, but some people will always see some artefacts given the current RGB screen technology, just as I and many like me can see the flicker of flourescent lighting.
When I want to see true millions of colours, I go for a walk outside.
As for my own Powerbook screen.. if I get close to it I start to see horizontal dark bands, and if I look for sparkles then I see them. If I am concentrating on what I am doing (usually something with video) then I dont even notice the artefacts.
As for working with photos, well as long as the screen is colour calibrated properly (I know loads of so called photographic professionals who dont calibrate) then the overall percieved colour should be right. But to do this on a laptop is really not a good idea. A controlled environment is required.
Connect another display to your MPB - it should be a 20" or larger LCD or a CRT display.
Put the MPB in mirror display mode.
Choose or make a image with a color gradient - the color picker in most programs will work fine.
Compare the two displays.
I did this with an iMac display and the quality difference was quite staggering but kind of what I was expecting given that I specifically don't buy iMacs with this being the main reason. The iMac screen was sparkly and the contrast wasn't nearly as good. Recently, I tried an external LCD attached to a Macbook and yet again the external was higher quality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trxbloke
oh and all my handheld devices, my Televisions, camera LCDs etc all show only three colours.... Red, Green and Blue.
All the other colours are "percieved" and are made up of varying intensities of adjacent RGB pixels on a display screen. As such all intermediate hues are an illusion.
Yeah, but the quality of a screen is determined by how consistently it can produce those intensity variations. If it can't consistently produce 1 million + variations then it's not a 24/32-bit display.
I just want them to hurry up and release the SED/OLED/laser TVs already. The release will be late 2007 supposedly. Just imagine, Christmas 2007, a Core 2 Duo Cube with a good GPU hooked up to a razor thin 55" laser (or whatever) HD display.
Thanks. Mmmm 6 bit... \ ... I think I am going to sue all the LCD manufacturers for even making 6-bit panels ..... Weird. This whole 6-bit thing.
It's not THAT weird. If Apple is indeed using 6-bit displays in their notebooks, they'd hardly be unique, its pretty much industry-wide. And from the little I know about it, 6-bit vs 8-bit is a trade-off, in terms of cost, weight, power consumption, etc. There are valid reasons to go 6-bit in notebooks, which is why nearly all notebook makers do.
What I don't like is the attempt to cover the fact up, if its true and Apple is just trying to obfuscate the issue through clever marketing speak (though if so, they'd hardly be unique in this regard).
IF Apple is using 6-bit displays, they should just say so. And then they could actually turn it into a point of differentiation going forward, by offering 8-bit displays on MacBook Pros or even across the entire line, as technology and costs permit. Customers would be happy to know that they're getting something better than 'the industry standard.
"Promote your ideas on the MacBook Pro?s dazzling display. An aggressive ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 graphics processor under the hood coupled with up to 256MB of GDDR3 SDRAM powers the mobile visual studio you?ve been waiting for. Retouch color, edit on location, video conference with colleagues: Do it all, anywhere.
MacBook Pro makes your ideas more enlightening, with a sharp, high-resolution screen. See blacker blacks, whiter whites, and many more colors in between on a brilliant 15.4-inch, 1440-by-900-pixel or 17-inch, 1680-by-1050-pixel digital display. Enjoy a nuanced view simply unavailable on other portables."
Exactly. It's about advertising. And theirs may well be false.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar
And how about some of those older 15 inch CRT monitors with viewable screens smaller than 14 inch monitors? It took a class action lawsuit back in 1995 to get monitor manufacturers to start being honest about the true viewable size of their displays. And I bet Apple fans back then were also saying the same "useless lawsuit", "damn lawyers" comments. But on the other hand, when Apple's lawyers sue someone, it's always "Hurray Apple! Go get em!"
Ding ding ding! Corporations exaggerate advertising all the time to the point of abuse, and Apple's track record is one of the worst. In fact, I'll go a step further...the computer industry in general is one of the worst.
Quote:
Originally Posted by akhomerun
as i'm sure it's been said, no professional is going to rely on the laptop screen for their final product. If you want a screen that produces perfect color, you'll have to go with a multi-thousand dollar flat panel or a $500+ CRT. I don't know what professionals use, but I'm sure ultra-thin laptop displays aren't it. I thought they would use CRTs anyway because of their superior color reproduction and contrast, as well as black reproduction.
