Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
17", 8-bit display or not
- Thread starter rickeames
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
A mix. For the sake of personal, and sometimes professional preferences, I set up my clients with what they're most comfortable with, and show them how to maximize their experience on either. I try to get as many clients as I can to at least *try* a gloss screen on the MBP 17", because, as an old Barco/Sony/CRT guy, I've got no problems with gloss, and WANT as much detail sharpness as possible, along with rich, deep blacks, blacks that are the first to say bye-bye on a matte LCD. I've got a soft spot for matte PB LCDs, though- just bought and installed a new (24-bit in hardware, natch) stock replacement LCD for my trusty 12" 1.5 Ghz PB, along with a 200 GB 7200 rpm ATA drive... best netbook's Apple's ever made, until... ;^)
Best,
Charlie
So, did you bother to properly calibrate the HP? It sounds like you didn't, and comparing a properly and carefully calibrated MBP with a HP in stock settings is a totally and utterly useless exsersize that would indeed prove the point you are trying to make before you even started.. 
The comparison would only make sense and have any validity if you used the same $2700 calibrator to make sure the HP configured optimally. If you did not because you didn't have time or whatever, the whole story becomes hogwash.
The comparison would only make sense and have any validity if you used the same $2700 calibrator to make sure the HP configured optimally. If you did not because you didn't have time or whatever, the whole story becomes hogwash.
So, did you bother to properly calibrate the HP? It sounds like you didn't, and comparing a properly and carefully calibrated MBP with a HP in stock settings is a totally and utterly useless exsersize that would indeed prove the point you are trying to make before you even started..
The comparison would only make sense and have any validity if you used the same $2700 calibrator to make sure the HP configured optimally. If you did not because you didn't have time or whatever, the whole story becomes hogwash.
Since that's the first thing I do with anything I use or am considering using professionally, is to 'bother' with a thorough hardware calibration of the display, and always with the same $2700.00 hardware calibrator, the answer would be a yes; sorry to disappoint you. Why would you assume that I'm being unfair to the HP, or just plain incompetent? Why would you assume that I'd waste my time and, presumably, yours, with a comparison with no reference point? To 'prove' a point? I was considering *buying* the thing, and at a price that I considered to be an absolute STEAL! =^P
I go with what works, not what I *wish* worked, or what the specs SAY will work, but with what I can produce the best results with, the most consistently.
Sorry, no hogwash here.
Best,
Charlie
I'll bite. The devil is in the details, this sounds like built in dithering or some other slight of hand to allow more perceptible colors like other panels have done. If it was a true 24 bit panel it would sing it from the rooftops, not couch it in some techno-babble with qualifiers.
The rest of the specs are impressive though. Custom white points should be a boon for any color sensitive work ( if it works as advertised ).
Lies, Damn Lies, and Specs, Part II
The HP's display has a far narrower gamut than the 17" unibody MBP's; '128%' of NTSC is like saying that your color screen can display every color in a Crayola box... ProPhoto RGB has a MUCH broader color gamut than Adobe RGB 1998, and I can easily calibrate the 17" MBP to use Prophoto RGB in a CMS worflow, to an Epson 2400 or 3800 outputting to Premium Glossy Photo paper for a photo gallery print. I'll need to DISPLAY those colors in a range that's not only visible, but editable, which means the 17" MBP screen has to *encompass* the Prophoto RGB range, not just display Prophoto only to it's limits.
Does the HP do this? Is it able to? No. If it could, I might have found room for it as a Windows test-bed 'second', like my Lenovo W700 is now to my 3 17" unibody MBPs.
The HP's screen, despite its LED backlighting, also manages to display uneven backlighting, backlit blacks, and color drift from a light magenta to a pale blue tone in the whites. This is AFTER extensive hardware calibration, using the same Gretag-MacBeth calibration unit I use for all my other screens, laptop and desktop.
Specs are NOT what HP's marketing copy describes. Specs don't crow about a display's 'active colors' (what's an 'inactive color'?), or that one can create 'custom Gamma/white points', when that's EXACTLY what any software or hardware calibration utility does, or that it exceeds NTSC (the Crayola Box) by over 100%... My $600.00, 32" Sony Bravia HDTV exceeds NTSC color gamut by MORE than that.
