6 bit?

[whateverandever]

Well if I put my laptop beside my highend 20" (should be 8 bit) I see no difference between them in color or accuracy.

No offense, but your eyes aren't in tip-top shape then.

I notice a drastic difference between my MBP screen and my 22" Westinghouse LCD in color recreation. Honestly, I can't speak for accuracy as I don't use color charts or anything like that. I could head into my work and try out the color analyzer thing they use on their screens, though

 

[iW00t]

Well if I put my laptop beside my highend 20" (should be 8 bit) I see no difference between them in color or accuracy.

Mind telling us what "high end" 20" monitor you use?

An ACD? Ha!

ACDs are not high end, I repeat, ACDs are not high end.

Really high end monitors like the Lacie has 16 bit LUTs, and even mid range Eizos easily sport 12 bit LUTs, all of which helps with giving you greater grain of accuracy when you need to actually calibrate it. Do ACDs even have contrast controls? Wow, think simple. I have to trust Apple's factory calibration?! Anyway I really cannot imagine the MBP's display being banded together with a "high end" panel, it is just not close. One is a bottom of the barrel TN panel, is Apple telling us that for close to A$4000 they can't even afford a A$200 MVA screen at least? That'd spare us some of the pains with the viewing angles.

 

[Sesshi]

All I can say is that my cheapest Dell (A D520 with the 1400 x 1050 screen) outperforms the 17" matte MBP in colour rendering tests. The MBP does have superior side to side viewing angles though but lags behind in every other respect.

Incidentally the D520 was purchased for almost one-quarter of the price of the MBP - a price which includes the 3-year next day onsite support in contrast to the Macbook 'Pro's "Heck knows when it'll be fixed" Applecare.

 

[whateverandever]

All I can say is that my cheapest Dell (A D520 with the 1400 x 1050 screen) outperforms the 17" matte MBP in colour rendering tests. The MBP does have superior side to side viewing angles though but lags behind in every other respect.

Incidentally the D520 was purchased for almost one-quarter of the price of the MBP - a price which includes the 3-year next day onsite support in contrast to the Macbook 'Pro's "Heck knows when it'll be fixed" Applecare.

Most people that buy laptops aren't going for "best color recreation". Apple (properly) focused their LCDs on having high brightness and low power consumption.

 

[Sesshi]

Apple (properly) focused their LCDs on having high brightness and low power consumption.

Where did you get this information?

 

[whateverandever]

Where did you get this information?

See: Apple product announcements

 

[Abstract]

Truly a piece of ****, I am blessed with this screen. It has narrow viewing angles, lousy colour, and grainy to boot.

Which monitor were you referring to, the old 15.4" MBP display or the new one? Does the new one have the grain?

ACDs are not high end, I repeat, ACDs are not high end.

Really high end monitors like the Lacie has 16 bit LUTs, and even mid range Eizos easily sport 12 bit LUTs, all of which helps with giving you greater grain of accuracy when you need to actually calibrate it. Do ACDs even have contrast controls? Wow, think simple. I have to trust Apple's factory calibration?!

Well, ACDs are considered high end because they're colour accurate and stay that way for awhile. There are bad Eizos as well. Apple's displays really aren't bad when compared to what's out there today. They're not at the top, but even Apple knows this and never intend to really replace Eizo's best.

And contrast controls on an LCD? If you're worried about your monitor's accuracy, why not calibrate it with a.......Spyder, GretagMacBeth, or any other screen calibrator? The settings are kept in software and you just calibrate it every month like you should anyway (if you care). So you don't need to trust Apple's factory calibration at all. Just calibrate it properly. Am I missing something here?

 

[Sesshi]

See: Apple product announcements

I guess it's not surprising if you believe everything they tell you. The display on my most expensive MBP (17") is dimmer than on my cheapest Dell. And while Apple may claim a higher battery life, I don't get appreciably any higher when comparing my HP nx9420 against the same MBP.

 

[whateverandever]

I guess it's not surprising if you believe everything they tell you. The display on my most expensive MBP (17") is dimmer than on my cheapest Dell. And while Apple may claim a higher battery life, I don't get appreciably any higher when comparing my HP nx9420 against the same MBP.

Obviously you don't know me very well if you think I'm an Apple fanboy. I'm as anti-Apple support as they come.

And I'm just telling you that is what they're focusing on because that's what they advertise. It's simple common sense. Why would you make a color accurate screen and not advertise it? You wouldn't.

And it's nice if your dell is brighter than your MBP, but that has really nothing to do with what Apple focuses their attention on in choosing a display.

 

[Dave the Great]

The reason laptop LCDs are commonly 6bit is due to the fact that they need to be cheap and thin.

Reducing the color depth allows for faster pixel response time that reduces motion blur on LCDs.

The reason it's less of an issue on desktop LCDs is that they generally have lower resolutions and more space to work in the electronics for faster response times. Consider that you have to buy a 24" widescreen monitor in order to get 1920x1200 res on a desktop monitor. That costs over $600 for the LCD. If they packed a $600 LCD into a 15.4" computer... it would seriously hit the pocket hard.

