How is Apple's LCD screen quality?

[SiliconAddict]

So I ordered my PowerBook* (Now dorkafied into the name MacBook Pro) about 5 minutes after Steve's keynote. (Which translates into when the store opened again.) Didn't have any doubts, I still don't. However I've had 4 laptops over the years the latest being an IBM ThinkPad. It had a few bad pixels and it drove me nuts. Thankfully it isn't mine but my companies. Then there is my Dell 24": completely flawless and I know dozens of others who have the same experience with Dell's monitors.

My question is how good is Apple with their QC on their LCD's? Is Apple's screens mostly flawless? Its not so much that I'm a perfectionist then its annoying as heck when you have a red fricking pixel in the center of your screen when watching a dark movie.

 

[Zoowatch]

a lot really depends....


for example, the LCD demand and supply in the market at the point of production...
generally the LCD Apple uses is good (as good as Dell's), but some models do have serious issues...

like 15" powerbook and 23" Apple Cinma Display....

do a search for these 2 and you'll find lots of issues floating around (unsolved and Apple is not paying attention to them)

 

[Sarvis]

I have three laptops on my desk, two Thinkpads (t20, r40) and a 12" Powerbook, and while none of them have dead pixels, I do notice that the Powerbook screen is noticably less bright. Otherwise, they all appear to be about the same quality.

 

[MRU]

Just dont mention the 15" HiRes 1.67G4 powerbook screen Just look at the forum and you'll find that was/is a heap of *****..

I hope the MacBookPro doesn't dissapoint. I decided to go for the iMac and wait for a 12-13" widescreen laptop, i'm sure one will be out this year.

 

[SiliconAddict]

Just dont mention the 15" HiRes 1.67G4 powerbook screen Just look at the forum and you'll find that was/is a heap of *****..

I hope the MacBookPro doesn't dissapoint. I decided to go for the iMac and wait for a 12-13" widescreen laptop, i'm sure one will be out this year.

My hope is that if there were lines or white spots that people from MW would have started a crap storm online. My biggest concern was dead or stuck pixels. Obviously when you are talking the # of pixels in a 15.4" screen perfection is hard. I just hope Apple is very fickle about what passes QC. Thnks guys.

 

[zoetropeuk]

I have the 17" 1650 * 1080 (I think) version and it is simply the most awesome laptop screen I've ever used. I have friends that have the high-gloss ultra-brite PC screens and the res may be higher but they're crap. They're so bright and glossy that photos just look absolutely crap, no self-respecting photographer would be seen dead with a PC laptop.

From an image quality perspective the Apple PB screens are head and shoulders above the competition. The colour accuracy (for a laptop LCD) and matte finish give the image a very realistic almost textured feeling.

My screen has zero dead pixels as did the 4 week old 15" PB I upgraded from.

I considered selling the 17"er on eBay to grab a 15.4" MBP but the speed of the 17" is fine for me. But it's the screen I bought it for and I'm amazed by it every-time I look at it

Matt

 

[Airforce]

They're so bright and glossy that photos just look absolutely crap, no self-respecting photographer would be seen dead with a PC laptop.

For anyone actually shopping around...please ignore the post above...

 

[zoetropeuk]

For anyone actually shopping around...please ignore the post above...

Everyone has their own preference but PC vendors take the easy option by placing a high gloss, reflective material over the actual screen, this in effect is a false economy. To the untrained eye they look awesome but when you stop to take a closer look they are actually crap.

Take a look at the high-end Barco and Sony LCDs, do these use ultra-brite, NO and why ? Because they use high-end LCDs that don't need it.

Matt

 

[BENJMNS]

I have the 17" 1650 * 1080 (I think) version and it is simply the most awesome laptop screen I've ever used. I have friends that have the high-gloss ultra-brite PC screens and the res may be higher but they're crap. They're so bright and glossy that photos just look absolutely crap, no self-respecting photographer would be seen dead with a PC laptop.

From an image quality perspective the Apple PB screens are head and shoulders above the competition. The colour accuracy (for a laptop LCD) and matte finish give the image a very realistic almost textured feeling.

My screen has zero dead pixels as did the 4 week old 15" PB I upgraded from.

