MBA screen quality

[bcaslis]

...
It's also been said a bunch of times in the thread that the 9CF0 model doesn't seem to be as good as the 9CDF models.

Yes, it's been said a number of times here by a few people that the 9CF0 isn't as good. I had two of these screens in two different 13" and I think that complaint is worthless.

If you are concerned about screen quality, get off your duff and buy a color calibration package. Once calibrated you won't be able to tell the difference between a 9CF0 and a 9CDF. And those complaining about the MBA screen compared to a MBP screen will see a marked improvement.

But I guess it's easier for someone (not pointing this at you) to complain in multiple threads about a display then to get up and fix the issue.

 

[gwsat]

ipad? are u joking?

the mba 13 screen is the best laptop screen i've ever seen. it's strikes that perfect balance between glossy and matte. it's a semi-glossy or hyper-matte.

i had the mbp 13 new... pales in comparison to the tightness of the mba 13.

unreal. but hey it's your opinion.

I agree the MBAs' displays are far better than the iPad's. An IPS display, such as that used on the iPad, would be a waste on the MBAs or any clamshell laptops with keyboards. IPS technology's most significant advantage, having good brightness and color resolution, even at wide angles, means little or nothing on a laptop, where the screen is almost always centered before the user's eyes. Obviously, then, IPS is desirable on a tablet but virtually meaningless on a laptop.

The worst part of the iPad's display to me is that it is almost impossible to prevent distracting reflections from the glass covering its screen. While an antiglare coating, such as that used on the MBA may cause a marginal loss of vibrancy, that's a small price to pay to avoid constant and severe reflections. While I am on my iPad rant, I will add that I hate, hate, hate that it collects fingerprints and smudges at an alarming rate. As a practical matter, it's impossible to keep it clean. Yeah, yeah, I know, it's not nearly as noticeable when there is an image on the screen but it bugs me to look at the filthy thing when the display is turned off.

 

[macbook123]

You could always contact them and ask them to update the review with this information if it's that important to you.

I would, if there was a way to contact them. Several people have tried.

 

[BENJMNS]

I agree the MBAs' displays are far better than the iPad's. An IPS display, such as that used on the iPad, would be a waste on the MBAs or any clamshell laptops with keyboards. IPS technology's most significant advantage, having good brightness and color resolution, even at wide angles, means little or nothing on a laptop, where the screen is almost always centered before the user's eyes. Obviously, then, IPS is desirable on a tablet but virtually meaningless on a laptop.

The worst part of the iPad's display to me is that it is almost impossible to prevent distracting reflections from the glass covering its screen. While an antiglare coating, such as that used on the MBA may cause a marginal loss of vibrancy, that's a small price to pay to avoid constant and severe reflections. While I am on my iPad rant, I will add that I hate, hate, hate that it collects fingerprints and smudges at an alarming rate. As a practical matter, it's impossible to keep it clean. Yeah, yeah, I know, it's not nearly as noticeable when there is an image on the screen but it bugs me to look at the filthy thing when the display is turned off.

the ipad certainly has its place (especially in Hollywood where impromptu visual presentations go a long way to explain/sell vision/projects), but it's been slightly marginalized by the mba. it's got a good screen and i'm learning something from you about the whole IPS display.

the only reason why i have one is it was given to me for free from work to use. i only use it at bedtime, but if someone took it away from me, i would simply replace it with the mba. whereas if i had a heavier/bulkier laptop like the mbp, i just might, just might begin to consider dropping $600 for one.

the next killer "app" will be a non-keyboard keyboard (i.e. ghost keyboard) which will significantly change the way we interact with the machine.

until then, we'll have to deal with the clamshell and oily screens for a bit longer.

i think what i'm learning is that until you actually own one (the mba), u really won't fully understand/feel what your'e getting, what apple accomplished. it's a new era of laptop computing. i didn't know it could be this easy and convenient to use this.

 

[fyrefly]

Yes, it's been said a number of times here by a few people that the 9CF0 isn't as good. I had two of these screens in two different 13" and I think that complaint is worthless.

If you are concerned about screen quality, get off your duff and buy a color calibration package. Once calibrated you won't be able to tell the difference between a 9CF0 and a 9CDF. And those complaining about the MBA screen compared to a MBP screen will see a marked improvement.

But I guess it's easier for someone (not pointing this at you) to complain in multiple threads about a display then to get up and fix the issue.

So you want people to stop complaining that the monitors on their $1K+ computers (really $1300+ 'cause we've mostly been talking about the 13 Models) and sepdn another $200 or so to calibrate them? I've never had to calibrate a Mac in my life. I don't have the need for colour accurate print-work, I just have the need for a screen that looks half-decent.

In the past 10 years, I've owned two iBooks, two PowerBooks, three iMacs, a half-dozen MacBook Pros, and the only screen I ever thought I would need to calibrate was the Alu MacBook I had - but those models had notably TERRIBLE screens on them, so I just returned it, and when the 13" MBP came out with a MUCH better screen, I jumped on that. Again, no calibration needed.

I find it a bit ridiculous that one should need to buy a $200 Spyder to be happy with their purchase.

It's obvious that Apple's using different display panel providers (as they have in all models) and some are better that others. I've had a MBA RevA and a RevB and I was lucky both times, as in those Rev's as well there were some screens that were better than others. (And in the RevB's some that had the notorious "line issue" -- should those people have just bought a Spyder and stopped complaining? )

I agree that people shouldn't just complain in threads on the 'net, but to me the solution is to return the model they don't like and hope for a better one... or don't buy the computer all together.

 

[BENJMNS]

Yes, it's been said a number of times here by a few people that the 9CF0 isn't as good. I had two of these screens in two different 13" and I think that complaint is worthless.

If you are concerned about screen quality, get off your duff and buy a color calibration package. Once calibrated you won't be able to tell the difference between a 9CF0 and a 9CDF. And those complaining about the MBA screen compared to a MBP screen will see a marked improvement.

But I guess it's easier for someone (not pointing this at you) to complain in multiple threads about a display then to get up and fix the issue.

pls save us from this anecdotal bs. 9cf0 better than 9cdf? LOL
amazed at what the internet produces.

you guys must have some cat eye vision or something.

 

[bcaslis]

So you want people to stop complaining that the monitors on their $1K+ computers (really $1300+ 'cause we've mostly been talking about the 13 Models) and sepdn another $200 or so to calibrate them? I've never had to calibrate a Mac in my life. I don't have the need for colour accurate print-work, I just have the need for a screen that looks half-decent.

In the past 10 years, I've owned two iBooks, two PowerBooks, three iMacs, a half-dozen MacBook Pros, and the only screen I ever thought I would need to calibrate was the Alu MacBook I had - but those models had notably TERRIBLE screens on them, so I just returned it, and when the 13" MBP came out with a MUCH better screen, I jumped on that. Again, no calibration needed.

I find it a bit ridiculous that one should need to buy a $200 Spyder to be happy with their purchase.

It's obvious that Apple's using different display panel providers (as they have in all models) and some are better that others. I've had a MBA RevA and a RevB and I was lucky both times, as in those Rev's as well there were some screens that were better than others. (And in the RevB's some that had the notorious "line issue" -- should those people have just bought a Spyder and stopped complaining? )

I agree that people shouldn't just complain in threads on the 'net, but to me the solution is to return the model they don't like and hope for a better one... or don't buy the computer all together.

There's a huge difference between a terrible screen and two screens that have different color response. Most of the complaints I've seen in this forum wouldn't know accurate colors if a calibrated monitor hit them on the side of the head.

Bad displays like the lines on previous MBAs are one thing. Moaning about not getting a 9CDF display because the "colors" on it are better are complete B.S. Years ago the variation in some of the displays was huge. But I've looked at the different displays being used now and the variation between screen types is small and easily dealt with by color calibrating. Any of these displays out of the box are inaccurate without calibrating, so complaining about one having better color is just that, a whining complaint.

End of color soapbox.

 

[macbook123]

Nobody here has compared the two displays side by side, and the anandtech review misses the crucial information which display they received and the authors don't provide contact information, so we're all really in the dark, both fans and non-fans of the 9CF0.

Bcaslis, you can't simply brush off people who aren't satisfied with their displays off, especially if they have tried calibrating them and if their main concern is not with color but contrast!

 

[neteng101]

I'm not sure if the 9CF0 is bad - only that some owners of 9CF0 were complaining about it quite a bit - the contrast ratio and blacks/whites are excellent on the 9CDF which I have. I've read some complains about that aspect on the 9CF0 so its probably an inferior panel but I believe both screens suffer from a lesser color gamut compared to the MBPs.

There's definitely some sort of AR coating on the MBA screens, if you view certain angles to get a reflection and see the color of the reflection (like a white light source), you can tell there's a coating on the screen. It turns the reflections into a pinkish shade, same sort of thing I've noticed on my eyeglasses that has an AR coating on it.

 

[fyrefly]

There's a huge difference between a terrible screen and two screens that have different color response. Most of the complaints I've seen in this forum wouldn't know accurate colors if a calibrated monitor hit them on the side of the head.

Bad displays like the lines on previous MBAs are one thing. Moaning about not getting a 9CDF display because the "colors" on it are better are complete B.S. Years ago the variation in some of the displays was huge. But I've looked at the different displays being used now and the variation between screen types is small and easily dealt with by color calibrating. Any of these displays out of the box are inaccurate without calibrating, so complaining about one having better color is just that, a whining complaint.

End of color soapbox.

Hah. I 100% agree with you that people complaining about "colours" are the reason we have the freaking glossy only displays on the MacBook/Pro 13"ers and have to BTO Matte screens on the 15/17"ers now.

But to me, Apple is using an inferior panel to save $$ and trying to compensate for it looking like crud by upping the contrast ratio. That's a weird mix, IMHO.

And part of my response was also to people in this thread who say their MBA screen is the best screen they've ever seen. They must never have seen an iMac 27" or an NEC or even some of the current MBP screens!

When looking at Colour Accuracy and Colour Gamut, the MBA screens start to fall behind the MBPs in short order:

The Matte MBP is #1 in this graph with good reason. And while the MBA beat the 13" MBA here (probably 'cause the 13" MBP is glossy) it only beats it by .2 in the scores...

In Colour Gamut, the MBPs display must more (almost double the MBA):

And these are all mathematical tests - not just opinion. So yes, while the whites are white and the black are black, I'd say the MBP have overall _better_ displays, 'cause they have much more well-rounded specs.

I compare it to the iPhone 4 and the iPod Touch 4G. Both have "retina displays", but when looking at an angle, or looking closely you can see the iPod Touch 4G is an inferior display. It washes out much quicker and doesn't have the IPS viewing angles of the iPhone 4. (not that the MBPs have IPS displays, but they have arguably better ones than the MBA).

 

[BENJMNS]

I've read some complains about that aspect on the 9CF0 so its probably an inferior panel

wrong

 

[gb1631]

Well I'm very happy with my Macbook Air's 11" screen! The colors are great as well as the clarity!

 

[bcaslis]

Nobody here has compared the two displays side by side, and the anandtech review misses the crucial information which display they received and the authors don't provide contact information, so we're all really in the dark, both fans and non-fans of the 9CF0.

Bcaslis, you can't simply brush off people who aren't satisfied with their displays off, especially if they have tried calibrating them and if their main concern is not with color but contrast!

