Are the colours not an integral part of the picture?
Yes they are. By enhancing the colours artificially using a glossy screen you get a picture that looks more appealing which is the only thing Apple claims in that page. It never states that both screens produce the same picture quality.
Honestly, I say the Mac community needs to make plenty of noise about the ever cheapening of the Mac. It's the only way we can force the company to make the products better.
Yeah, the Mac is getting cheaper so the quality of the product is going to become cheaper. Its a sad consequence but if Apple dont drop their price when they change to Intel, normal home users will never buy Macs cause they dont see the value of a well build Mac (If they use PPC, people will assume its PPC which is causing the price of Macs to be expensive). Normal home people are buying iMacs now so professional should not get the lowest end Mac anymore since its catered for home users.
Im not blaming anybody but it would be nice if Apple could fit some proper displays into all their iMac line, besides, electronic parts price are dropping like water, it would not hurt Apple to invest in some quality displays. Thank god I will be doing my photography on a MBP.
Just a thought....Apple now has 150 stores. A very significant chunk of the market has ready access to walk in and directly look at the screens. Last time I looked the display on an iMac is not a hidden item. If you look at it and are satisfied with the picture and you choose to buy the product, I don't think you have much ground to sue.
That would be like strolling into the car dealership, picking out the "ocean mist" colored model and suing because it really didn't look like ocean mist at all.....
Still, I would like Apple to be more revealing in their specs.
Thank god I will be doing my photography on a MBP.
With an external monitor presumably? The MBP screens are also TN panels (like all other laptops). If anyone knows of any laptop that doesn't use TN or something worse, I'd be interested to hear about it.
Ah, sorry, that's the one I thought we were talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
Is anyone here brazen enough to try and argue it wouldn't be clearer if Apple just stated straight-up that one panel is TN and the other IPS?
That would be completely meaningless on the info page without a friendly FAQ to explain the differences between the two screens -which are already documented on the specifications page.
What seems reasonable to me is to have an extra couple of lines on the spec page with something like:
24" - 16.7 million colors, S-IPS 8-bits per color channel
20" - 16.7 million colors, TN 6-bits per color channel with H-FRC enhancement
It's enough for those that care to look up the difference, and for most users to see they get the same number of colours, although the 24" "seems better".
That would be completely meaningless on the info page without a friendly FAQ to explain the differences between the two screens
Indeed. But there's nothing wrong with a friendly FAQ. Better to be truthful with and educate your customers than try to obfuscate things with blurb implying the screens are the same whilst the specs contradict it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by datamodel
which are already documented on the specifications page.
Except arguably the most important difference, TN vs. IPS, is left out of the specs. page and only those really clued-up will realise that the lower viewing-angle of the 20" hints that the panel might be TN - it doesn't gaurantee it and most people would not think to further research the issue off Apple's site.
Simply stating TN panel for 20" and IPS panel for 24" in addition to the currently provided specs. is unequivocal; if folk don't know what the heck that means they can google/wiki those terms and educate themselves, and it'd be even better if Apple themselves provided the aforementioned "FAQ".
Quote:
Originally Posted by datamodel
What seems reasonable to me is to have an extra couple of lines on the spec page with something like:
24" - 16.7 million colors, S-IPS 8-bits per color channel
20" - 16.7 million colors, TN 6-bits per color channel with H-FRC enhancement
Agreed. I think however this should be coupled with having separate text for the 20" and 24" model on the display information page. The 20" page could talk-up response time and the 24" page colour accuracy. Or something.
If I was in the market for an iMac, the difference in quality between the two models' displays would possibly sway me to buy the 24-inch instead. More money in Apple's coffers... Win win!
Yes they are. By enhancing the colours artificially using a glossy screen you get a picture that looks more appealing which is the only thing Apple claims in that page. It never states that both screens produce the same picture quality.
All it does is change what happens to the incident light. A matte screen would appear to wash out the contrast because it's catching all the diffuse light.
On the iMac, I don't think it makes much difference because it's the worst of both worlds, you have the glossy face covering a screen that has a matte surface.
Both treatments are artificial, most LCDs have one or the other, it is just that one treatment has a different effect than another. I wish LCDs used the reflection reduction coatings like what's on my CRTs, it's better than the standard gloss and better than the textured matte surface. The main downside is that it alters the colors of the reflections a bit (if you saw your reflections, it would be a bit green or blue), but the reflections are significantly reduced.
Technically, no consumer display has more than 3 colors, with 255 shades of each. If shades are considered "colors", then 8-bit displays still only have the ability to display 255*3+1 colors, 766 colors. The +1 color is black.
Yes, 8-bit displays are actually 766 color displays by the reasoning of this lawsuit. All the rest of the colors are only achieved by perceptual trickery. Adjacent display elements, when small enough in size, are perceived as one. Temporal dithering is another trick to achieve "millions of colors".