I considered selling the 17"er on eBay to grab a 15.4" MBP but the speed of the 17" is fine for me. But it's the screen I bought it for and I'm amazed by it every-time I look at it

Matt

you make it sound as if apple made it themselves when in fact it's sourced from a major manufacturer like a samsung.

i got that 17" hi-res and it's nice, but it doesn't seem to be any better than those on Dells and Thinkpads for example. The sony units are very vivid. xbrite is here to stay.

 

[Xephian]

Much better than Dell's in the chances of recieving one with a dead pixel or bad backlighting.

 

[zoetropeuk]

you make it sound as if apple made it themselves when in fact it's sourced from a major manufacturer like a samsung.

i got that 17" hi-res and it's nice, but it doesn't seem to be any better than those on Dells and Thinkpads for example. The sony units are very vivid. xbrite is here to stay.

True, the Apple LCDs are sourced from a third party vendor but Apple pay a PREMIUM to get A grade components. Take apart a Sony or Dell and in the majority of cases they will be using B or C grade rated screens. Like I said, xBrite is a quick and cheap fix to make the screens look better than they really are.

Just stick a high-end colour calibration tool on a Sony or Dell laptop screen and look at the sub-par black and white points. My 4 year old 17" ACD has better colour accuracy than the most recent Dell laptops. In my past career I was high-end drum scanner operator and I've used high end displays like the Barcos. I also have a 22" LaCie Blue sitting on my desk to compare with.

Fair enough, the PB LCDs don't come even close but from a purely scientific view they sure come closer than the Dells or Sonys of this world.

 

[Sarvis]

They're so bright and glossy that photos just look absolutely crap, no self-respecting photographer would be seen dead with a PC laptop.

Oh, please, that's not true, and everyone but the most jaded Mac fan-boy knows it. It's one thing to like your Mac, but you seem to be blinding yourself to the rest of the world. I know professional photographers (freelancers, ones associated with newspapers and news agencies, art photographers, and more) and plenty use PCs. The era of the Mac being considered the best and nearly only machine suitable for creative work is over.

 

[zoetropeuk]

Oh, please, that's not true, and everyone but the most jaded Mac fan-boy knows it. It's one thing to like your Mac, but you seem to be blinding yourself to the rest of the world. I know professional photographers (freelancers, ones associated with newspapers and news agencies, art photographers, and more) and plenty use PCs. The era of the Mac being considered the best and nearly only machine suitable for creative work is over.

We're talking about PC laptops right ? Only diehard PC users would consider a PC laptop display to be as good as a powerbook display. I can backup my opinion with hard facts from a hardware display calibrator. No PC laptop display I've ever calibrated is as good a powerbook display, it's as simply as that.

Here's another opinion from a well repected Photographer:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-7890-8160

Read what he says about the displays. And believe me, he's no Mac Fanboy.

Matt

 

[Sarvis]

We're talking about PC laptops right ? Only diehard PC users would consider a PC laptop display to be as good as a powerbook display. I can backup my opinion with hard facts from a hardware display calibrator. No PC laptop display I've ever calibrated is as good a powerbook display, it's as simply as that.

Here's another opinion from a well repected Photographer:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-7890-8160

Read what he says about the displays. And believe me, he's no Mac Fanboy.

Matt

I understand that the screens are good (there is a lukewarm mention of it in the link you mention, not a lot of hard facts, though.) Or, rather, that he's partial to the 15" screen (my 12" screen is sorely lacking, so I doubt you mean that one.)

Your statement that "no self-respecting photographer would...", though, is the fanboy part. Sure, the screen is nice, but to make a statement that implies that the Mac is the only choice - that's your fanboy nature coming through there. It's nothing but inflammatory, and simply isn't true.

 

[mkrishnan]

For anyone actually shopping around...please ignore the post above...

You do see a lot more mac hardware in the photography world than outside of it, but that has been true long before XBrite and similar technologies, and I don't think they're really the reason. For whatever reason, the direction that UI design has gone in the Apple world seems to be particularly favored by certain groups. And then, there were times in the past when Apple hardware was much better than the competition for graphical tasks.

My own personal experience is that color calibration, which is no ifs, ands, or buts vital, works out better on Apple hardware than on most other options. Apple makes this very easy to do, and I have been very satisfied with my iBook's screen in this respect.

But if you make any rule about what a "good" photographer does, there will be photographers who are better than you who do exactly what they ought not.