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.
MacBook Pro Grainy Display
- Thread starter pbmikez
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's the coating on the LCD combined with the extremely small pixels that create a "sparkly" effect and the condition is not helped by the "inherent" grainy dithering associated with the x1600 gpu. I think dell said it best:
"images May Appear Sparkly or Blurry with WUXGA LCD Displays.
Table of Contents
1. Discussion
1. Discussion
WUXGA LCDs are the highest resolution panels available in the market today. These displays use an industry-standard process that applies a textured coating to the inside of the polarizer to reduce glare and improve light distribution. The WUXGA panel offers nearly twice as many pixels as a WXGA panel [1.3MPixels vs 2.4MPixels]. These pixels are much smaller and denser than on WXGA panels. The smaller size, higher density, and textured coating may cause the display to create a sparkling or blurry effect while using light-colored backgrounds or on a white background, such as word processing applications. This is typical of this technology and is needed to prevent glare and increase viewing angles."
http://support.dell.com/support/top...1EC894&docid=ECCF0BD385ACD62CE030030ABD6251E8
This is true. I've looked very closely at my friend's 15" wide Gateway laptop. The pixels are well defined compared to the MBP...i can actually distinguish each individual pixel, unlike my MBP where i cant even distinguish an individual one (against a solid color background). This would explain why my friend's Dell 22" widescreen LCD has the same "shimmer" as my MBP.
Note: the 17" has the WUXGA (which is associated with hi-res screens).
15" supposedly has the WXGA screen.
update: My friend's 15" gateway's max resolution is like 1280 x 800 his has no "grain" and is glossy. but the pixels are not as densely packed (ie extremly visible individual pixels).
update 2: I'm not entirely certain, but on ebay MOST IF NOT ALL 15.4" WXGA screens have a max resolution of 1280 x 800.
17" WXGA screens have 1440 x 900 max.
IS apple using some special WXGA screen with 1440 x 900 res? that's actually not bad compared to a lot of other 15.4s there with WXGA screens.
"images May Appear Sparkly or Blurry with WUXGA LCD Displays.
Table of Contents
1. Discussion
1. Discussion
WUXGA LCDs are the highest resolution panels available in the market today. These displays use an industry-standard process that applies a textured coating to the inside of the polarizer to reduce glare and improve light distribution. The WUXGA panel offers nearly twice as many pixels as a WXGA panel [1.3MPixels vs 2.4MPixels]. These pixels are much smaller and denser than on WXGA panels. The smaller size, higher density, and textured coating may cause the display to create a sparkling or blurry effect while using light-colored backgrounds or on a white background, such as word processing applications. This is typical of this technology and is needed to prevent glare and increase viewing angles."
http://support.dell.com/support/top...1EC894&docid=ECCF0BD385ACD62CE030030ABD6251E8
This is true. I've looked very closely at my friend's 15" wide Gateway laptop. The pixels are well defined compared to the MBP...i can actually distinguish each individual pixel, unlike my MBP where i cant even distinguish an individual one (against a solid color background). This would explain why my friend's Dell 22" widescreen LCD has the same "shimmer" as my MBP.
Note: the 17" has the WUXGA (which is associated with hi-res screens).
15" supposedly has the WXGA screen.
update: My friend's 15" gateway's max resolution is like 1280 x 800 his has no "grain" and is glossy. but the pixels are not as densely packed (ie extremly visible individual pixels).
update 2: I'm not entirely certain, but on ebay MOST IF NOT ALL 15.4" WXGA screens have a max resolution of 1280 x 800.
17" WXGA screens have 1440 x 900 max.
IS apple using some special WXGA screen with 1440 x 900 res? that's actually not bad compared to a lot of other 15.4s there with WXGA screens.
Those comparing LCDs with Sony's... note that sony's 15.4" max resolution is 1280 x 800. while 15.4" mbp is 1440 x 900.
Sony FE, FS, N all come with the same 15.4" LCD with a lower resolution than the MBP.
I've tried looking for what type of screen apple uses...the website does not specify, and i cant seem to find a concrete source. Most people say the 15 uses a WXGA type screen, however. Could it be a WUXGA? It exhibits the "issues" as any other, and has a higher resolution that ALL comparable 15.4 LCDs i have found yet. If you guys can find an WXGA 15.4" screen with max resolution of 1440 x 900, I'd be much obliged.
Sony FE, FS, N all come with the same 15.4" LCD with a lower resolution than the MBP.