I agree that apple's marketing was a bit misleading. But it is important to also realize that no lcd display is actually doing "millions of colors". The millions of colors thing has always relied on the trickery of the human brain. Apple's marketing material stuck to this philosophy but also applied it to newer display technologies. Hence the confusion.
Apparently some people feel that temporal dithering shouldn't figure into the advertised color-count, despite the fact that spatial dithering has always been. The only solution I see is to no longer advertise soley the number of colors. This spec should be accompanied by the bit-count per display element, and the types of dithering used.
I'm for the more specific advertising. But I'm also unsure if it would result in more or less consumer confusion. Though at least us geeks would have the info we need to make informed purchases.
Edit:
(If you want to really cook your own noodle, try to wrap your head around this. How does one properly describe the color-count for DLP devices with color wheels? They have no sub-pixels. Does that mean they actually have "millions of colors" while LCD displays don't? But yet, all DLP devices rely on temporal dithering. They trade spatial dithering for temporal dithering.
The color-count thing is anything but clearly defined.)
That would only be possible if each pixel had its own backlight. As it stands, currently LCDs have one single backlight that stays lit all the time, "black" is achieved by "turning down" each sub-pixel to the minimum level.
Liquid crystals work by "twisting" light from one orthogonal polarisation to another - unpolarised light from the backlight is horizontally polarised, passed through the liquid crystal, and then passed through a vertical polariser. The liquid crystals "twist" the light from horizontal polarisation; the more it twists, the larger the vertical component of the light becomes and therefore the higher the intensity of light emitted from the vertical polariser (front of the screen) becomes.
Ideally, at level "0", the liquid crystal should be fully "untwisted", so the light stays horizontally polarised and is blocked by the vertical polariser (resulting in black). Unfortunately the liquid crystal cannot completely untwist, light therefore is still emitted and there is no true "black".
How many computer purchasers are going to do that? How many are even going to think of doing that?
yeah "widespread" amongst all us Apple geeks here. Certainly not widespread amongst the rest of the world's computer-buying population. Indeed, there is plenty of evidence in this thread that even this story's "revelation" of the 20" being TN was news to some people, despite it quickly following previous stories about the iMac's LCD panels.
No, the specifications page show that. The information page clearly implies both screens deliver equal-quality images; they do not. It is simple - Apple's information page is misleading. Is anyone here brazen enough to try and argue it wouldn't be clearer if Apple just stated straight-up that one panel is TN and the other IPS?
The iMac 24" is an H-IPS panel. It's a little cheaper than the S-IPS, but sound quality.
what exactly are we saying , i really want an imac. Is the screen not good at all ? ... i've been watching youtube reviews and everyones is like " the screen is amazing" . So i guess i wont know how good/bad it is until i see one is person.
Unfortunately the liquid crystal cannot completely untwist, light therefore is still emitted and there is no true "black".
While we're on the topic... The lack of true black isn't limited to just LCD displays. No human will ever see true black. So what's the point again?
Oh yeah, If assuming sub-pixel values of zero aren't true black, then I suppose 8-bit 3-element lcd displays are actually capable of 768 colors. Come to think of it, I agree with your correction. (Scratch my previous assertion of 255*3+1 colors)
what exactly are we saying , i really want an imac. Is the screen not good at all ? ... i've been watching youtube reviews and everyones is like " the screen is amazing" . So i guess i wont know how good/bad it is until i see one is person.
Color perception is far from predictable for individual people. Some people actually prefer the 6-bit displays because of the quicker pixel response time. I suppose it depends on whether you're more perceptive of spatial or temporal dithering.
what exactly are we saying , i really want an imac. Is the screen not good at all ? ... i've been watching youtube reviews and everyones is like " the screen is amazing" . So i guess i wont know how good/bad it is until i see one is person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler
Color perception is far from predictable for individual people. Some people actually prefer the 6-bit displays because of the quicker pixel response time. I suppose it depends on whether you're more perceptive of spatial or temporal dithering.
Indeed. In other words, Cartman, make your way to an Apple store near you and check out the screen with a variety of still and moving images. No one apart from you knows how you perceive the screen. If you think it looks good/acceptable-for-the-money/the-best-thing-you've-ever-seen/whatever, that's all that matters.
what exactly are we saying , i really want an imac. Is the screen not good at all ? ... i've been watching youtube reviews and everyones is like " the screen is amazing" . So i guess i wont know how good/bad it is until i see one is person.
The screens are very nice. It's that 1% Pre-press/National Geographic/Playboy Magazine photographer wanting to save $700 - $1500 and not buy the cinema display that are bitching the 20in miraculously doesn't have the same color quality as the Cinema Displays of equivalent screen size.