It's all about cost-effectiveness.

I understand what you are trying to get across, but I don't know if I buy the argument.

A lot of desktop LCD's have both a higher bit rate and faster pixel response time than the MBP's LCD.

And you are comparing a $600 24" 1920x1200 LCD to the MBP 15.4" 1440x900 LCD. You can get a 17" or 19" 1440x900 LCD for $100 - $200 (weren't there sub $100 LCDs for sale the day after Thanksgiving, too?). I would assume Apple could get it for substantially less.

So, I guess I would still like to know what prevents Apple from using a higher end LCD on their Pro models?

bousozoku - That would be 256 K colours, which works out to 262, 144.

I didn't realize that at first, but yes you are right. But, I copied the number directly from the manufacturer's web site.

 

[Sesshi]

Obviously you don't know me very well if you think I'm an Apple fanboy. I'm as anti-Apple support as they come.

And I'm just telling you that is what they're focusing on because that's what they advertise. It's simple common sense. Why would you make a color accurate screen and not advertise it? You wouldn't.

And it's nice if your dell is brighter than your MBP, but that has really nothing to do with what Apple focuses their attention on in choosing a display.

You said the Apple is designed to be brighter and have lower power consumption. I said that is not what I'm getting.

I also said that the colours on the MBP display are less accurate than on the Dell, but that the Apple has the superior side-to-side viewing angle.

You've totally lost me here.

 

[The Stig]

nope - 8-bit

 

[whateverandever]

And you are comparing a $600 24" 1920x1200 LCD to the MBP 15.4" 1440x900 LCD. You can get a 17" or 19" 1440x900 LCD for $100 - $200 (weren't there sub $100 LCDs for sale the day after Thanksgiving, too?). I would assume Apple could get it for substantially less.

Try stuffing a 17" desktop LCD panel into a notebook.
It's apples and oranges.

What I'm saying is that desktop LCDs have the advantage of costing more ($150 for a 1920x1200 notebook LCD panel on eBay vs. $600 for a 1920x1200 desktop LCD on eBay) and the fact that they are larger. That lets them get in faster response times and other nifty things.

And honestly, I really like the MBP 15.4" panel. Being someone who has actually swapped out the panel and used others in the MBP, let me say that the stock one is very nice compared to the Dell screens I've tried. Oh, and the stock panel runs at 67Hz if I remember correctly. That's compared to the normal ~56Hz on the panels I've swapped it with.

 

[whateverandever]

nope - 8-bit

I'm glad you actually read the posts here.

 

[djinn]

I think if we complain a little more about this subject, our LCDs will suddenly become 12bit!!!! Thats what I'm aiming for.

 

[Dave the Great]

Try stuffing a 17" desktop LCD panel into a notebook...
And honestly, I really like the MBP 15.4" panel...

Why couldn't you? Is the panel that much different?

You really like your panel? You must be one of the luck ones without banding, dithering, uneven lighting etc.

Mine is ok - Its a 57, so I have the light bar on the bottom and the dark corners, but at least I don't have the other problems that others have reported.

Regardless, I would still like to know what prevents Apple from using an 8 bit LCD on their Pro models?

Thanks!!

 

[Techguy172]

No offense, but your eyes aren't in tip-top shape then.

I notice a drastic difference between my MBP screen and my 22" Westinghouse LCD in color recreation. Honestly, I can't speak for accuracy as I don't use color charts or anything like that. I could head into my work and try out the color analyzer thing they use on their screens, though

I don't have a MBP I have an XPS Much Higher end screen 1920x1200 resolution A very good screen and no my monitor is not a Apple Cinema Display it's an $850 Dell display with very high color accuracy.

 

[whateverandever]

Why couldn't you? Is the panel that much different?

Yes.

You really like your panel? You must be one of the luck ones without banding, dithering, uneven lighting etc.

Everyone has dithering, but that's a given on laptop displays -- as this whole thread is about that issue. But no, I don't have color banding and my lighting is mostly even.

Regardless, I would still like to know what prevents Apple from using an 8 bit LCD on their Pro models?

Thanks!!

We have yet to see them in existence.

I don't have a MBP I have an XPS Much Higher end screen 1920x1200 resolution A very good screen and no my monitor is not a Apple Cinema Display it's an $850 Dell display with very high color accuracy.

Your XPS display is the same Toshiba/Sharp/Samsung display that is used in all 1920x1200 WUXGA machines. Trust me, I've done my panel shopping. If we're talking 17" panels, then it's a fairly nice screen. If we're talking 15.4", it's not the greatest. Either way, it's not "much higher end". In fact, those panels run around the same price as the 1440x900 displays.

And Dell desktop LCDs are actually quite nice, but they're definitely not pro LCDs.

 

[PDE]

Your XPS display is the same Toshiba/Sharp/Samsung display that is used in all 1920x1200 WUXGA machines. Trust me, I've done my panel shopping. If we're talking 17" panels, then it's a fairly nice screen. If we're talking 15.4", it's not the greatest. Either way, it's not "much higher end". In fact, those panels run around the same price as the 1440x900 displays.