If you want the best Windows laptop out there, and it's STILL not as good as the MBP 17" unibody running Windows, let alone OS X, but MILES better than the HP, grab a Lenovo W700, built the way you want. Nice machine. At least it's able to get out of its own way, color-wise, and it has a <built-in> color calibration system, for those who like consumer-grade calibration in a $5k laptop... but at least it's built with some *creative* design features, eh? =^P
Best,
Charlie
The HP's display has a far narrower gamut than the 17" unibody MBP's; '128%' of NTSC is like saying that your color screen can display every color in a Crayola box... ProPhoto RGB has a MUCH broader color gamut than Adobe RGB 1998, and I can easily calibrate the 17" MBP to use Prophoto RGB in a CMS worflow, to an Epson 2400 or 3800 outputting to Premium Glossy Photo paper for a photo gallery print. I'll need to DISPLAY those colors in a range that's not only visible, but editable, which means the 17" MBP screen has to *encompass* the Prophoto RGB range, not just display Prophoto only to it's limits.
Does the HP do this? Is it able to? No. If it could, I might have found room for it as a Windows test-bed 'second', like my Lenovo W700 is now to my 3 17" unibody MBPs.
The HP's screen, despite its LED backlighting, also manages to display uneven backlighting, backlit blacks, and color drift from a light magenta to a pale blue tone in the whites. This is AFTER extensive hardware calibration, using the same Gretag-MacBeth calibration unit I use for all my other screens, laptop and desktop.
Specs are NOT what HP's marketing copy describes. Specs don't crow about a display's 'active colors' (what's an 'inactive color'?), or that one can create 'custom Gamma/white points', when that's EXACTLY what any software or hardware calibration utility does, or that it exceeds NTSC (the Crayola Box) by over 100%... My $600.00, 32" Sony Bravia HDTV exceeds NTSC color gamut by MORE than that.
If you want the best Windows laptop out there, and it's STILL not as good as the MBP 17" unibody running Windows, let alone OS X, but MILES better than the HP, grab a Lenovo W700, built the way you want. Nice machine. At least it's able to get out of its own way, color-wise, and it has a <built-in> color calibration system, for those who like consumer-grade calibration in a $5k laptop... but at least it's built with some *creative* design features, eh? =^P
Best,
Charlie
Just asking.
You specifically mentioned calibrating the MBP, but not even hinted at the same for the HP.You also say:
I would expect any half decent screen that's properly calibrated to do better than that.
I mean, the MBP has a very nice screen, but there is a reason why a company like Eizo is able to sell $3000-$4000 color accurate screens and that's not because these screens are readily available in laptops that cost less.
Then again, while my (work) time also easily costs $300/hr, people would probably not pay me a dime to do graphics related work.
I am however interested in the subject as I like digital photography and have had my share of problems in trying to get consistent results between what I see and what others see on their screen or in print.I obviously do not have the funds for such expensive calibrating equipment and I have to settle for a $150 consumer version of such stuff. It's is better than no calibration at all, and I hope the 15" MBP and 24" LED ACS will do better than the rather cheap PC I have been using so far.
Thoughts?
WAY Too Many Thoughts...
Just asking. You specifically mentioned calibrating the MBP, but not even hinted at the same for the HP.
OK, fair enough.
You also say:
Quote:
inability to actually produce anything resembling industry-standard CMS-compliant output files on even COMPING devices, let alone PROOFING devices.
I would expect any half decent screen that's properly calibrated to do better than that.
Youd think, wouldnt you? Me too. Unfortunately, such is not the case. Its not for lack of trying. The ability of a display to render colors accurately enough to be pertinent to a particular CMS workflows just not present in any meaningful way in the HP. It wasnt that the results werent *close* at times, but the results, in ALL cases, were NOT repeatable, which meant that the results were just statistical filler, not hopeful signs of a pro-quality display just needing some dialing-in.