Besides that, even if it does "trick" the user's eye into seeing millions of colors, it still appears to display millions of colors.
I think these guys are just taking Apple's usual marketing exaggeration the wrong way. And as it's been said, if one isn't satisfied with the color quality of the display, Apple's return policy is fine.
I'm sure the displays used on the Macbook/Pros are exactly the same as the ones used on other laptops.
So wait...you admit that Apple is advertising the MB as having a capability (professional editing) that it doesn't actually have..and yet this is just "exaggerating?"
And speaking of exaggerating, what other companies would you tolerate this from? Can a car manufacturer exaggerate mileage claims? (hmmm..do I recall...?) Can they exaggerate horsepower? How about them advertising a vehicle as having off road capability when it actually doesn't? Or, can a good manufacturer lie about how many calories their product has?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee
Hey!
I'm far from an Apple Apologist... And I'm the first that calls them out when I feel they've done something wrong. You freaks on the other hand are far worse then I..... You want to crucify Apple for the fact that they use electricity... the same electricity that's used to kill convicted criminals in Texas.
Apple does NOT manufacture their own displays.... **NOR** do they deal in enough volume to dictate the use of shitty components in the manufacture of their displays to the true manufactures of said displays.
Are you living in such a fantasy land as to believe that Apple has input into the components that make up an LCD display? If so, more power to ya...
D
Uhh...yes. I am. Perhaps not the exact components, but with the millions they buy often under exclusive contract, you can bet your ass they know how they are made. Please. And don't tell me they don't buy enough either. I guess they don't buy enough RAM and NAND either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stonefree
Shhhh!!! Don't say stuff like this unless you want to get chased out here by the pitchfork and torch wielding fanboys!
Oh, and you forgot to mention the mooing/whining fans (cooling device not the users) and the discolored white Macbooks, two other issues Apple refused to acknowlege until negative publicity forced them to.
Oh and then there's the Mac "laptops" that get so hot you can't actually put them on your lap without wearing firefighter pants. In case that doesn't bother you, keep in mind that heat is the number one cause of component failure, so expect a lot of MBs, MBPs to start dying very soon.
I'm not posting this to troll. Apple makes beautiful products and a superior OS and I and am interested in getting a MB (l'm a long time Windows user). But they really need to be held accountable, something its rabid fanbase refuses to do, no matter how much crap they have to put up with.
Comments
Connect another display to your MPB - it should be a 20" or larger LCD or a CRT display.
Put the MPB in mirror display mode.
Choose or make a image with a color gradient - the color picker in most programs will work fine.
Compare the two displays.
If the dithering on the 6-bit LCD is poor you should see a difference between the LCD display and the external display. This should even work with the s-video out which should not be bit limited either.
The next test shows is with just your LCD and shows the quality of the dithering on your display. Pur a picture or gradient or other image on the display. go to display preferences and dial the display down to thousands from millions. See how much a difference it makes.
I guess the suit may be de-railable cause Apple can claim the MPB can display millions of colors, just not on it's own LCD.
That is a bad analogy. The weather station does not make weather. Apple specifies the products and can control the marketing, and is thus responsible for the product if it is not as advertised.
Agreed. And I think its such a cop-out to fall back on the "Well, everybody else does it!" or "Companies lie, get used to it!" cliches.
Suuuure, companies lie, cheat, steal... unless they know they're going to be held accountable. And 'everyone else does it' has ever been the whiny excuse of the criminal or the jerk, trying to excuse their own piss-poor behavior. Apple can obviously do better than that, and should be held to a higher standard than that.
So really, regardless of its merit, I have zero problem with the class action lawsuit, because stuff like this keeps corporations on their toes. And its not like they don't have the resources to represent themselves well... tens of billions of dollars in yearly revenues would seem to take care of that.
Thus, there's really no need for us to 'defend' Apple, as Apple can defend itself quite excellently. At the same time, people should not pile on and Apple-bash, as it remains to be seen how valid the suit is. Open minds, people.
.
... here in Switzerland, the displays were superb. And my Dad's Rev 2 MB has crystal clear colors as well.
Anyway, Americans would sue the shoe company after slipping out on an icy stairstep, that's got nothing to do with rights or lawfulness, that's simply a new industry branch for losers to quickly squeeze some money out of big companies.
