Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Macbook Pro (Late, early mid 2011,2012 )Refreshes?????????

H

Hecatic

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Apr 4, 2012
13
0
What is the point of knowing the refreshes of the model?
Like, if you go to about mac on the menu, you could see when MBP was released.
Is there a minor hardware changes as the time goes by?
I thought they change hardware every year?
What is the difference between early 2011 and Late 2011 model?


Also, anyone know of a good monitor that I can use for Photoshop?
Trying to get 2 monitors.. I heard thunderbolt display is too glossy! :p
 
avoid apple displays, and avoid glossy monitors. Dell is a good place to start with the Ultrasharp series. I have 2 different 22' dell ultrasharp monitors and they are decent for photoshop needs. If you don't require colour correct monitors then buy the cheapest you can find, if you do then you need something with an IPS panel.
 
I think the Apple Cinema displays are fine monitors and my recommendation is not to avoid them but check them out yourself and see if they're worth the money.

The issue with dell displays are ok, provided you avoid the cheap bottom of the barrel models.
 
Well, i have been looking at ultrasharp and people are saying there are too much anti glare sparyed on the monitor.. Thats my concern

I will be doing heavy photoshop work and i need precise colors
 
I have two 24" ACDs connected to my Mac Pro at work, but I much prefer the single Dell U2410 ultra sharp I use with my MBP at home, mostly because I don't stare at myself through all of my photos (even more of an issue with the dark theme of CS6). I do find the anti glare on the Dell to be a bit heavy handed, but it's still much better to look at than glare. YMMV.

Definitely check out the Apple monitors before you make a call, though. Some people love them. Personally, they give me headaches. A lot of your decision will depend on budget. LaCie, NEC, and HP (dream color) are all great, but expensive. Good luck!
 
HoosPhotog said:
I have two 24" ACDs connected to my Mac Pro at work, but I much prefer the single Dell U2410 ultra sharp I use with my MBP at home, mostly because I don't stare at myself through all of my photos (even more of an issue with the dark theme of CS6). I do find the anti glare on the Dell to be a bit heavy handed, but it's still much better to look at than glare. YMMV.

Definitely check out the Apple monitors before you make a call, though. Some people love them. Personally, they give me headaches. A lot of your decision will depend on budget. LaCie, NEC, and HP (dream color) are all great, but expensive. Good luck!
Click to expand...

The only reason I need duel monitors is because I always need to see the references when I draw in photoshop. I do need to see color variations and precise colors because again, I draw in photoshop.
also for Ultrasharp 24 inch models, should I be getting U2410 instead U2412?
Seems like major difference is the response time.
 
dells are your best value for money in terms of a good panel, the old ACDs were really nice the new models I don't like as much as the older models, most people don't.

I recommended dell because they have a better range, are cheaper and at times better than what apple have to offer. True colour precision monitors will cost at least $1500 and up. You will get away with it on the ultrasharp 24 especially after you calibrate it to maximize the screens capabilities, but if you have money to spend on a monitor that is worth more than your computer then look at LaCie and NEC.
 
Hecatic said:
The only reason I need duel monitors is because I always need to see the references when I draw in photoshop. I do need to see color variations and precise colors because again, I draw in photoshop.
also for Ultrasharp 24 inch models, should I be getting U2410 instead U2412?
Seems like major difference is the response time.
Click to expand...

I would recommend the U2410 instead of the '12 due to the wider gamut- you want to be able to display the full Adobe RGB colorspace. The faster response time on the '10 isn't really crucial to graphic work, but could potentially make a difference if you also game a lot. Whatever you get, invest in a high quality hardware color calibration solution with good accompanying software. At the end of the day, they are both good monitors, so consider what your budget will allow.
 
HoosPhotog said:
I would recommend the U2410 instead of the '12 due to the wider gamut- you want to be able to display the full Adobe RGB colorspace. The faster response time on the '10 isn't really crucial to graphic work, but could potentially make a difference if you also game a lot. Whatever you get, invest in a high quality hardware color calibration solution with good accompanying software. At the end of the day, they are both good monitors, so consider what your budget will allow.
Click to expand...


So you wouldnt recommand thunderbolt display either?
 
Hecatic said:
So you wouldnt recommand thunderbolt display either?
Click to expand...