I mean, the MBP has a very nice screen, but there is a reason why a company like Eizo is able to sell $3000-$4000 color accurate screens and that's not because these screens are readily available in laptops that cost less.
The 17 MBP unibody has the best screen of any laptop yet produced, IMO. Ive tried and/or owned every single Windows and Mac laptop that might be included in that surprisingly short list, too. And if your point is that you get what you pay for, well, yes- under ideal circumstances. The HP in question costs more than its mediocre display performance suggests its worth. If your point is that theres no alternative in a laptop to Eizo-class $3k-$5k displays except for a few select laptops designed from the ground up NOT to be general-purpose computing portable computing appliances, I agree there as well- I feel that there should be some color-accurate 24-bit display-equipped laptops in both OS X and Windows OSs available today for less than $3-$5k. There isnt, and no amount of lame HPs PR-penned pro-spec ad copy about a screen thats mediocre at best with regard to color rendering and accuracy in the lets hope we dont waste any more Epson Photo Glossy on this scenic picture of Point Reyes advanced consumer segment of the laptop marketplace, let alone the pro market segment will make it so (no Star Trek pun intended).
As someone who owns several Eizo desktop displays, and has owned and used them since the old 120 lb. 21 CRT FlexScan days, I can attest to their great value, as opposed to their initial cost, ROI with them can be astonishingly rapid, given work that requires their amazing rendering acuity. My clients who need such displays are well-aware of the cost and are never surprised by pro equipment pricing.
The reason such market striations not such a great thing, and why pro features such as color accuracy and repeatable output spec, calibration-savvy displays that hardware-render in 24-bit color should be available to MORE folks than just those who can afford Eizo products is SO important, IMO, is that access to tools of adequate color-accuracy/24-bit color rendering laptop screen quality for students, enthusiasts, and neophytes is a GREAT way for manufacturers to build brand loyalty, and to insure Johnny the laptop+P/S student becomes Johnny the Nikon D3X photographer who outfits a 6-screen studio five years later with shiny new Eizo products.
Then again, while my (work) time also easily costs $300/hr, people would probably not pay me a dime to do graphics related work. I am however interested in the subject as I like digital photography and have had my share of problems in trying to get consistent results between what I see and what others see on their screen or in print.
I hear ya. The challenge I see as central for you, me, and anyone else for whom good tools, used well, can equal great results is to have an adequately broad array of different product resources from which to choose, not just a few Apple Cinema, Eizo, and NEC displays in the desktop space, and in laptops, the MBP 15 (for some critical color work), the 17 unibody MBP (for virtually any critical color work) and the Lenovo W700 (the only windows laptop that even comes close at present). The days of iBooks having 24-bit screens and S-IPS screens in 15 Lenovos (a few years back) are long over, and mores the pity.
I obviously do not have the funds for such expensive calibrating equipment and I have to settle for a $150 consumer version of such stuff. It's is better than no calibration at all, and I hope the 15" MBP and 24" LED ACS will do better than the rather cheap PC I have been using so far.
The Eye-One Display 2 and a few others are great products that provide results light-years ahead of the typical software color calibration available in Adobe Gamma or Apples Display Calibrator Assistant. And yeah, your hardware calibrator and the 15 MBP and that gorgeous 24 LED ACD (I own one, and its going to have company, soon!), will be *more* than enough to provide reliable, accurate color results, given your due diligence. Of that, I'm certain you have plenty. ;^)
Best,
Charlie
Just asking. You specifically mentioned calibrating the MBP, but not even hinted at the same for the HP.
OK, fair enough.
You also say:
Quote:
inability to actually produce anything resembling industry-standard CMS-compliant output files on even COMPING devices, let alone PROOFING devices.
I would expect any half decent screen that's properly calibrated to do better than that.
Youd think, wouldnt you? Me too. Unfortunately, such is not the case. Its not for lack of trying. The ability of a display to render colors accurately enough to be pertinent to a particular CMS workflows just not present in any meaningful way in the HP. It wasnt that the results werent *close* at times, but the results, in ALL cases, were NOT repeatable, which meant that the results were just statistical filler, not hopeful signs of a pro-quality display just needing some dialing-in.