As opposed to the Swiss, who are content to get by hoarding Nazi gold?
Every nation obviously has its issues. No need to hurl stones, unless you live in a non-glass house, and no one really does.
.
Maybe because instead of taking Apple's word for it, other people are running the LCD diagnostic utilities as was pointed out in post #73 and tracing the LCD back to the actual manufacturer:
http://peewaiweb.free.fr/
"Yes that's right. 20ms response time, improbable viewing angles, 45% gamut (this is the pro version of the Macbook in case you forgot), and best of all: 262K colors ONLY!"
So much for the "only actual truth on the subject".
Quoted for truth:
http://peewaiweb.free.fr/
Who is forgetting "to actually check the facts" now? Who should be retracting now?
Running a third party utility that checks on hardware boot reports without actually having current reference board drivers? You call that fact? Hell, even that site says they aren't sure that it's not a bootcamp issue, which it probably is.
Apple states 24 bits per pixel. Not 16.7 million color displayable. That categorically states an 8 bit per channel pixel display. The software utility reports are just speculation since all the boards are custom tweaked for Apple, even if they start with Intel reference designs. Until someone pulls a display out and gets a hard part number that is a low bpp display this is just so much hot air.
If anyone actually bothered to look at Apple's own discussion boards before leaping to the defensive, they would see there has been a raging battle this last year about this exact subject. Apple has 3 different suppliers for the screens, and quality varies. My brand new MBP is getting its screen replaced under warranty, because I took it back in less than 2 weeks and complained about the crap screen. The Genius agreed with me. Just because you got a good one does not mean that somebody else didn't get burned. There are other issues I am surprised the lawsuit fails to mention: Highly uneven backlighting with strong vignetting & banding. Here is a digital photo I took of the screen, centered dead on 90 degrees to the screen, which shows why I am getting a new screen:
Bad Screen
Absolutely pathetic. So fanboys, get a life. Apple ships crap sometimes. Those too stupid to know the difference live with it. At least Apple is fixing the problem in my case. Gotta give them credit for that.
That is a bad backlight. Not an LCD problem, but is a valid "display" problem. Fluorescent backlight quality control is hard, and one of the reasons Apple is moving to LCD backlights.
Running a third party utility that checks on hardware boot reports without actually having current reference board drivers? You call that fact? Hell, even that site says they aren't sure that it's not a bootcamp issue, which it probably is.
Actually, the author of the site in question seems pretty sure that its NOT a Bootcamp issue. What he actually said was that Apple Store London told him that it was probably a Bootcamp issue, something that the author of that site clearly does not concur with.
I'm not saying that Apple is wrong or right here, I'm simply saying that you misunderstood the guy's 'English as a second language' writing (he's not a native speaker), which is understandable... I didn't get what he meant the first time either, on the passage where he talks about Apple Store London.
.
As opposed to the Swiss, who are content to get by hoarding Nazi gold?
Ouch. From LCDs to Nazis in 3 pages. Business as usual here on AI Forums.
1) he used some PC utility (ASTRA32) under bootcamp to read EDID information from the monitor
2) he found Samsung's model number of the screen and checked the web to discover that this is in fact 262K display
3) he went to 'genius in London' and asked him: why exactly Apple writes about 'Milllions' while the screen can do only 262K? And was told that PC utility reads wrong data, because Windows utility under boot camp can not be trusted. This is hardly the case, because the utility should get data directly from the screen's EEPROM, not from driver or from BIOS/EFI firmware emultaion.
I think this happened because Apple stuff is not properly trained how to deal with the situation and just found the first opportunity to blame the result on Windows support limitations...
As for the Apple's Developer Note -- this one is mostly for programmers who want to know capabilities of interfaces the hardware has. So, they speak about graphic card rather than the screen itself in passages like "display depths up to 24 bits per pixel at all supported screen resolutions" for MacBook and (it is more obviuos here because of '3D accceleration'): "the display supports 3D acceleration and display depths up to 24 bits per pixel at all supported screen resolutions" for MacBook Pro
Speaking about the screen itself they use more evaisive phrases like "the 17-inch MacBook Pro supports an LCD display size of 1440 x 900 pixels at 110 dpi and shows up to millions of colors".
