I read that Mini LED also doesn't have the best response time. Will it be potentially better than this?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
16" MacBook Pro ghosting / smearing...
- Thread starter StONE_ROdGEr
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Mini LED isn't a tech like OLED, it's a solution to more even and better controlling of the backlighting. It will still use LCD panels like we have today, but with far more arrays and zones to control the lighting. If we had Mini LEDs in the current Macbook with the same LCD panel, response times would not change at all.
MicroLED on the other hand, is an entire different technology that replaces the LCD panel.
Got my 16" three days ago and upgrading from the maxed out late 2013 15". I understand that some are more and some less sensitive to the issues. If I hadn't read about this, I surely wouldn't have noticed anything and it doesn't bother me at all.
When scrolling text, I don't notice anything that bothers me, even when looking for the issue.
Here is a comparison of the ufo test filmed with iPhone slow motion:
late 13 15":
16":
Both have some ghosting but the 16" has clearly more.
Now that I am used to the 16", the 15" seems a bit glossy and the image and text not as crisp to me, so in actually use, I definitely prefer the 16".
It is definetely worse in dark mode too. I wonder what the differences are between 16 and 15 inch are in this case.
Yeah, luckily I prefer light mode.
Could this be an issue in watching movies?
Could this be an issue in watching movies?
Movies play at 24fps should be more than fine mate, I have been watching Irishman and haven't had any issue at all
There seem to be a lot of different opinions going around on wether there is ghosting/smearing or not as compared to previous MBPs. I own both the first MPB retina (15 inch - 2012) and the most recent MBP (16 inch - 2019) as well as an iPad mini 4. I use the MacBooks primarily for reviewing texts and surfing the web. I tried to compare both retina displays and for me it comes down to this.
- Sharpness: not much difference between the 2012 retina and 2019 retina screen. Both screens are very sharp and no individual pixels can be observed.
- Colour: the 2012 retina seems to have a whiter white if you put it next to the 2019 retina which is definitely more yellow. As far as I understood from earlier comments and other threads the 2019 screen should be more colour accurate and therefore the white should now be the correct white. I still like the white from the 2012 screen but I can get used to the 2019 screen as well.
- Brightness: if you set the brightness of both displays to the same level (75%) to the eye it looks like the 2012 screen is brighter. I think this is closely linked to the fact that the 2012 screen is cooler and so the whites seem brighter. However if I put both laptops at 100% brightness with a full white screen the 2019 screen looks to shine the brightest. Again the 2019 screen can be adjusted so it looks bright enough although I need to bump up the brightness level a bit more to achieve the same result as the 2012 screen (note that I switched off True Tone and auto adjustment of brightness).
- Text smearing: when scrolling through text or reading text on webpages here the difference between the 2012 panel and the 2019 is easily observable even for the untrained eye. Although scrolling though text is smoother in the newer MBP (more fluent scrolling) the text smearing is quite bad. On the 2012 retina there is virtually none observable text smearing and text colors (black text on a white background or white text on a black background) remain consistent (black stays black, white stays white). On the 2019 retina however, it becomes apparent that response times are worse than 7 years ago. You can clearly see the text becomes (very) blurry, even when slowly scrolling through the text. Also colours tend to shift (black becomes greenish/blue) while scrolling. I think that all or most 'complainers' observe the same but a lot of people seem to think that this is normal because it seems to be that way since the 2015-2016 MBP retina screens. For me it was quite disappointing to see that on this point the screen is a big step backwards. I also checked the iPad mini 4 and as for text smearing it's on par with the 2012 retina (virtually none observable text smearing).
So in conclusion, I don't think people are complaining just for the sake of complaining. How can in it be that screen response times using the latest technologies is worse if you compare it to the first retina screen (even the iPad mini 4 performs better)?
- Sharpness: not much difference between the 2012 retina and 2019 retina screen. Both screens are very sharp and no individual pixels can be observed.
