Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

9C60 unveiled.

iW00t said:
Bzzt, wrong answer.

Not having that 8 bit is no excuse for graininess, poor viewing angles, AND poor colour saturation. Best available? On what merit? It has no redeeming quality.

Oh yeah, maybe "best price".
Click to expand...

Go find a better panel. Seriously.

Before you speak, you should at least do a bit of research. Remember that apple also has a resolution requirement, so that nixes a good portion of the other panels (1920x1200 etc.) Beyond that, there are still NO good alternatives to the screens we are using. I have tried laptops from just about every vendor you can think of, and believe me, apple's choice is 999999999.984 times better (measured) than the screens used on toshiba laptops. My thinkpad monitor is "ok" but not as good as the apple. The dell I have is nice, but hard to compare since the resoluton is higher. I like the glossy on my c2d much better though and it is a BRICK. Can't stand to carry the dell around where I forget I even have my apple and charger in a bag on my back.

True, what we have isn't a real "pro" screen, but then again there are no "pro" screens available today in the resolutions and sizes used by apple for laptops.

Let me repeat that, there are NO better screens available, today, in the RESOLUTIONS and SIZES used by apple. None. Nada. Zip...

Leopard will solve the resolution issue, so all we can do is hope that the manufacturers will release better monitors. BTW, the currently available 1920x1200 (15.4) screens are ALL 6 bit, which is the only reason I haven't gone through with a 1920 upgrade at this point.

You cannot get rid of the banding until we get beyond the 6bit issue. Some will minimize it a bit better than others as there is variation from lcd to lcd in color reproduction. What I am not saying is that we have "great screens," only that what we have are the best currently available.

If there were no cars other than Suzuki Sidekicks, it would be the best available. Doesn't mean that the sidekick isn't one of the worst vehicles ever created, ever. Just means it would be the best available.
 
tarjan said:
Let me repeat that, there are NO better screens available, today, in the RESOLUTIONS and SIZES used by apple. None. Nada. Zip...
Click to expand...

How convenient. So they just shot themselves in their foot in their choice of this resolution then.

Just because Apple decided to use this resolution does not mean there are NO better screens available. Your logic is that because of Apple's design requirement they had to put in this piss poor screen. My argument is simply it is a flawed design requirement to start with.

I don't give a damned about the banding and 6 bits screens generally, these are laptop screens after all. But the graininess? Right now I am typing on a Macbook, and the screen is so much brighter and clearer than my 15" MBP (which is conveniently in a service centre) that it is just not funny.
 
Tarjan - I believe you. But - there are issues with macbookPro screens which are related more to the crappy build quality more than panels itself - like this horrible antiglare coating or the uneven backlight.

One thing is sure - Apple should post specs of the panels - its not fair that users have to discover themselfs what hardware they using. And then - do you rememeber Apple description? Everything is illuminated? Millions of colors?? Why they were bulshitting us?
 
Alright,

I'm in a futureshop store, checking out a MBP 15" and the screen is fine.

It's a 9c57...was this made b4 the 9c60 and 61? I dunno, but I loaded the gradient and it was smooth as hell!
 
whosgotsoul said:
Alright,

I'm in a futureshop store, checking out a MBP 15" and the screen is fine.

It's a 9c57...was this made b4 the 9c60 and 61? I dunno, but I loaded the gradient and it was smooth as hell!
Click to expand...

The 9c57 is 1 1440x900 screen that is currently being used in the 17 inch iMac model. Yes, it is better, especially in the iMac. I don't know if the current batch of 15" MBPs use it.

Tarjan, I'm not sure if what you say is correct about 1680x1050 screens. I will have to check into this. But if it is the best of the batch at this resolution, it's not a good choice. Go WUXGA if you have to...

But as others have said part of the problem is build quality as well. Apple installs these screens and are not consistent in ensuring even backlighting and lack of dark splotches. To be fair, it is very hard to do it right, and most laptop vendors have a hard time with it. However, look at Sony and especilly Fujitsu screens and you will see much better engineering and better looking screens.

Apple has taken a mediocre set of screens and have engineered them into their laptops poorly or at least inconsistently. Perhaps they have made their job difficult by trying to keep things so thin, but that's not a good excuse.

Anyway, perhaps we'll see a refresh soon (today?)
 
Resolution independence. Without that, the resolution we have is based on internal apple requirements about acceptable resolutions. That "law" in apple is an immutable truth, there is NO getting around it. This is why we have the resolution we have, and not 1920x1200.

BTW: there are no 8bit or 10bit 1920x1200 panels at 15.4 either, so truthfully it wouldn't be a huge improvement. So what they could give you is a 1024x768 panel on your 15.4 in screen in 8bit with lower light output and 60+ms times. Is that better? Is that what you are after?

Apple made the choice because it was the BEST possible choice at the time, both in terms of product and profit maximization. The next gen of screens combined with RI should be interesting.

I do disagree with the way they have advertised the system, and that they imply the screen is better than it is, but of the millions who buy, only a few really understand or need better.


(I do not know about 17" 8 or 10bit 1920x1200 panels, at least not that work as a laptop panel. They may exist and would probably be a good upgrade for someone with a current 17")
 
How do you check your screen version in os x? So i can find what model i have? I beleive what i looked at before on the monitor it had a blank field next to it.
 
Do the model numbers have any meaning outside of their physical dimensions? If the same model number is shared by 2 panels with different physical characteristics, maybe Apple recycles them across difference machines.

SmokyD said:
The 9c57 is 1 1440x900 screen that is currently being used in the 17 inch iMac model. Yes, it is better, especially in the iMac. I don't know if the current batch of 15" MBPs use it.