I've tried looking for what type of screen apple uses...the website does not specify, and i cant seem to find a concrete source. Most people say the 15 uses a WXGA type screen, however. Could it be a WUXGA? It exhibits the "issues" as any other, and has a higher resolution that ALL comparable 15.4 LCDs i have found yet. If you guys can find an WXGA 15.4" screen with max resolution of 1440 x 900, I'd be much obliged.
You seem to be confusing panel size with resolution. For instance, there is no such a thing as a 1400*900 WXGA resolution as WXGA is 1280*800. WSXGA, or WXGA+, as it is sometimes referred to, is 1440*900. WUXGA is 1920*1200. As long as the panel's proportions (aspect ratio) are correct for a given resolution ("widescreen" "standard/square"), the panel can be any size. How about a 3" widescreen iPod with a resolution of 1920*1200? My standard (read: old) 27" television has a resolution of ~640*480.
There are many 15 inch laptops sold with WUXGA (1920*1200) panels. Unfortunately, Macs are not among them. Hence, this thread.
BB
Those people who are saying their 17" MacBook Pro is fine are probably right. It's been mentioned here MANY times that the 17" screen looks really good from what I have seen and others have seen. I think the issue here is ONLY the 15" MacBook Pro. However, I do notice a similar grainy effect on my 20" Apple Cinema Display but, it isn't as bad as the MacBook Pro and it's probably because the pixels are a little bit bigger on the 20" and hide the sparkling effect a little better. I've now grown accustom to it and am no longer bothered with it at all. At normal viewing distances the display looks fine. I didn't want to get used to my MacBook Pro screen though... that was really bad and no matter what viewing distance I tried, it still looked equally as bad. So far I'm extremely happy with my decision to return my MacBook Pro and get the Mac Pro Quad-Core 2.66GHz I just need some more RAM now and a few more hard drives 
That's my 4 cents.
That's my 4 cents.
I received my MBP 17" last thursday (30th Nov), and decided to investigate if this machine has the fabled and overblown grain issue. It does have a certain texture to the display.
Now for the gigantic but part.
Unless I had the only 15" PB 1.5Ghz to have a grainy display, this is not new. My PB is 2 years old and has as far as I can ascertain more a problem with the grain.
I have on my desk a Philips 190P Brilliance 17" LCD. This also has the grain issue.
Now for the gigantic but part.
Unless I had the only 15" PB 1.5Ghz to have a grainy display, this is not new. My PB is 2 years old and has as far as I can ascertain more a problem with the grain.
I have on my desk a Philips 190P Brilliance 17" LCD. This also has the grain issue.
As far as I could tell... the 17" screens looked great. Every 17" MacBook Pro I saw looked really really good. There may be a tiny amount of grain but, that's nothing compared to how the 15" screens looked. I compared them side by side and it's like night and day. Also, it's harder to see the effect under the bright lights at the Apple Store but, if you're using your MacBook Pro 15" in a dimly lit room you may notice the grain a lot more. I just hate the thought that my 12" PowerBook screen looks crystal clear and it's a matte screen... why couldn't they use this type of screen in their new line of displays... is it because they aren't bright enough? If so, I could live with that brightness... I just don't want artifacts all over my screen. That's all.
I think a lot of the complaints about the graininess are coming from people who are new to Macs (yes, I'm one of those). Truth be told, the quality of text displayed in OS X is far inferior to what you get in Windows. The text is much less sharp and less dark, and tends to get jaggy at small point sizes. I have a Mac Pro with a 24" Dell monitor and that's my first hand observation. Things look much better in Win XP (be it Boot Camp or Parallels), even though everything, save the OS, is the same (monitor, video card).
Thats my main disappointment after switching to Mac. I hope Apple fixes this in the next OS X update.
Text has nothing to do with the graininess issue we're talking about and I've always thought the OS X text looks fine. It's probably the best anti-aliased text I've ever had to deal with. The text was not grainy for me.
One of these days I'll take a screen shot of the same text (e.g. a Macrumors post) from OS X and Windows and post it here. Frankly, I’m anti Apple's anti-sumthinorother, and I refuse to be served. As Mrs. Slocomb used to say: I'm unanimous in that!
When I switched from a Gateway laptop 2 years ago, I immediately thought that the text on my PB was way fuzzier. Apple says that this is an improvement, and the text-smoothing does help in some languages. For the rest of us, text in OS X looks less sharp than in XP. Personal preference I guess.