I do not think that the situation with 17-in MBP is quite different from the one with 17-inch iMac for which they state more clearly: "the 17-inch model supports an LCD display size of 1440 x 900 pixels at 100 dpi. The graphics card temporally dithers the 6 bits per component to show up to millions of colors" -- these 6-bits there they mention there are just to differ 17in iMac from 20-inch model with "the 20-inch model supports an LCD display size of 1680 x 1050 pixels at 98 dpi and supports 8 bits per component to show up to millions of colors".
Well, I do not insists that I understood these Dev Notes right because my own English is rather poor... :-(
I do not think that the situation with 17-in MBP is quite different from the one with 17-inch iMac for which they state more clearly: "the 17-inch model supports an LCD display size of 1440 x 900 pixels at 100 dpi. The graphics card temporally dithers the 6 bits per component to show up to millions of colors" -- these 6-bits there they mention there are just to differ 17in iMac from 20-inch model with "the 20-inch model supports an LCD display size of 1680 x 1050 pixels at 98 dpi and supports 8 bits per component to show up to millions of colors".
WOW, you seem to be the first person to have found a confirmation that some Apple products (17" iMac) use 6 bit displays plus dithering and that others (20" iMac and 24" iMac) use 8 bit displays. For the MacBooks and the MacBook Pros Apple's language is more evasive (saying up to 24 bit). Either they simply had wanted to conceal that 6 bit-ness by vague language or (I rather doubt it) they have different suppliers, some providing 6 bit and others 8 bit.
They also state clearly that with the 6 bit display "the graphics card temporally dithers the 6 bits per component to show up to millions of colors". I don't know what that means exactly. Could it be that in order to show a color that can not be shown natively, each pixel (pixel defined by the black grid of the screen, I know that each pixels consists of three colors that are mixed) changes at a high frequency between two native colors giving the impression of a an additional color in between the two native ones?
Once again, congratulation for finding this. I think if this information had been available for the laptops (and not only for the iMacs) and stated in the technical specifications and not just the developer notes this lawsuit would not have happened.
And here is the link:
http://developer.apple.com/documenta...uid/TP40003504
Once again, congratulation for finding this.
Thanks! (In fact we should thank Hiro for quoting this Dev Note in first place :-) ).
...or they have different suppliers, some providing 6 bit and others 8 bit.
This could be true to some extent.
While there are no 15 or 17 inch screens with more than 262K mentioned on LG Philips web page. Samsung's web site -- Samsung is (or was) the main supplier of at least 15" non-glossy screens for PowerBooks and MBPs -- lists more mysterious information:
http://www.samsung.com/Products/TFTL...amily_cd=LCD02
Among majority of 262K models there is one ( http://www.samsung.com/Products/TFTL...5/LTN154X5.htm ) that is claimed to have "1,670K" colors. It is unclear if Apple uses (or ever used) this screen (French screenshot shows newer LTN154X7 model in his MBP) and it is probably too heavy to be used in MBPs. Moreover "1,670K" sounds like a typo or error in Samsung's specification.
Nevertheless, Apple could consider using this or similar screen at some point, therefore -- developer notes speaks about resolutions and 3D acceleration of graphic card instead of number of colors the screen has...
My ColorSync Utility reports 9C5F
My panel is LP133WX1-TLA1
This is LG Philips specified as 6-bit, 25ms response time... Mmmm
Link:
http://www.lgphilips-lcd.com/homeCon...hilips_LCD.PDF
MacBook White 13" Core[1]Duo 2ghz 60gb HD
My ColorSync Utility reports 9C5E
My panel is N133I1-L01
This is Chi Mei Optoelectronics (CMO), N133I1
I do not have the specs for Chi Mei but the LCDTest.app
shows "worse" artifacting/ banding than the 6-bit LG Philips.
Generally I am very happy with this Black MacBook Core2Duo (Rev
though my Rev A MacBook white above seems fine too. In terms of displays,
money I spent/ unit loaned from work/ etc.
In some ways I am quite thrilled and shocked to discover this 6-bit stuff.
Very surprised. I didn't even now LCD panel makers were doing 6-bit?
8bit-per-pixel I thought was long the standard. Looks like some cutting corners has happening.
It is tragic that a massive lawsuit has to be done for this to be discovered, but well
Sorry for bad grammar. Brain fried today.