I mean, the MBP has a very nice screen, but there is a reason why a company like Eizo is able to sell $3000-$4000 color accurate screens and that's not because these screens are readily available in laptops that cost less.
The 17 MBP unibody has the best screen of any laptop yet produced, IMO. Ive tried and/or owned every single Windows and Mac laptop that might be included in that surprisingly short list, too. And if your point is that you get what you pay for, well, yes- under ideal circumstances. The HP in question costs more than its mediocre display performance suggests its worth. If your point is that theres no alternative in a laptop to Eizo-class $3k-$5k displays except for a few select laptops designed from the ground up NOT to be general-purpose computing portable computing appliances, I agree there as well- I feel that there should be some color-accurate 24-bit display-equipped laptops in both OS X and Windows OSs available today for less than $3-$5k. There isnt, and no amount of lame HPs PR-penned pro-spec ad copy about a screen thats mediocre at best with regard to color rendering and accuracy in the lets hope we dont waste any more Epson Photo Glossy on this scenic picture of Point Reyes advanced consumer segment of the laptop marketplace, let alone the pro market segment will make it so (no Star Trek pun intended).
As someone who owns several Eizo desktop displays, and has owned and used them since the old 120 lb. 21 CRT FlexScan days, I can attest to their great value, as opposed to their initial cost, ROI with them can be astonishingly rapid, given work that requires their amazing rendering acuity. My clients who need such displays are well-aware of the cost and are never surprised by pro equipment pricing.
The reason such market striations not such a great thing, and why pro features such as color accuracy and repeatable output spec, calibration-savvy displays that hardware-render in 24-bit color should be available to MORE folks than just those who can afford Eizo products is SO important, IMO, is that access to tools of adequate color-accuracy/24-bit color rendering laptop screen quality for students, enthusiasts, and neophytes is a GREAT way for manufacturers to build brand loyalty, and to insure Johnny the laptop+P/S student becomes Johnny the Nikon D3X photographer who outfits a 6-screen studio five years later with shiny new Eizo products.
Then again, while my (work) time also easily costs $300/hr, people would probably not pay me a dime to do graphics related work. I am however interested in the subject as I like digital photography and have had my share of problems in trying to get consistent results between what I see and what others see on their screen or in print.
I hear ya. The challenge I see as central for you, me, and anyone else for whom good tools, used well, can equal great results is to have an adequately broad array of different product resources from which to choose, not just a few Apple Cinema, Eizo, and NEC displays in the desktop space, and in laptops, the MBP 15 (for some critical color work), the 17 unibody MBP (for virtually any critical color work) and the Lenovo W700 (the only windows laptop that even comes close at present). The days of iBooks having 24-bit screens and S-IPS screens in 15 Lenovos (a few years back) are long over, and mores the pity.
I obviously do not have the funds for such expensive calibrating equipment and I have to settle for a $150 consumer version of such stuff. It's is better than no calibration at all, and I hope the 15" MBP and 24" LED ACS will do better than the rather cheap PC I have been using so far.
The Eye-One Display 2 and a few others are great products that provide results light-years ahead of the typical software color calibration available in Adobe Gamma or Apples Display Calibrator Assistant. And yeah, your hardware calibrator and the 15 MBP and that gorgeous 24 LED ACD (I own one, and its going to have company, soon!), will be *more* than enough to provide reliable, accurate color results, given your due diligence. Of that, I'm certain you have plenty. ;^)
Best,
Charlie
Thanks for your insights and comments, very interesting indeed.
One thing in particular caught my eye... were we really able to get better screens a few years ago? What happened to technology going forward and stuff??
One thing in particular caught my eye... were we really able to get better screens a few years ago?
What happened to technology going forward and stuff??Thanks for your insights and comments, very interesting indeed.
One thing in particular caught my eye... were we really able to get better screens a few years ago?