If you think contrast is not affected by color calibration then you have never done it and shouldn't comment on it. The "contrast" is part of the calibration process and there is a significant difference in the apparent contrast in every display I've ever calibrated.

Anyone who has calibrated using Apple's built in calibrator or used any software only method doesn't count. It's literally impossible to correct calibrate a display without using a hardware / software combination.

I'm not a fan of either display. I'm simply pointing out that all the rhetoric you have spouted on the differences is nonsense.

 

[bcaslis]

Hah. I 100% agree with you that people complaining about "colours" are the reason we have the freaking glossy only displays on the MacBook/Pro 13"ers and have to BTO Matte screens on the 15/17"ers now.

But to me, Apple is using an inferior panel to save $$ and trying to compensate for it looking like crud by upping the contrast ratio. That's a weird mix, IMHO.
...

I agree 100% that there are tons of better displays than in the MBA. Even the IPS display in the iPad is better from a technical perspective, and desktop IPS display just blow away the MBA.

If people love their displays and think they are the best, that's fine with me. Overall I think it's a very good display given the power and size constraints. Anyone trying to get technically correct color on this display or a MBP display is an idiot. You can get very close to correct color but you simply can't get accurate color on any laptop today.

My beef is this stupid comparison of one display supplier on the MBA to another. Any technical superiority between them is minimal and not worth any discussion. From the posts on this forum you'd think one LCD one was the second coming compared to the other.

 

[BENJMNS]

I agree 100% that there are tons of better displays than in the MBA. Even the IPS display in the iPad is better from a technical perspective, and desktop IPS display just blow away the MBA.

If people love their displays and think they are the best, that's fine with me. Overall I think it's a very good display given the power and size constraints. Anyone trying to get technically correct color on this display or a MBP display is an idiot. You can get very close to correct color but you simply can't get accurate color on any laptop today.

My beef is this stupid comparison of one display supplier on the MBA to another. Any technical superiority between them is minimal and not worth any discussion. From the posts on this forum you'd think one LCD one was the second coming compared to the other.

preach!

 

[gwsat]

Threads in which posters attempt to quantify the quality of one display over another make my eyes glaze over. I am an old home theater nerd and debates like this come in various forums at AVS Forums. There we use the shorthand term, "picture quality," or "PQ" for short for the relative quality of any image or series of images.

The reason I think debates over PQ are worthless is that they are all subjective. Look at the numbers included in one of the earlier posts here. You wil see that with few exceptions they are all so close to each other, it is unlikely that a real person in the real world who participated in a double blind study could consistently pick the display that did best in the "scientific" tests over the display that did the worst, and certainly not from one that finished in the middle. Not only is PQ a subjective assessment it is going to be subject to myriad variables such as room lighting, personal preferences, and the apps predominately run on one's computer.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Spare me from Golden Eyes and wake me when it's over.

 

[KnightWRX]

Well, I have a 9CDF display, however I have a profile for a 9C8C screen that's a bit darker than the default profile and looks just great on it. The contrasts are much better with this profile than the one Apple shipped.

 

[macbook123]

bcaslis, I'll simply repeat what I wrote above "You can't simply brush off people who aren't satisfied with their displays, especially if they have tried calibrating them and if their main concern is not with color but contrast!".

So I'm referring to those who have calibrated the screen themselves or used profiles kindly provided by you and others here and still find inferior contrast. Sorry if you think what I'm "spouting" is "nonsense". I'm not going to apologize for disagreeing with you, and have better things to do than listening to personal insults from you.

 

[ReallyBigFeet]

You guys amuse me. Please, continue. I'll go make myself another martini while you debate the merits of 9C3PO versus R2D2. All the while my MBA renders purdy colors that are pleasing to my eyes.

 

[macbook123]

You guys amuse me. Please, continue. I'll go make myself another martini while you debate the merits of 9C3PO versus R2D2. All the while my MBA renders purdy colors that are pleasing to my eyes.