I do not have the specs for Chi Mei...
Here it is: http://www.cmo.com.tw/cmo/english/pr....jsp?size=13.3
The MacBookPro, however, for it to have 6-bit color, grainier screens, etc, is a concern. Also because of the bigger size, perhaps it is easier to see artifacts due to 6-bit color.
Honestly, (yes call me Apple Apologist) Apple has responded very well in the past with all the complaints etc. and stuff.
Again, the method of lawsuit and whatever may be dubious, but the end result is hopefully the MacBookPro really starting to get more PRO. Apple's margins on the MacBookPro must be prettydarn high.
Here it is: http://www.cmo.com.tw/cmo/english/pr....jsp?size=13.3
Thanks. Mmmm 6 bit...
My Powerbook display (17inch, 1680x1050), my old Powerbook (15inchTiBook), my older Powerbook G3, my wifes iBook, and step-sons Dell... oh and all my handheld devices, my Televisions, camera LCDs etc all show only three colours.... Red, Green and Blue.
All the other colours are "percieved" and are made up of varying intensities of adjacent RGB pixels on a display screen. As such all intermediate hues are an illusion. At no point do Apple say how these millions of colours will be created for the user to see. The whole way display screens work is an optical illusion, dithering is just a digital refinement of that process.
As display pixel sizes decrease, there may be apparent sparkles and hue shifts, which will vary from person to person, and will vary according to distance from the screen and distance between the eyes of the viewer. Only the one eyed will get consistency. This is due to frequency beating and the associated differing effect for each eye relative to their direct angle of view with any given pixel group.
Try covering one eye and see how much less "sparkle" there appears to be on your laptop screen, and how much less the sparkle changes as you move your head from side to side.
Until a single pixel is represented by a single display pixel, which can show all hues and intensities, instead of a seperate RGB pixel cluster per pixel then this will always be the case.
Yes I agree that true 8bit per colour would be better, but some people will always see some artefacts given the current RGB screen technology, just as I and many like me can see the flicker of flourescent lighting.
When I want to see true millions of colours, I go for a walk outside.
As for my own Powerbook screen.. if I get close to it I start to see horizontal dark bands, and if I look for sparkles then I see them. If I am concentrating on what I am doing (usually something with video) then I dont even notice the artefacts.
As for working with photos, well as long as the screen is colour calibrated properly (I know loads of so called photographic professionals who dont calibrate) then the overall percieved colour should be right. But to do this on a laptop is really not a good idea. A controlled environment is required.
A test for you MPB owners:
Connect another display to your MPB - it should be a 20" or larger LCD or a CRT display.
Put the MPB in mirror display mode.
Choose or make a image with a color gradient - the color picker in most programs will work fine.
Compare the two displays.
I did this with an iMac display and the quality difference was quite staggering but kind of what I was expecting given that I specifically don't buy iMacs with this being the main reason. The iMac screen was sparkly and the contrast wasn't nearly as good. Recently, I tried an external LCD attached to a Macbook and yet again the external was higher quality.
oh and all my handheld devices, my Televisions, camera LCDs etc all show only three colours.... Red, Green and Blue.
All the other colours are "percieved" and are made up of varying intensities of adjacent RGB pixels on a display screen. As such all intermediate hues are an illusion.
Yeah, but the quality of a screen is determined by how consistently it can produce those intensity variations. If it can't consistently produce 1 million + variations then it's not a 24/32-bit display.
I just want them to hurry up and release the SED/OLED/laser TVs already. The release will be late 2007 supposedly. Just imagine, Christmas 2007, a Core 2 Duo Cube with a good GPU hooked up to a razor thin 55" laser (or whatever) HD display.
Thanks. Mmmm 6 bit...
It's not THAT weird. If Apple is indeed using 6-bit displays in their notebooks, they'd hardly be unique, its pretty much industry-wide. And from the little I know about it, 6-bit vs 8-bit is a trade-off, in terms of cost, weight, power consumption, etc. There are valid reasons to go 6-bit in notebooks, which is why nearly all notebook makers do.
What I don't like is the attempt to cover the fact up, if its true and Apple is just trying to obfuscate the issue through clever marketing speak (though if so, they'd hardly be unique in this regard).