Tarjan, I'm not sure if what you say is correct about 1680x1050 screens. I will have to check into this. But if it is the best of the batch at this resolution, it's not a good choice. Go WUXGA if you have to...

But as others have said part of the problem is build quality as well. Apple installs these screens and are not consistent in ensuring even backlighting and lack of dark splotches. To be fair, it is very hard to do it right, and most laptop vendors have a hard time with it. However, look at Sony and especilly Fujitsu screens and you will see much better engineering and better looking screens.

Apple has taken a mediocre set of screens and have engineered them into their laptops poorly or at least inconsistently. Perhaps they have made their job difficult by trying to keep things so thin, but that's not a good excuse.

Anyway, perhaps we'll see a refresh soon (today?)
Click to expand...
 
SmokyD said:
The 9c57 is 1 1440x900 screen that is currently being used in the 17 inch iMac model. Yes, it is better, especially in the iMac. I don't know if the current batch of 15" MBPs use it.
Click to expand...

I was using a MBP 15" C2D 2.16GHz/1 GB RAM ... at least, that's what the "about this mac" stated.

So, maybe Apple decided to use the "9c57" in the 15" versions because of the problems...or maybe they've always used the 9c57 in the 15" MBPs, but not everyone is lucky enough to get one? Or is it just simply down to Glossy is better than Matte?

I was impressed with the 9c57 screen today...would have no probs buying a MBP with that screen in it.
 
whosgotsoul said:
I was using a MBP 15" C2D 2.16GHz/1 GB RAM ... at least, that's what the "about this mac" stated.

So, maybe Apple decided to use the "9c57" in the 15" versions because of the problems...or maybe they've always used the 9c57 in the 15" MBPs, but not everyone is lucky enough to get one? Or is it just simply down to Glossy is better than Matte?

I was impressed with the 9c57 screen today...would have no probs buying a MBP with that screen in it.
Click to expand...

Urgh... I want a 9c57 screen now.
 
The gradient (posted in a different thread) used to detect banding looked very very smooth. I tried the gradient at work on my 19" NEC monitor and it looks horrible!

This is very encouraging for the MBPs.

iW00t: Can't you just take your MBP back to Apple (I think it may already be in the shop) and ask them for an exchange for a model with a 9c57 screen?

Just tell them that you've seen both screens and one is noticably better, and that you're pretty upset that your current MBP doesn't match-up to others on the market for the same price.

I can't see them arguing with you on this one...
 
Lucky... I traded mine for a glossy cause mine was grainy (9C60), but my new screen is a 9C57 and the colour banding is pretty much the same as my external Samsung SyncMaster 740n.
 
What is resolution independence? I can already change my resolution in my windows laptop. Is this what you are talking about?

thanks
 
Any screen used in an iMac will look better than in a notebook because they can use better (larger) bulbs and inverters. Because of the extra space the panels are probably easier to mount as well, leading better evenness.

I don't know for sure but I suspect that cramming the panel into such a small space is posing engineering problems for Apple. So a good screen on an iMac may appear so-so on a MBP.

This of course is separate from the main problem with the panels themselves, which is that they only support 262144 colors, and at a sluggish 25 ms (for the Samsung 9C61, not sure about the others).

Apple needs to rethink their notebook screens for the MBP because they can spoil an otherwise great computer.
 
Whistleway said:
What is resolution independence? I can already change my resolution in my windows laptop. Is this what you are talking about?

thanks
Click to expand...
Resolution independence is being able to make the display elements any size to fit the display characteristics. So you can have sharper displays (no more 100 px/in limit) or bigger screen elements that look better on larger monitors without aliasing.
 
This is all getting way too confusing!

I viewed a 9C57 and it had no banding (checked gradients posted here)...

As for grain...I didn't notice any. Would I have noticed it on the gradient? Can someone post a pic of the "grain" they're having problems with.

I may just live with my crappy/dying PC and wait for Santa Rosa to hit in the spring.
 
whosgotsoul, to me the graininess was obvious. I was in a mac store checking the screen trying to figure out what to choose between glossy and matte. the macbook's matte screen was perfect. Then I looked at the MBP's matte and saw the graininess.
But the fact that a MBP with graininess was on display means that either the store manager couldn't care less/didn't see it. Also based on posts on this forum, I'm pretty certain that some people just don't see it.
 
municipal said:
whosgotsoul, to me the graininess was obvious. I was in a mac store checking the screen trying to figure out what to choose between glossy and matte. the macbook's matte screen was perfect. Then I looked at the MBP's matte and saw the graininess.
But the fact that a MBP with graininess was on display means that either the store manager couldn't care less/didn't see it. Also based on posts on this forum, I'm pretty certain that some people just don't see it.
Click to expand...


I hope your not confusing macbooks glossy screen for the macbook pro's matte screen. Macbooks screen ONLY comes in glossy. I think you compared a glossy screen to a matte screen thats why you saw graininess on the macbook pro....which you should have doing the comparison you did.
 
Zman5225 you might be right.
All I know is that when I first saw the MB I saw my reflection more than anything.
Then when I looked at the MBP I saw grains. just like this...
noisescreen.png
 
You know what would be cool is if with the intel transition they made all MBP's with a higher resolution then currently displaying. At the moment mine is doing 1600 x 1050 or what ever. But it'd be really cool if they had it masked like the wireless N card so that you could not tell it was able to do a higher resolution. Then When leopard comes out, with independent resolution, we just install it and suddenly we got a beautiful new resolution...

I know it's not I"m just saying...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back