- Colour: the 2012 retina seems to have a whiter white if you put it next to the 2019 retina which is definitely more yellow. As far as I understood from earlier comments and other threads the 2019 screen should be more colour accurate and therefore the white should now be the correct white. I still like the white from the 2012 screen but I can get used to the 2019 screen as well.
- Brightness: if you set the brightness of both displays to the same level (75%) to the eye it looks like the 2012 screen is brighter. I think this is closely linked to the fact that the 2012 screen is cooler and so the whites seem brighter. However if I put both laptops at 100% brightness with a full white screen the 2019 screen looks to shine the brightest. Again the 2019 screen can be adjusted so it looks bright enough although I need to bump up the brightness level a bit more to achieve the same result as the 2012 screen (note that I switched off True Tone and auto adjustment of brightness).
- Text smearing: when scrolling through text or reading text on webpages here the difference between the 2012 panel and the 2019 is easily observable even for the untrained eye. Although scrolling though text is smoother in the newer MBP (more fluent scrolling) the text smearing is quite bad. On the 2012 retina there is virtually none observable text smearing and text colors (black text on a white background or white text on a black background) remain consistent (black stays black, white stays white). On the 2019 retina however, it becomes apparent that response times are worse than 7 years ago. You can clearly see the text becomes (very) blurry, even when slowly scrolling through the text. Also colours tend to shift (black becomes greenish/blue) while scrolling. I think that all or most 'complainers' observe the same but a lot of people seem to think that this is normal because it seems to be that way since the 2015-2016 MBP retina screens. For me it was quite disappointing to see that on this point the screen is a big step backwards. I also checked the iPad mini 4 and as for text smearing it's on par with the 2012 retina (virtually none observable text smearing).
So in conclusion, I don't think people are complaining just for the sake of complaining. How can in it be that screen response times using the latest technologies is worse if you compare it to the first retina screen (even the iPad mini 4 performs better)?
Back in 2013/2014 I had a Datacolor cailbration Spyder Pro and I calibrated a lot friends & colleagues MacBook Pro screens and afterwards I always compared before and after. What they all had in common was that before calibration they were way too blue. Many people are used to and like the bluish look but what you see as yellow is really more accurate.
@MacMaze Great points and summary there..
I hate to be the cynical one here, but it is possible the bean counter mentality led them to some cut a corner on what they chose for the displays?
On the opposite side of cynical...
Is it about the changeable panel refresh rate stuff we’ve heard about and apparently is there in settings?
Perhaps this panel choice falls shorts in some ways while allowing for other benefits (like the refresh rate optionality)?
I just don’t get it.
These laptops are in *no* way inexpensive and I haven’t yet used one that didn’t immediately irritate me with the text/scrolling/lag/smearing..
It made me no longer interested in buying one —- this after YEARS of waiting for the keyboard fix.
Just the ultimate buzzkill. The only thing as important to me as the keyboard would be the screen. They finally fixed one thing but then screwed up the other.
I hate to be the cynical one here, but it is possible the bean counter mentality led them to some cut a corner on what they chose for the displays?
On the opposite side of cynical...
Is it about the changeable panel refresh rate stuff we’ve heard about and apparently is there in settings?
Perhaps this panel choice falls shorts in some ways while allowing for other benefits (like the refresh rate optionality)?
I just don’t get it.
These laptops are in *no* way inexpensive and I haven’t yet used one that didn’t immediately irritate me with the text/scrolling/lag/smearing..
It made me no longer interested in buying one —- this after YEARS of waiting for the keyboard fix.
Just the ultimate buzzkill. The only thing as important to me as the keyboard would be the screen. They finally fixed one thing but then screwed up the other.
I've purchased MBP 16" for my main personal computer.
The highend original configuration is the one I bought.
Since I own several screens to compare, I did some testing to see if I can see the difference in MBP 16". I captured the usual UFO test page with 240 slowmotion camera on iphone, and made GIF out of the video.