IF Apple is using 6-bit displays, they should just say so. And then they could actually turn it into a point of differentiation going forward, by offering 8-bit displays on MacBook Pros or even across the entire line, as technology and costs permit. Customers would be happy to know that they're getting something better than 'the industry standard.
.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/oth..._11.html#sect0
Overview about the color reproduction of LCDs incl. the 6 bit issue.
http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/graphics.html
"Promote your ideas on the MacBook Pro?s dazzling display. An aggressive ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 graphics processor under the hood coupled with up to 256MB of GDDR3 SDRAM powers the mobile visual studio you?ve been waiting for. Retouch color, edit on location, video conference with colleagues: Do it all, anywhere.
MacBook Pro makes your ideas more enlightening, with a sharp, high-resolution screen. See blacker blacks, whiter whites, and many more colors in between on a brilliant 15.4-inch, 1440-by-900-pixel or 17-inch, 1680-by-1050-pixel digital display. Enjoy a nuanced view simply unavailable on other portables."
Exactly. It's about advertising. And theirs may well be false.
And how about some of those older 15 inch CRT monitors with viewable screens smaller than 14 inch monitors? It took a class action lawsuit back in 1995 to get monitor manufacturers to start being honest about the true viewable size of their displays. And I bet Apple fans back then were also saying the same "useless lawsuit", "damn lawyers" comments. But on the other hand, when Apple's lawyers sue someone, it's always "Hurray Apple! Go get em!"
Ding ding ding! Corporations exaggerate advertising all the time to the point of abuse, and Apple's track record is one of the worst. In fact, I'll go a step further...the computer industry in general is one of the worst.
as i'm sure it's been said, no professional is going to rely on the laptop screen for their final product. If you want a screen that produces perfect color, you'll have to go with a multi-thousand dollar flat panel or a $500+ CRT. I don't know what professionals use, but I'm sure ultra-thin laptop displays aren't it. I thought they would use CRTs anyway because of their superior color reproduction and contrast, as well as black reproduction.
Besides that, even if it does "trick" the user's eye into seeing millions of colors, it still appears to display millions of colors.
I think these guys are just taking Apple's usual marketing exaggeration the wrong way. And as it's been said, if one isn't satisfied with the color quality of the display, Apple's return policy is fine.
I'm sure the displays used on the Macbook/Pros are exactly the same as the ones used on other laptops.
So wait...you admit that Apple is advertising the MB as having a capability (professional editing) that it doesn't actually have..and yet this is just "exaggerating?"
And speaking of exaggerating, what other companies would you tolerate this from? Can a car manufacturer exaggerate mileage claims? (hmmm..do I recall...?) Can they exaggerate horsepower? How about them advertising a vehicle as having off road capability when it actually doesn't? Or, can a good manufacturer lie about how many calories their product has?
Hey!
I'm far from an Apple Apologist... And I'm the first that calls them out when I feel they've done something wrong. You freaks on the other hand are far worse then I..... You want to crucify Apple for the fact that they use electricity... the same electricity that's used to kill convicted criminals in Texas.
Apple does NOT manufacture their own displays.... **NOR** do they deal in enough volume to dictate the use of shitty components in the manufacture of their displays to the true manufactures of said displays.
Are you living in such a fantasy land as to believe that Apple has input into the components that make up an LCD display? If so, more power to ya...
D
Uhh...yes. I am. Perhaps not the exact components, but with the millions they buy often under exclusive contract, you can bet your ass they know how they are made. Please. And don't tell me they don't buy enough either. I guess they don't buy enough RAM and NAND either.
Shhhh!!! Don't say stuff like this unless you want to get chased out here by the pitchfork and torch wielding fanboys!
Oh, and you forgot to mention the mooing/whining fans (cooling device not the users) and the discolored white Macbooks, two other issues Apple refused to acknowlege until negative publicity forced them to.
Oh and then there's the Mac "laptops" that get so hot you can't actually put them on your lap without wearing firefighter pants. In case that doesn't bother you, keep in mind that heat is the number one cause of component failure, so expect a lot of MBs, MBPs to start dying very soon.
I'm not posting this to troll. Apple makes beautiful products and a superior OS and I and am interested in getting a MB (l'm a long time Windows user). But they really need to be held accountable, something its rabid fanbase refuses to do, no matter how much crap they have to put up with.
True, but to be fair those are separate issues.