That's a great question, and I wish I knew the answer. For starters, I guess that depends on how one’s defining ‘better’. The contrast, overall brightness, color gamut and dynamic range of my old 12” G4 PowerBook Digital Audio; 1.5 Ghz) screen’s nowhere near as impressive as my 17” unibody MBP, for all the obvious reasons like costs, technology, etc.. BUT- I just calibrated one of the two 12” DA 1.5 Ghz G4 PBs I own, and while it’s 6 year old screen’s showing signs of its age by growing ever dimmer (the flourescent backlighting dims with age)the 12” PowerBook’s matte screen still held a pretty standard, 2.2 Gamma, Adobe 1998- savvy RGB>CMYK output to the equivalent of 200 lpi 4c offset to coated paper for a fictitious spread. I just built such an ad in CS3 P-shop on the little guy, and output the finished CMYK file to my network Server. After pulling that file into a larger project I’m working on for one of the classes I teach locally, I found it printed out to comp and proof exactly as if I’d prepped the photo on my desktop Mac Pro or one of my MBPs. Same end result. Took awhile longer, as I had to be patient while the 1.25 GB of RAM and the little G4 processor grappled with the Nikon D3X file, which at times grew to over 160 MB, but the ability of the older screen to consistently depict, with acceptable for a laptop accuracy, the colors in a way that I could consistently predict what the dropper’s numbers were going to read as I scanned the photo during editing and RGB>CMYK conversion was amazing. For example, when I edited for sharpness with some judicious USM, I could easily see where and at what point the USM began to posterize and 'block up' the mids and shadows, because the 12" PB's display was already displaying clean, smooth mid to shadow transitions with which 6-bit displays often struggle. I could edit for the USM, not for USM+display shortcomings. It saved time, and sanity. Such benefits fall largely outside the almost HDTV spec-race benefits of high brightness and contrast that characterize the current MB display, for example.
As I said, the color accuracy seemed to be where Apple stood years ago with respect to priority in its laptop screen technology. The years since have brought huge gains in apparent color richness, saturation, dynamic range, brightness and contrast. But there were NO apparent dithering artifacts in the mids or shadows when I edited that photo for press output, none of the limits that the 6-bit per channel MacBook my wife just sold on eBay to buy a refurb MBP 15.4” 2.33/2GB had, and frankly, getting the photo file done as well or as quickly in P-shop CS3 on the much more powerful MacBook (3GB RAM, 2.2 Ghz) would have taken LONGER, as I would have had to second-guess much of what I was seeing much more on the MB, even though I’m very well-versed in their use, as most my students have had them for years.
IMO, the priorities in laptop screen technology at Apple have changed. That’s a lot harder to deal with for me than the older technology and obsolete CPU of a six-year-old 12” PB! ;^)
Advanced Digital Imaging, as in, taking photographs and artwork from proper scan or CF/SD card file all the way through to something that's edited, corrected, and added to another composition or art piece for reproduction, or directly printed for gallery use or sale. A LOT of Photoshop, Aperture, LightRoom, Capture One Pro to Shake, Maya, FCP, Media 100, designing and building a video production workstation/studio teaching, batch-processing and how to write and adjust scripts/actions, planning, building, maintaining and scaling CMS workflows, creating ICC profiles, how to use all types of related hardware, software, and processes... my courses can be, and usually are, logically developed subsets of all of that, but, occasionally, someone or some instititution wants an overview course with some real 'depth', and THAT's a fun course to teach! Students, working pros, Departmental training, you name it.
ADI, for example, one of several courses, classes, and labs I teach as kind of an itinerant, 1 or 2 semester, or 'fast-track' 4 to 6 week course instructor... I also run a design, consulting, video, digital photography and imaging studio, and have a Cisco CCNE (Cisco Certified Network Expert), the hardest test I've ever taken. Two days of travel, three days of testing hell, $5700.00, years of study & experience just blasted away by the sheer difficulty of what Cisco requires you know how to do before CCNE certification... it makes working on Mac issues, including Mac/Mac, Mac/PC networking issues, an *absolute*, palm-tree filled vacation! =^P
Best,
Charlie
You clearly haven't actually usd a PVA screen if you think thats what they look like. That screen inversion pattern is typical of TN monitors and not any other type.
Here are vewing angles from a PVA screen.
Not all samsung screens are PVA, many of their monitors are TN.