Below are the result:
MBP 16"
View attachment MBP_2019_16.gif
MBP 13"
View attachment MBP_2019_13.gif
and LG 27UD99 4k UHD Monitor 27"
View attachment 27UD99_4K.gif
So obviously the external monitor offers the best response, but comparing to 2019 13" MBP, my 16" seems almost the same.
The highend original configuration is the one I bought.
Since I own several screens to compare, I did some testing to see if I can see the difference in MBP 16". I captured the usual UFO test page with 240 slowmotion camera on iphone, and made GIF out of the video.
Below are the result:
MBP 16"
View attachment MBP_2019_16.gif
MBP 13"
View attachment MBP_2019_13.gif
and LG 27UD99 4k UHD Monitor 27"
View attachment 27UD99_4K.gif
So obviously the external monitor offers the best response, but comparing to 2019 13" MBP, my 16" seems almost the same.
Last edited:
48 Hz would enable 24 fps video playback without pulldown and the resulting motion artifacts. Perhaps useful for video editing. I can spot the motion artifacts on 60 Hz displays and it annoys me.
Also, it saves power during full-screen video. For example, last night I unplugged my laptop at 100% battery and watched stuff on the Apple TV App for an hour and a half, while occasionally checking mail and other sites/reading articles on Firefox. When I finally shut down for the night my battery was at 94%. Quite incredible.
Also, it saves power during full-screen video. For example, last night I unplugged my laptop at 100% battery and watched stuff on the Apple TV App for an hour and a half, while occasionally checking mail and other sites/reading articles on Firefox. When I finally shut down for the night my battery was at 94%. Quite incredible.
Since I also own Lenovo Thinkpad P1 Gen2, I did the same test on P1.
Lenovo Thinkpad P1 Gen2 with 4k Screen
View attachment Thinkpad_P1_Gen2.gif
By the way, all the test were done while in 60hz.
So obviously, either my MBP 16" is a good one or all laptop screens are about the same. Although somewhat difficult to see, I think P1 is the worst.
I was rather amazed by the response time of my external.
Lenovo Thinkpad P1 Gen2 with 4k Screen
View attachment Thinkpad_P1_Gen2.gif
By the way, all the test were done while in 60hz.
So obviously, either my MBP 16" is a good one or all laptop screens are about the same. Although somewhat difficult to see, I think P1 is the worst.
I was rather amazed by the response time of my external.
Mine is the LP160WT1-SJA3
So it seems true that the SJA4 is considerably better, the difference in the ufo test is quite visible.
So it seems true that the SJA4 is considerably better, the difference in the ufo test is quite visible.
I don't see much of a difference based on the images posted here.
The way it's captured seems different. So I'm not sure if both can be compared. However, the alien on that UFO seems almost a whole as entirely separate alien in trailing image. I'm not sure if it's really different or else resulting from different way of capturing stuff.
It'd be really intresting to see the video captured in the same way for SJA1.
I just made some new comparison shots in order to have more similar shots:
late 2013 15":
View attachment ezgif-7-6864ba819ec5.gif
16" SJA3:
View attachment ezgif-7-b9f89a4fa1fe.gif
16" SJA4:
View attachment MBP_2019_16.gif
Side by side comparison, in the same order as above:
imgur
late 2013 15":
View attachment ezgif-7-6864ba819ec5.gif
16" SJA3:
View attachment ezgif-7-b9f89a4fa1fe.gif
16" SJA4:
View attachment MBP_2019_16.gif
Side by side comparison, in the same order as above:
imgur
Last edited:
Well. To me, they all look same.
Yeah, I was thinking the same, maybe slightly less on the 2013 15" but SJA3 and SJA4 look the same to me.
[automerge]1577823523[/automerge]
If anyone has a SJA1 and can post the same screenshot that would maybe end all speculation. You can quickly turn the video into a gif here: https://ezgif.com/maker and attach the gif here directly.
[automerge]1577823523[/automerge]
If anyone has a SJA1 and can post the same screenshot that would maybe end all speculation. You can quickly turn the video into a gif here: https://ezgif.com/maker and attach the gif here directly.
Last edited: