Well I've got the Samsung screen and don't think it's all that great either. I'm not impressed with TN panels at all. I can assure you, there is nothing wrong with my screen either. Regardless of where you work, it appears that I as well as the other poster do in fact have a higher standard as to what we think is "damn nice" unless your screen is a factory freak and looks nicer that every other MBA screen I've seen, which is highly unlikely.
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.
Is it just me or is the MBA screen better in quality then the MBP?
- Thread starter waloshin
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well I've got the Samsung screen and don't think it's all that great either. I'm not impressed with TN panels at all. I can assure you, there is nothing wrong with my screen either. Regardless of where you work, it appears that I as well as the other poster do in fact have a higher standard as to what we think is "damn nice" unless your screen is a factory freak and looks nicer that every other MBA screen I've seen, which is highly unlikely.
Very true, indeed. The MBAs have plastic screens instead of glass ones on the MBP and iMacs and ATDs. I suppose Apple could have applied an anti-reflective coating to those glass displays as well but chose not to for reasons I don't understand. There is definitely an anti-reflective coating on the 13 inch MBA. It's extremely effective. I've been able to use mine with an open window behind me and still not need to turn up the brightness fully during daytime.
It's just you.
The MBP uses a higher quality panel at a slightly lower resolution, so color gamut, accuracy, and viewing angles are superior on the MBP. While the MBA has slightly higher resolution, it looks washed out and gray next to a MBP.
Uh, I think it's you.
I have a 2011 MBA and viewing media is hands down worse on that than my girlfriend's 2011 MBP. Higher resolution on the MBA but much more washed out. The pro has much more vibrant color and deeper blacks. You don't even need to compare them right next to each other to notice the difference. Don't get me wrong, the MBA has a great screen, but compared to the pro it's not that hot (with the obvious exception of a higher resolution).
It's a valid description. He could have also referred to shadow detail. It can be really annoying when it's bad. TN panels have actually come a long way. The volume among laptops has most likely driven the technology forward.
I may be wrong, and I don't want to sound like a know-it-all pedant who is posting to just be clever. But my understanding of colour theory is that black can be defined as the visual impression experienced when no visible light reaches the eye.
So how can shades of blackness be achieved?
I am familiar with shades of grey, I also know that the printing industry (in defiance of what seems logical with regards to colour theory) uses what it calls "rich black", which is black laid over CMY which is often referred to as being "blacker than black", even though it obviously isn't.
But how does one have varying shades of black?
Last edited:
We're basically arguing semantics at this point although my description of the issue as shadow detail evades your concerns here. It's a matter of perception. He described "shades" that were all too dark to be perceived as grey tones in his mind. Had they been presented individually, any one of them would have been regarded as black. On a display, if there's no differentiation among the darker values, you lack detail at that range. Basically they're clipped.
Okay on cmyk it works a little different. I'm not going to argue the pigments vs colors of light thing because it never provides an accurate description. Think of it this way.... with the technology available, mixing those three inks doesn't yield a completely neutral black in darker values. They use a specially mixed black ink to compensate for the fact that on paper in typical viewing conditions, the mixture of cyan, magenta, and yellow ink looks more like a dark brown than a true black. Here's a nice wiki link for you on undercolor removal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_color_removal
We're talking about devices here. Bringing theory into the discussion isn't going to change anything. If your shadow values all converge on the display, your detail is for all practical purposes clipped at that point regardless of the measured cd/m2 value.
As I said, despite the evidence I suppose, I din't mean to sound like some kind of keenly argumentative internet Mr Clever Trousers. I just wondered what you meant when you averred that black had "shades". I only have a layman's understanding about the difficulties of "good" blacks when using CMYK separations, hence the need to overlay K, I just wondered how that could be applied to a monitor. But I know what you mean when you referred to the OP having trouble discerning "shades of blackness", he meant the dark tones weren't correct as far as his eyes were concerned. All well and good. Thanks.
I have the LG panel and after doing the calibration, the blacks look much darker and colors not as washed out, thanks !!