I think the one thing we can all agree on is that this is a great laptop. I definitely don't hate the display, am probably being nit-picky, and am not going to return it for this reason for sure. I would, however, love to see it side-by-side with the 9CDF. Things get distorted in written debates, and over-dramatized, as the face of the writer is invisible.

 

[bcaslis]

bcaslis, I'll simply repeat what I wrote above "You can't simply brush off people who aren't satisfied with their displays, especially if they have tried calibrating them and if their main concern is not with color but contrast!".

So I'm referring to those who have calibrated the screen themselves or used profiles kindly provided by you and others here and still find inferior contrast. Sorry if you think what I'm "spouting" is "nonsense". I'm not going to apologize for disagreeing with you, and have better things to do than listening to personal insults from you.

I'm not insulting you, but I am telling that you (and several others) don't understand what you are talking about with regard to these displays. While using a profile made on someone else's display might make your display "look" better, it's still inaccurate. The only way to get a correct comparison between two displays is to calibrate each one independently and compare them. Nobody here has done that and people are jumping to conclusions that one display is better than another.

Finally, most of the statement about "better" have little usefulness. What is better? Stronger colors, more contrast? Why is that better? Sony digital cameras produce color that laymen usually look at and say "wow, look at the colors!". But the colors are horribly over saturated and inaccurate. Take a picture with one of these cameras on an area of subtle reds and everything gets lost, it's one solid red because everything gets over saturated. People think color is simple and it's not. It's actually very complex to reproduce accurate colors and that's why calibration is really needed. If "better" or "good" doesn't mean accurate then you might as well give up. Because then it's totally subjective and what's good to one person will be wrong to another.

 

[KnightWRX]

I'm not insulting you, but I am telling that you (and several others) don't understand what you are talking about with regard to these displays. While using a profile made on someone else's display might make your display "look" better, it's still inaccurate.

You assume most posters here are going for accurate. I know I couldn't give a rats ass about color accuracy in a display. I just want it to look good for me.

There's no harm in sharing color profiles and opinions about how "good" they look. If someone ends up getting something that looks better to him, that's great.

If you want to calibrate yours, just ignore the posts about people that don't and move on. You have something you like, we have something we like.

 

[bcaslis]

You assume most posters here are going for accurate. I know I couldn't give a rats ass about color accuracy in a display. I just want it to look good for me.

There's no harm in sharing color profiles and opinions about how "good" they look. If someone ends up getting something that looks better to him, that's great.

If you want to calibrate yours, just ignore the posts about people that don't and move on. You have something you like, we have something we like.

I agree with what you are saying and I don't have an issue with it. What I'm trying to point out is that some people have said that the 9CDF panel is better than the 9CF0 panel and some people are now searching for the "better" panel. I'm trying to point out that there likely is no "better" panel, that it's subjective and that if someone did properly calibrate both panels very few people would be able to tell them apart.

I'm all for going what makes someone happy with their purchase, that's why I've posted the profiles I've made. I'm just trying to counter this perception that there is a "good" and "bad" panel on the 13" MBA.

 

[KnightWRX]

I agree with what you are saying and I don't have an issue with it. What I'm trying to point out is that some people have said that the 9CDF panel is better than the 9CF0 panel and some people are now searching for the "better" panel. I'm trying to point out that there likely is no "better" panel, that it's subjective and that if someone did properly calibrate both panels very few people would be able to tell them apart.

Or maybe the color profile for the 9CF0 isn't as good to the eye as the 9CDF out of the box. A lot of assumptions until someone actually sits down and does some objective comparison of both with Apple's default profile and then with a calibrated profile.

It's quite possible that there is some truth to the 9CDF looks better stories. I will agree with you that it is disingenious at this moment to claim it is due to better hardware when a bunch of other factors might be the cause.

 

[billy baxton]

I just want to know how accurately the mba shows colours, for print and photo retouching purposes. not at all concerned about how vibrant or saturated the colours look...