Well, the vast majority of languages supported by OS X is Latin based, so I guess you must be referring to various Asian alphabets.
I wish Apple gave users an option of turning anti-aliasing off completely. Yes, I agree --it is largely a matter of preference and getting used to, but, like I said in my original post, I suspect that, unless OS X is what you've been used to for years (hence don't know any better
) , most people will prefer how Windows renders text.http://www.hardmac.com/news/2006-12-06/#6199
I'm not sure if you guys have seen this, but Apple may finally be fixing the craptacular displays on the production line.
I may finally be able to buy a MBP that has an evenly lit display.
I'm not sure if you guys have seen this, but Apple may finally be fixing the craptacular displays on the production line.
I may finally be able to buy a MBP that has an evenly lit display.
I don't think that's universally true - I'm sitting here, comparing my MBP 15" glossy to my Acer Travelmate 8204, my son's Dull, and his friend's Gateway, and my screen is much sharper and brighter, with text that is equally sharp as on these 2 PC's (my screen is just much brighter with more vibrant colors.)
iBorg
Interesting that the article from that link states that production was only halted in the matte screens, not the glossies. Of course, that's only significant if the article has any truth in it, which is always suspect ......
iBorg
The 1440x900 resolution for a 15.4" laptop is unusual, and I think possibly unique to Apple at the moment. The usual range is either 1280x800 for bog-standard notebooks, 1680x1050 for professional screens (I have a HP/Compaq nx7010 with one such gorgeous screen - particularly compared with my MBP C2D) and 1920 x 1200 for a few suppliers, notably Dell, although this resolution is more commonly seen on high-end 17" notebooks.
My HP is over 2 years old and as such is based on older technology, you would think. So why is it that it has a bright, evenly lit screen with wide viewing angles and decent colour rendition?
After reading all of the replies I no longer am sure where the problem lies with the MPB C2Ds - whether it is just the excessive anti-glare, or whether it is a problem with the dithering on the x1600. Suffice to say, the problem is less noticeable on the MBP CDs or the 17" MBP C2Ds, so probably not a dithering issue. The only common factor with the bad screens is the panel id 9C60, which would suggest a bad batch.
I did see a MBP C2D 15" notebook with a better screen at an Apple Store recently. It had the 9C57 panel, which I think was standard on the MBP CDs.
I shall wait to see what the next batch looks like, although it is too late to return mine now.
This only proves that the displays/video cards on your PCs are not all that good. Run Windows in Boot Camp (better yet, Parallels) on your machine and compare to OS X. The difference is obvious.
Different people’s eyes may process information differently, depending on what they are used to. I'm used to looking at a 14" laptop LCD with 1400x1050 resolution -- sharp text, as good or better than on a printed page. And that's exactly what I get on a 24" Dell at 1920x1200 when I run Windows on my Mac Pro. Not so in OS X. It seems that OS X tries to trick the eye into perceiving non-horizontal/vertical lines as "smooth" by using slight shade variations (i.e., outlying pixels are a little lighter in color). This does not work for me -- my eyes perceive this as blurriness.
hey guys and gals.. was in the apple store yesterday. I returned my 15 inch macbook pro for a macbook. I literally went to every laptop in the store and took a look at the screens. The only screens that had this graininess issue were as everyone says the 15 inch screens. So I returned mine for a macbook and will just wait until apple comes out with a better screen or admits there is a problem.
They're both top-of-the-line flagship notebooks, so it doesn't "prove" anything - their screens and video chips are top-of-the-line, as well. And I don't see any "obvious" difference when I boot into Windoze on my MBP.
I've never read another reference stating your claim of OS X inferiority in text rendering - links?
iBorg
Links? You could just Google and you'd find plenty. I did. Here are a few:
http://www.eoghanmccabe.com/naive-by-design/category/eoghan-mccabe/
http://www.interact-sw.co.uk/iangblog/2004/12/16/hashreply
(Hint: search for text rendring on this page)
http://typographi.com/000739.php
http://daringfireball.net/2003/11/panther_text_rendering
A quote from the last page is quite interesting:
"The controversy stems from the fact that many people simply don’t like anti-aliased text, period, regardless of the algorithm or technique used to achieve it. Many other people adore anti-aliased text. Those who dislike anti-aliased text tend to describe it as fuzzy or blurry. Those who like it tend to think anti-aliased text just plain looks better: that it’s smoother and more accurately conveys the style and feeling — the je ne sais quoi — of a typeface.