Ya well , i live in nova scotia canada. theirs no apple stores here :P .. i'm planning on getting an imac from the apple website. the screen seems to be fine for me. i like to edit photos for fun , but nothing professional. Also, what is with everyone sewing apple over the stupidest things. ?
Color perception is far from predictable for individual people. Some people actually prefer the 6-bit displays because of the quicker pixel response time. I suppose it depends on whether you're more perceptive of spatial or temporal dithering.
That and what you're doing with the display. If you're playing games then the faster response time of a TN panel results in less motion artifacts.
Watching movies or video with motion blur or doing work then a slower panel is fine.
Comments
Pray tell, how is that text not talking about the picture quality of the display?
The fact that a glossy display enhances the colours has nothing to do with the quality of the picture.
The fact that a glossy display enhances the colours has nothing to do with the quality of the picture.
Are the colours not an integral part of the picture?
I think you must be pulling my leg. This is some sort of April fools joke isn't it?
Are the colours not an integral part of the picture?
Yes they are. By enhancing the colours artificially using a glossy screen you get a picture that looks more appealing which is the only thing Apple claims in that page. It never states that both screens produce the same picture quality.
Honestly, I say the Mac community needs to make plenty of noise about the ever cheapening of the Mac. It's the only way we can force the company to make the products better.
Yeah, the Mac is getting cheaper so the quality of the product is going to become cheaper. Its a sad consequence but if Apple dont drop their price when they change to Intel, normal home users will never buy Macs cause they dont see the value of a well build Mac (If they use PPC, people will assume its PPC which is causing the price of Macs to be expensive). Normal home people are buying iMacs now so professional should not get the lowest end Mac anymore since its catered for home users.
Im not blaming anybody but it would be nice if Apple could fit some proper displays into all their iMac line, besides, electronic parts price are dropping like water, it would not hurt Apple to invest in some quality displays. Thank god I will be doing my photography on a MBP.
That would be like strolling into the car dealership, picking out the "ocean mist" colored model and suing because it really didn't look like ocean mist at all.....
Still, I would like Apple to be more revealing in their specs.
Thank god I will be doing my photography on a MBP.
No, the specifications page show that.
Ah, sorry, that's the one I thought we were talking about.
Is anyone here brazen enough to try and argue it wouldn't be clearer if Apple just stated straight-up that one panel is TN and the other IPS?
That would be completely meaningless on the info page without a friendly FAQ to explain the differences between the two screens -which are already documented on the specifications page.
What seems reasonable to me is to have an extra couple of lines on the spec page with something like:
24" - 16.7 million colors, S-IPS 8-bits per color channel
20" - 16.7 million colors, TN 6-bits per color channel with H-FRC enhancement
It's enough for those that care to look up the difference, and for most users to see they get the same number of colours, although the 24" "seems better".
Cheers,
Martin.
That would be completely meaningless on the info page without a friendly FAQ to explain the differences between the two screens
Indeed. But there's nothing wrong with a friendly FAQ. Better to be truthful with and educate your customers than try to obfuscate things with blurb implying the screens are the same whilst the specs contradict it.
which are already documented on the specifications page.
Except arguably the most important difference, TN vs. IPS, is left out of the specs. page and only those really clued-up will realise that the lower viewing-angle of the 20" hints that the panel might be TN - it doesn't gaurantee it and most people would not think to further research the issue off Apple's site.
Simply stating TN panel for 20" and IPS panel for 24" in addition to the currently provided specs. is unequivocal; if folk don't know what the heck that means they can google/wiki those terms and educate themselves, and it'd be even better if Apple themselves provided the aforementioned "FAQ".
What seems reasonable to me is to have an extra couple of lines on the spec page with something like:
24" - 16.7 million colors, S-IPS 8-bits per color channel
20" - 16.7 million colors, TN 6-bits per color channel with H-FRC enhancement
Agreed. I think however this should be coupled with having separate text for the 20" and 24" model on the display information page. The 20" page could talk-up response time and the 24" page colour accuracy. Or something.
If I was in the market for an iMac, the difference in quality between the two models' displays would possibly sway me to buy the 24-inch instead. More money in Apple's coffers... Win win!
Yes they are. By enhancing the colours artificially using a glossy screen you get a picture that looks more appealing which is the only thing Apple claims in that page. It never states that both screens produce the same picture quality.
All it does is change what happens to the incident light. A matte screen would appear to wash out the contrast because it's catching all the diffuse light.
On the iMac, I don't think it makes much difference because it's the worst of both worlds, you have the glossy face covering a screen that has a matte surface.
Both treatments are artificial, most LCDs have one or the other, it is just that one treatment has a different effect than another. I wish LCDs used the reflection reduction coatings like what's on my CRTs, it's better than the standard gloss and better than the textured matte surface. The main downside is that it alters the colors of the reflections a bit (if you saw your reflections, it would be a bit green or blue), but the reflections are significantly reduced.
