120hz 10-bit HDR Display Doesn't the MBP deserve this ?

[TheRealAlex]

I'll have to admit being a A/V junkie I had to pull the trigger on the new 10.5" iPad Pro I resisted even said I would not but after sleeping in it I had to.

Ok, so What about a new Laptop, ? Time for a new 2017 Kaby Lake Touchbar MacBook Pro, Its time for a great Kaby Lake 32GB Powerhouse.

Wait what about a quality display ? Theres no reason why Apple can't make the super high end $3,000 MacBook Pro's display on par with a $600 tablet ?

This really bugs me

I really wish the MacBook Pros 15" Display was 10-bit 120hz HDR. Its like Apple saying hey see those guys over there with the Device that costs less than 1/3 they have a MUCH better Display than any MacBook Pro.

 

[torquer]

Very few laptops outside gaming laptops have anything above 60Hz and even fewer with HDR. Power consumption is one reason. It takes more power to drive a panel 120 times a second than it does at 60. Even the iPad dynamically switches refresh rates based on what you're doing. That dynamic change likely would not work quite as well on a notebook as it would on a tablet just due to the types of content people are usually dealing with on a notebook vs a tablet.

Right or wrong, there is a really good reason Apple does what it does. Profit. They obviously have no trouble making money and its pretty hard to convince someone they are wrong when they're being wildly successful at it. Doesn't mean people have to like it, but it is unlikely they will change what they see as a winning formula based on a vocal but small minority.

 

[TheRealAlex]

Very few laptops outside gaming laptops have anything above 60Hz and even fewer with HDR. Power consumption is one reason. It takes more power to drive a panel 120 times a second than it does at 60. Even the iPad dynamically switches refresh rates based on what you're doing. That dynamic change likely would not work quite as well on a notebook as it would on a tablet just due to the types of content people are usually dealing with on a notebook vs a tablet.

Right or wrong, there is a really good reason Apple does what it does. Profit. They obviously have no trouble making money and its pretty hard to convince someone they are wrong when they're being wildly successful at it. Doesn't mean people have to like it, but it is unlikely they will change what they see as a winning formula based on a vocal but small minority.

Valid, yet they can still include a 10-bit HDR panel if they have to skip 120hz, and 10-bit HDR makes all the difference in vibrant color. Especially now that new MBP Model have Kaby-Lake which can handle 10-bit HDR content.

Sadly or foolishly 2016 tbMBP's can not handle 10-bit HDR content its a CPU limitation.

 

[blackreplica]

Maybe HDR but as far as high refresh rate displays go, there really isnt a need for one outside of gaming

 

[torquer]

Valid, yet they can still include a 10-bit HDR panel if they have to skip 120hz, and 10-bit HDR makes all the difference in vibrant color. Especially now that new MBP Model have Kaby-Lake which can handle 10-bit HDR content.

Sadly or foolishly 2016 tbMBP's can not handle 10-bit HDR content its a CPU limitation.

It'd be interesting to see just how "HDR" the iPad display is with a peak brightness of 600 nits. That's kind of low at least compared to a reasonable HDR TV these days.

 

[leman]

It will most certainly come, I'd guess next year. The iMac already got a 10-bit display. I assume that right now they can't produce these displays at 13"/15" size with reasonable power efficiency etc.

 

[TheRealAlex]

It will most certainly come, I'd guess next year. The iMac already got a 10-bit display. I assume that right now they can't produce these displays at 13"/15" size with reasonable power efficiency etc.

Very True the iMac and iMac Pro Also got 10-bit HDR displays same as the iPad Pro hmmm. Well these goes a definite reason to skip the 2017 MBP it now lacks 10-bit HDR displays.

And Since the new iPhone 8 is now coming with an OLED Display it will likely be 10-Bit HDR since OLED lends itself to be more color vibrant.

 

[Ma2k5]

120hz has very little practical use, but10 bit would be nice. From the sounds of things, Apple are far more interested in AR over VR (for the better or worse) which would make them even less likely to increase refresh rate (also, isn't VR significantly better at 240hz compared to 120hz, so I am not sure if 120hz is even worth achieving for VR purposes - if you want a best in class VR experience).

 

[kasakka]

120 Hz does make scrolling, moving the cursor etc more pleasant even on the desktop. So having it on both the iMac and MBP would be nice. That said, I think currently the limitations have been with panels. Only 120 Hz 4K panels are found on TVs at the moment but even they don't support 120 Hz input at that res. First desktop monitors with 144 Hz displays are coming late this year.

Getting 120 Hz displays for MBP and iMac might happen next year or the year after that.

 

[leman]

120hz has very little practical use, but10 bit would be nice. From the sounds of things, Apple are far more interested in AR over VR (for the better or worse) which would make them even less likely to increase refresh rate (also, isn't VR significantly better at 240hz compared to 120hz, so I am not sure if 120hz is even worth achieving for VR purposes - if you want a best in class VR experience).

What I am much more interested in is the variable refresh rate tech in those displays. You won't consume VR via your main display anyway.

 

[Ma2k5]

120 Hz does make scrolling, moving the cursor etc more pleasant even on the desktop. So having it on both the iMac and MBP would be nice. That said, I think currently the limitations have been with panels. Only 120 Hz 4K panels are found on TVs at the moment but even they don't support 120 Hz input at that res. First desktop monitors with 144 Hz displays are coming late this year.

Getting 120 Hz displays for MBP and iMac might happen next year or the year after that.

I have heard about scrolling etc appearing much smoother - although people said it was something they only noticed once they went back to 60hz. So I am not sure if it is worth investing to make scrolling smoother/more pleasant when it does not appear to be a functional bottleneck in our daily use.
[doublepost=1496765581][/doublepost]

What I am much more interested in is the variable refresh rate tech in those displays. You won't consume VR via your main display anyway.

Even more reason not to have 120hz displays.

As for variable refresh rate tech, outside gaming, very little benefit.

 

[leman]

As for variable refresh rate tech, outside gaming, very little benefit.

I think that power savings alone make it a very worthwhile feature to pursue.

 

[Ries]

Very few laptops outside gaming laptops have anything above 60Hz and even fewer with HDR. Power consumption is one reason. It takes more power to drive a panel 120 times a second than it does at 60. Even the iPad dynamically switches refresh rates based on what you're doing. That dynamic change likely would not work quite as well on a notebook as it would on a tablet just due to the types of content people are usually dealing with on a notebook vs a tablet.

Right or wrong, there is a really good reason Apple does what it does. Profit. They obviously have no trouble making money and its pretty hard to convince someone they are wrong when they're being wildly successful at it. Doesn't mean people have to like it, but it is unlikely they will change what they see as a winning formula based on a vocal but small minority.

The Macbook Pro 2016 has variable refresh rate for lower power consumption.

 

[Ma2k5]

I think that power savings alone make it a very worthwhile feature to pursue.

I actually think it jumping from 60hz to like 20-30hz periodically may make i

I think that power savings alone make it a very worthwhile feature to pursue.

Not sure if that is a good idea, if it goes below 60hz periodically people may start noticing the lack of smoothness intermittently.

 

[vipergts2207]

As a fellow A/V enthusiast I agree it would be nice to have, but I'm not too fussed about it. The screen does look really good anyway. And if I'm watching anything other than a short youtube video or the like, I'm going to be using my Sony XBR for viewing content or gaming anyway. I certainly wouldn't complain if this feature was in a future MBP I buy though.

 

[cookies!]

So I've always been a little confused on this matter because I'm probably comparing two different things, but doesn't the eye process a max refresh rate of around 60Hz? Again, assuming I'm totally wrong and need correction from you all.

 

[vipergts2207]

So I've always been a little confused on this matter because I'm probably comparing two different things, but doesn't the eye process a max refresh rate of around 60Hz? Again, assuming I'm totally wrong and need correction from you all.

Yeah I think they were selling the benefits of 120 Hz a little hard. The two places where 120 Hz is a benefit is when playing 24p film content so that 3:2 pulldown judder can be removed or frame interpolation can be performed on 24p, 30p and 60p content. Though the latter causes the dreaded 'soap opera effect'.

 

[New_Mac_Smell]

I'll admit I'd love a 10bit display to have more pleasing gradients. However the real benefit of that would be if my clients also had 10bit displays to view the content on. I'm happier having extended battery life than anything for the time being.

So I've always been a little confused on this matter because I'm probably comparing two different things, but doesn't the eye process a max refresh rate of around 60Hz? Again, assuming I'm totally wrong and need correction from you all.

I spent a year studying the visual system for my first degree and it still confused me so don't worry! Basically, the human eye isn't a camera and so it's kind of misleading however totally understandable to make comparisons. It's fairer to assume the eye 'sees' at the speed of light, whereas a screen refreshes an image many times a second. The real debate is within perceptual processing speed. You can 'see' 120hz and higher, but there are diminishing returns on your ability to process that information. I tried to find an article for you incase you were interested, but it's a really deep subject on a biological level in understanding how vision works. A lot of what you see is actually completely made up in the brain, about 3% of your visual field is actually within focus, the rest is just being filled in. I appreciate that's more than what you asked, but the debate beyond 60hz is whether you are capable of making use of extra frames. Some people are more than others, particularly gamers as their brain will be paying more attention.

Anyway in short, it's complicated. There's no right or wrong, you can see it but potentially can't perceive it.

 

[cookies!]

I'll admit I'd love a 10bit display to have more pleasing gradients. However the real benefit of that would be if my clients also had 10bit displays to view the content on. I'm happier having extended battery life than anything for the time being.



I spent a year studying the visual system for my first degree and it still confused me so don't worry! Basically, the human eye isn't a camera and so it's kind of misleading however totally understandable to make comparisons. It's fairer to assume the eye 'sees' at the speed of light, whereas a screen refreshes an image many times a second. The real debate is within perceptual processing speed. You can 'see' 120hz and higher, but there are diminishing returns on your ability to process that information. I tried to find an article for you incase you were interested, but it's a really deep subject on a biological level in understanding how vision works. A lot of what you see is actually completely made up in the brain, about 3% of your visual field is actually within focus, the rest is just being filled in. I appreciate that's more than what you asked, but the debate beyond 60hz is whether you are capable of making use of extra frames. Some people are more than others, particularly gamers as their brain will be paying more attention.

Anyway in short, it's complicated. There's no right or wrong, you can see it but potentially can't perceive it.

Thanks so much! Always interested in neuroscience articles I only partially understand

 

[Maven1975]

I can't take gaming more that 1 hour on my LG OLED in HDR.

It makes my eyes feel like they are on fire.

HDR is neat, but its far from being well implemented. (HDR10 Especially) DV shows/movies effect my eyes the same, although not as bad generally.

Lastly, 600nits is not close to being enough for true HDR. Can you imagine the recommended 2000nits on your MBP/iMac/iPad screen?

 

[vipergts2207]

I can't take gaming more that 1 hour on my LG OLED in HDR.

It makes my eyes feel like they are on fire.

HDR is neat, but its far from being well implemented. (HDR10 Especially) DV shows/movies effect my eyes the same, although not as bad generally.

Lastly, 600nits is not close to being enough for true HDR. Can you imagine the recommended 2000nits on your MBP/iMac/iPad screen?

If you don't have ambient lighting on when gaming, that will help with eye strain on bright screens.

 

[jerryk]

According to Apple a big thing with the faster refresh rate is the delay between the pencil is now shorter, and more like a #2 on paper. As an Ipad Pro 9.7 owner I can say this is an area that does/did need improvement.

 

[nol2001]

I'll have to admit being a A/V junkie I had to pull the trigger on the new 10.5" iPad Pro I resisted even said I would not but after sleeping in it I had to.

Ok, so What about a new Laptop, ? Time for a new 2017 Kaby Lake Touchbar MacBook Pro, Its time for a great Kaby Lake 32GB Powerhouse.

Wait what about a quality display ? Theres no reason why Apple can't make the super high end $3,000 MacBook Pro's display on par with a $600 tablet ?

This really bugs me

I really wish the MacBook Pros 15" Display was 10-bit 120hz HDR. Its like Apple saying hey see those guys over there with the Device that costs less than 1/3 they have a MUCH better Display than any MacBook Pro.

I have been thinking exactly the same thing. I want the rMBP display to be 4K and HDR too

 

[leman]

So I've always been a little confused on this matter because I'm probably comparing two different things, but doesn't the eye process a max refresh rate of around 60Hz? Again, assuming I'm totally wrong and need correction from you all.

60Hz is a bit of a magical number because thats a frequency at which human vision perceivers flicker images as one continuous signal. But as such, the eye doesn't have a concept of refresh rate — its an analog device. There is a lot of research on this stuff — basically, the temporal resolution of human vision depends on the content and a lot of other factors. But the bottomline is that we are easily able to distinguish artefacts at very high refresh rates.

From the practical standpoint, all reviewers I've seen so far agree that the 120Hz on the iPad makes a lot of difference.

 

[Wowereit]

I'll admit I'd love a 10bit display to have more pleasing gradients. However the real benefit of that would be if my clients also had 10bit displays to view the content on.

Haha, the age old misery of creating some color graded 180 mb ultra high resolution image, which is going to end up as a compressed to death 400x600 .jpg on a website viewed on TN-panels.