There do exist people with no strong feelings on the matter, but for those who do feel strongly, there is no middle ground. The problem is that both camps are right. Anti-aliased text is fuzzy and blurry. But it’s also true that it is smoother. Anti-aliasing is an illusion — the illusion of higher resolution than is actually available. Unfortunately, the illusion doesn’t work well for everyone."
OK, so how do you turn anti-aliasing off in OS X? I WANT IT OFF!!!
I don't know if this thread is still on-topic, but since I just got my MBP...
I haven't noticed any specific grain so far. In fact, the (glossy) screen looks pretty much perfect. Touching wood here...
For what it's worth, the display is a 96420 (if I read the "PCS Illuminant" string correctly).
I haven't noticed any specific grain so far. In fact, the (glossy) screen looks pretty much perfect. Touching wood here...
For what it's worth, the display is a 96420 (if I read the "PCS Illuminant" string correctly).
I got my macbook pro display replaced yesterday by an incredibly professional and accomodating store manager. The previous 09C57 was less grainy, but whites were very off on the right side because of uneven illumination - adn there was a very pronounced white strip on the bottom. I got a 09C60 and it is really not great, I don't care how many people say they like it, it's NOT a good display. For a few hours yesterday I thought I could live with it, but I can't and won't.
- grainy everywhere. I can live with that I think. Even my cinema display has A LITTLE grain, though nothing like this one. The shimmering is only bad when you have solid colors and not really bad when you're viewing photos or movies.
- Viewing angles coupled with the very limited maximum tilt of the display. If the vertical viewing angle were good, then I would accept the limited tilt. However, the combination gets in my way all the time. If I sit properly (straight up with good ergonomics) I cannot get an optimum display angle. I'm average height at 6'1". That means, it's not bright and colors are distorted if I sit properly. The only way for me to enjoy the brightness and positive parts of this display is if I a) move it further away from me and stretch my arms to type (terrible for shoulders, wrists and everything) or b) lean back far in my chair and stretch out while typing (also bad for body in every way). So, this laptop actively prevents good working posture and makes it impossible to combine good ergonomic posture with good viewing angle of the display. Poor design together with a poor display - a lousy combination. Yesterday, I marveled at the high quality of a lady's titanium powerbook display. She was sitting at the genius bar and I walked around to observe viewing angles etc - seemed totally evenly illuminated with good viewing angles. those had other problems, but the display certainly wasn't one of them.
Anyway, I'm working with the Apple Store manager to see if there's a solution to all this. Unfortunately, I'm not optimistic. What I realize now is that unless Apple actually changes their displays, there is no way to get a really good display. People may criticize me for generalizing, but I've seen so many displays now and not one has been first rate - I've tried to get used to and like the displays, but there is no way I can do it. A display is not supposed to get in your way by limiting how you look at it. This one is so limiting that I feel constrained when I'm working. I hope Apple does something quick to fix this.
- grainy everywhere. I can live with that I think. Even my cinema display has A LITTLE grain, though nothing like this one. The shimmering is only bad when you have solid colors and not really bad when you're viewing photos or movies.
- Viewing angles coupled with the very limited maximum tilt of the display. If the vertical viewing angle were good, then I would accept the limited tilt. However, the combination gets in my way all the time. If I sit properly (straight up with good ergonomics) I cannot get an optimum display angle. I'm average height at 6'1". That means, it's not bright and colors are distorted if I sit properly. The only way for me to enjoy the brightness and positive parts of this display is if I a) move it further away from me and stretch my arms to type (terrible for shoulders, wrists and everything) or b) lean back far in my chair and stretch out while typing (also bad for body in every way). So, this laptop actively prevents good working posture and makes it impossible to combine good ergonomic posture with good viewing angle of the display. Poor design together with a poor display - a lousy combination. Yesterday, I marveled at the high quality of a lady's titanium powerbook display. She was sitting at the genius bar and I walked around to observe viewing angles etc - seemed totally evenly illuminated with good viewing angles. those had other problems, but the display certainly wasn't one of them.
Anyway, I'm working with the Apple Store manager to see if there's a solution to all this. Unfortunately, I'm not optimistic. What I realize now is that unless Apple actually changes their displays, there is no way to get a really good display. People may criticize me for generalizing, but I've seen so many displays now and not one has been first rate - I've tried to get used to and like the displays, but there is no way I can do it. A display is not supposed to get in your way by limiting how you look at it. This one is so limiting that I feel constrained when I'm working. I hope Apple does something quick to fix this.