Yes, 8-bit displays are actually 766 color displays by the reasoning of this lawsuit. All the rest of the colors are only achieved by perceptual trickery. Adjacent display elements, when small enough in size, are perceived as one. Temporal dithering is another trick to achieve "millions of colors".
I agree that apple's marketing was a bit misleading. But it is important to also realize that no lcd display is actually doing "millions of colors". The millions of colors thing has always relied on the trickery of the human brain. Apple's marketing material stuck to this philosophy but also applied it to newer display technologies. Hence the confusion.
Apparently some people feel that temporal dithering shouldn't figure into the advertised color-count, despite the fact that spatial dithering has always been. The only solution I see is to no longer advertise soley the number of colors. This spec should be accompanied by the bit-count per display element, and the types of dithering used.
I'm for the more specific advertising. But I'm also unsure if it would result in more or less consumer confusion. Though at least us geeks would have the info we need to make informed purchases.
Edit:
(If you want to really cook your own noodle, try to wrap your head around this. How does one properly describe the color-count for DLP devices with color wheels? They have no sub-pixels. Does that mean they actually have "millions of colors" while LCD displays don't? But yet, all DLP devices rely on temporal dithering. They trade spatial dithering for temporal dithering.
The color-count thing is anything but clearly defined.)
The +1 color is black.
That would only be possible if each pixel had its own backlight. As it stands, currently LCDs have one single backlight that stays lit all the time, "black" is achieved by "turning down" each sub-pixel to the minimum level.
Liquid crystals work by "twisting" light from one orthogonal polarisation to another - unpolarised light from the backlight is horizontally polarised, passed through the liquid crystal, and then passed through a vertical polariser. The liquid crystals "twist" the light from horizontal polarisation; the more it twists, the larger the vertical component of the light becomes and therefore the higher the intensity of light emitted from the vertical polariser (front of the screen) becomes.
Ideally, at level "0", the liquid crystal should be fully "untwisted", so the light stays horizontally polarised and is blocked by the vertical polariser (resulting in black). Unfortunately the liquid crystal cannot completely untwist, light therefore is still emitted and there is no true "black".
How many computer purchasers are going to do that? How many are even going to think of doing that?
No, the specifications page show that. The information page clearly implies both screens deliver equal-quality images; they do not. It is simple - Apple's information page is misleading. Is anyone here brazen enough to try and argue it wouldn't be clearer if Apple just stated straight-up that one panel is TN and the other IPS?
The iMac 24" is an H-IPS panel. It's a little cheaper than the S-IPS, but sound quality.
Unfortunately the liquid crystal cannot completely untwist, light therefore is still emitted and there is no true "black".
While we're on the topic... The lack of true black isn't limited to just LCD displays. No human will ever see true black. So what's the point again?
Oh yeah, If assuming sub-pixel values of zero aren't true black, then I suppose 8-bit 3-element lcd displays are actually capable of 768 colors. Come to think of it, I agree with your correction.
what exactly are we saying , i really want an imac. Is the screen not good at all ? ... i've been watching youtube reviews and everyones is like " the screen is amazing" . So i guess i wont know how good/bad it is until i see one is person.
Color perception is far from predictable for individual people. Some people actually prefer the 6-bit displays because of the quicker pixel response time. I suppose it depends on whether you're more perceptive of spatial or temporal dithering.
what exactly are we saying , i really want an imac. Is the screen not good at all ? ... i've been watching youtube reviews and everyones is like " the screen is amazing" . So i guess i wont know how good/bad it is until i see one is person.
Color perception is far from predictable for individual people. Some people actually prefer the 6-bit displays because of the quicker pixel response time. I suppose it depends on whether you're more perceptive of spatial or temporal dithering.
Indeed. In other words, Cartman, make your way to an Apple store near you and check out the screen with a variety of still and moving images. No one apart from you knows how you perceive the screen. If you think it looks good/acceptable-for-the-money/the-best-thing-you've-ever-seen/whatever, that's all that matters.
what exactly are we saying , i really want an imac. Is the screen not good at all ? ... i've been watching youtube reviews and everyones is like " the screen is amazing" . So i guess i wont know how good/bad it is until i see one is person.
The screens are very nice. It's that 1% Pre-press/National Geographic/Playboy Magazine photographer wanting to save $700 - $1500 and not buy the cinema display that are bitching the 20in miraculously doesn't have the same color quality as the Cinema Displays of equivalent screen size.
Color perception is far from predictable for individual people. Some people actually prefer the 6-bit displays because of the quicker pixel response time. I suppose it depends on whether you're more perceptive of spatial or temporal dithering.
That and what you're doing with the display. If you're playing games then the faster response time of a TN panel results in less motion artifacts.
Watching movies or video with motion blur or doing work then a slower panel is fine.