And Dell desktop LCDs are actually quite nice, but they're definitely not pro LCDs.

Can somebody explain to me why my 17" MBP shows severe banding in macos X and none at all in windows or Linux? It's the first time in my laptop history that I'm constantly seeing the 6-bit effect all ove the place. Even simple websites with gradients solid colors look awful. I don't think the dithering is working! Is this a firmware or software issue related to the graphics card?

 

[Techguy172]

Your XPS display is the same Toshiba/Sharp/Samsung display that is used in all 1920x1200 WUXGA machines. Trust me, I've done my panel shopping. If we're talking 17" panels, then it's a fairly nice screen. If we're talking 15.4", it's not the greatest. Either way, it's not "much higher end". In fact, those panels run around the same price as the 1440x900 displays.

And Dell desktop LCDs are actually quite nice, but they're definitely not pro LCDs.

First of all the dell uses a special display no a cheap the computer costs $3000 they must be 8-bit yes it is a 17" and it has all thoose brightness enhancer or whatever. It's not cheap like apple. As for dell' desktop monitor I never said they were pro. There just very nice.

 

[Dave the Great]

Yes.

So, what makes them so different?

Everyone has dithering, but that's a given on laptop displays -- as this whole thread is about that issue. But no, I don't have color banding and my lighting is mostly even.

I misspoke. I meant the grain issue. What model number do you have? After reading the threads discussing the displays on the MBP C2D, it doesn't appear that anyone is blessed with a great display. It looks like I lucked out with the 57 as this is the one with the least problems.

We have yet to see them in existence.

So, you are saying that no one in the world makes an 8 bit? Or just that Apple doesn't use them in their pro models?

 

[PDE]

I looked around at various LCD manufacturers (samsung, CHimei, AUO, LG) and none of them have 8-bit displays for notebooks - they simply don't manufacture them. I'm not sure about sharp, toshiba and sony, but I'd be surprised if they did given that the only way the others could stay in the game would be to keep up with the trend. It's obvious that the trend is toward brighter displays with faster response time, rather than better color, viewing angles.

I'm also curious if there are any 8 bit laptop displays out there.....you'd think there should be. I would not have been bothered by my MBP 17" display it were capable of at least smooth gradients - it's awful to see banding all over the place.

 

[aristobrat]

First of all the dell uses a special display no a cheap the computer costs $3000 they must be 8-bit

Wait a minute.

Do you know for a fact that the Dell LCD is actually 8-bit, or are you guessing that because the notebook cost $3000 that it should be 8-bit?

 

[whateverandever]

So, what makes them so different?

Different connectors, for one. They're also thicker.

So, you are saying that no one in the world makes an 8 bit? Or just that Apple doesn't use them in their pro models?

From what we can tell, no one makes them.

First of all the dell uses a special display no a cheap the computer costs $3000 they must be 8-bit yes it is a 17" and it has all thoose brightness enhancer or whatever. It's not cheap like apple. As for dell' desktop monitor I never said they were pro. There just very nice.

No, dell does not use a special display. You were just fooled into paying $3000 for a machine that neither looks nice nor outperforms similarly specced machines.

Dell uses the same Samsung, LG, Sharp, and Toshiba LCDs that everyone else does. The "brightness enhancer" you're referring to is probably XBrite or UltraSharp or whatever Dell is calling their anti-reflective covering. It's the same as Apple's "glossy" screen.

And Apple is far from cheap, hah. $2000 in my book isn't cheap.

 

[Sesshi]

Higher resolution, better support, higher performance due to better GPU / CPU and moreover the cooling performance to make that usable. The XPS M1710 excels in every area the MBP falls flat on it's face. I actually use it as one of my main business luggables despite it's gaming moniker. It certainly gets more carry time than the MBP despite the higher weight, because it's more useful to me.

That screen also exhibits better colour rendering than my glossy MBP. It's not perfect and I think I might not have the best available of this breed - I think I might have seen better on an HP nw9440 - but it is better than the MBP. I do fully acknowledge that on Dells it may not be a consistent screen from example to example - but the same seems to be the case on the MBP's.

The MBP is of course as handsome as the XPS is ugly - but to me the premium of my 7600G M1710 (running at the stock 2.5Ghz) is worth it over the MBP because it is about as fast as a transportable can get, yet is fully usable. Run the Macbook Pro CPU and GPU in the same way and you will be able to cook sausages on it, while still not measuring up to the M1710 - and that to a large extent defeats the object of a 'desktop replacement'.

The Macbook Pro looks the best and is the thinnest in its class. It also has Firewire 800, optical IO and the innovative Magsafe. It runs OS X which is a debatable point of superiority. But this is where the superiority ends.

Never mind the comparison between the XPS and the glossy MBP, it's the comparison between my lowest-end D520 and the matte MBP that is irritating to say the least. The screen of both the matte and glossy MBP's is median at best, and perhaps the myth about everyone else getting Apple's rejects is no longer true - who knows, it may even now be working in reverse. At least, that's how it looks to me.