I think you need to try it out for yourself to see if you're okay with the gloss (glare), but it is competitively priced for a 27" display. It only supports the sRGB colorspace to the U2410's full Adobe RGB. I personally find 24 inches large enough, but if you're working with a laptop, the connectivity of the ATD could be a big help in having a workstation (ie, Ethernet, FireWire, USB, thunderbolt). But, most of all you need to see whether or not glossy's for you.
 
HoosPhotog said:
I think you need to try it out for yourself to see if you're okay with the gloss (glare), but it is competitively priced for a 27" display. It only supports the sRGB colorspace to the U2410's full Adobe RGB. I personally find 24 inches large enough, but if you're working with a laptop, the connectivity of the ATD could be a big help in having a workstation (ie, Ethernet, FireWire, USB, thunderbolt). But, most of all you need to see whether or not glossy's for you.
Click to expand...

What advantage is there to use thunderbolt cable for display?
The response time is pretty slower than dell monitors..
 
Hecatic said:
What advantage is there to use thunderbolt cable for display?
The response time is pretty slower than dell monitors..
Click to expand...

The advantage of using thunderbolt for the display is simply that it lets your monitor act as a docking station containing other ports without the need to individually connect all of the different wires to your notebook each. Time you plug in. Thunderbolt carries the display port protocol, so there's not much difference between it and a normal display port connector for carrying the actual video feed.

As far as response time- I would get too worked up about the specs if photoshop is going to be your primary use, as response time isn't essential to graphic work- the image on the screen isn't changing incredibly quickly like it is while gaming.
 
Hecatic said:
Well, i have been looking at ultrasharp and people are saying there are too much anti glare sparyed on the monitor.. Thats my concern

I will be doing heavy photoshop work and i need precise colors
Click to expand...

I'm trying to think of a good way to explain this, but it could go on for pages. What most people on here do not seem to understand is that just picking one display over another does not guarantee you much at all. You need a point of reference. If you base corrections on maximum brightness, your prints will look too dark. Then of course all displays (all, every one of them no matter how much they cost) lose brightness and drift in color over time. You're going to have to realize that you won't get something perfect. You want something that's as close as possible, which will not give you headaches. By the way, warm it up at least 30 minutes before trusting what you see or attempting to profile it. I'd suggest you just avoid the really cheap ones. The better Dells are okay. I'm reluctant to say this, but the Apple is probably okay. Both are difficult to profile properly. Only the newest (as in 2011 on) colorimeters do a half decent job, or you can drop $1k or more on a spectrophotometer. The LED backlighting on the Apple will throw older ones way off. On the Dell the wide gamut will most likely come out looking too green with older colorimeters. In either case the goal should be to match it against prints. If you're using this all the time, expect around 3 years of good service. Beyond that, their gamuts drift way too much to remain a good reference. These all use LG's cheap anti glare coatings. If you want a real solution, you want a light controlled room (really really dark) with the display's brightness set to typically around 90-100cd/m2. Start from there and adjust as needed to match the whites of the paper you print on. You know why this is? The reflected light affects the perception of colors on your display.

Okay I've gone on long enough. The real point here was don't expect one purchase to solve all your problems. The good thing is that we've gotten to a point where if you buy a decent display, use the right settings, and profile it once or twice a month, you can get pretty damn close.


HoosPhotog said:
I would recommend the U2410 instead of the '12 due to the wider gamut- you want to be able to display the full Adobe RGB colorspace. The faster response time on the '10 isn't really crucial to graphic work, but could potentially make a difference if you also game a lot. Whatever you get, invest in a high quality hardware color calibration solution with good accompanying software. At the end of the day, they are both good monitors, so consider what your budget will allow.
Click to expand...

I don't always see wide gamut as an advantage. They tend to profile a bit green. The colorimeter I mentioned does a reasonably good job of fixing this, but even then it's not perfect. If you profile it via spectrophotometer, you can get it pretty damn neutral. Getting things really neutral was always a problem. It's just that wide gamut displays make it more noticeable, and the jumps are a bit wider. I own one. It's not that they're bad. They're just a little tricky to manage, but the same can be said about the Apple display. In 2009 or so when the wide gamut/LED backlit displays started to trickle out, it was nearly impossible to get a good result, so we've come a long way since then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back