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

Macbook Pro poor quality screens, what are the tech specs?

Jethryn Freyman

Jethryn Freyman

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Aug 9, 2007
2,329
3
Australia
I've got a mid 2007 Macbook Pro. For a $3500 computer, the screen is pretty poor.

I was wondering if anybody knows what the technical specifications of the screens for the current generations of Pros (13 and 15 inch) are.

My 2007 model:

262000 colours maximum (dithering is easily noticeable in photos and HD video.)

16 millisecond response time (input lag is noticeable in some circumstances, terrible ghosting when watching HD video.)

Static contrast is 500:1.

Brightness is 300 cdm.
 
Input lag? You shouldn't be experiencing any input lag at all since the computer is directly connected to the display, not through an input, if that makes sense. You're not going through a cable/port to get a picture.
 
DeusInvictus7 said:
Input lag? You shouldn't be experiencing any input lag at all since the computer is directly connected to the display, not through an input, if that makes sense. You're not going through a cable/port to get a picture.
Click to expand...

It takes the screen 16ms to change a pixel from one colour to another, which is where the input lag is coming from in this case.
 
Hi. Is that a 17" or a 15.4"? I am not familiar with what they use in the 17" regularly. The following information below applies to 15.4" models.

https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=8016284#post8016284

If the model # on the bottom is A1260 or A1226, you most likely have an LG Philips LP154WP2(TL)(A1). Early 2008, LP154WP2(TL)(A2). If you are interested in upgrading, there is a noticeable improvement to be seen when it is swapped out for an AU Optronics B154PW04, depending on the economy in parts of Asia it'll run you $190-$215 to buy one screen.

It is kind of like stereos. You can search specs all day long, but they do not register to what we see, or even to what is accurate. They are often exaggerated, and the worthwhile specs are not the ones that get put on the product sheets you see.
Click to expand...
 
Actually, LCD displays have both pixel response times and input lag but they aren't related. Input lag is caused by buffering and processing of the input signals which can actually take a fair amount of time on some types of displays. Anyone wanting a good overview of LCD display technology should take a look at the following article on AnandTech:

http://www.anandtech.com/displays/showdoc.aspx?i=3584

As for Apple's current MacBooks, I'm pretty certain that they all use 6-bit, TN panels which is not necessarily a bad thing. Probably the only weak point in these displays is their vertical viewing angle (which is fairly narrow, but still quite usable). Then there is the glossy versus matte issue but Apple has decided to leave little choice in that area (unfortunately).

As for the 6-bit/8-bit debate and the resultant range of reproduced colors, it's becoming less of an issue as the TN panels are getting better and the display pixel densities range even higher (beyond 100dpi). In any case, let's not forget that LCD panels can in reality only produce three colors (red, green, blue). TN panels (which are predominantly the so-called 6-bit displays) use various methods to produce a perceived range of colors beyond what would be indicated by their 6-bit nature (the "262000" colors). However, 8-bit panels also rely on limitations in human visual resolution to produce a wider range of perceived colors (beyond just red, green, and blue). Six-bit panels also do the latter, but it's not really fair to criticize TN panels simply because they rely more on our visual limitations than do 8-bit panels (after all, the proof should be in the quality, not in the details of the technical implementation).

I'm not saying that the color reproduction on 6-bit panels is as good as on 8-bit displays (all other factors being equal -- which they never are), but the truth is that a 6-bit, TN panel can be a pretty good display.
 
fpnc said:
http://www.anandtech.com/displays/showdoc.aspx?i=3584
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link.

As for Apple's current MacBooks, I'm pretty certain that they all use 6-bit, TN panels which is not necessarily a bad thing.
Click to expand...

The only advantage a TN panel has is a low response time.

As for the 6-bit/8-bit debate and the resultant range of reproduced colors, it's becoming less of an issue as the TN panels are getting better and the display pixel densities range even higher (beyond 100dpi). In any case, let's not forget that LCD panels can in reality only produce three colors (red, green, blue). TN panels (which are predominantly the so-called 6-bit displays) use various methods to produce a perceived range of colors beyond what would be indicated by their 6-bit nature (the "262000" colors). However, 8-bit panels also rely on limitations in human visual resolution to produce a wider range of perceived colors (beyond just red, green, and blue). Six-bit panels also do the latter, but it's not really fair to criticize TN panels simply because they rely more on our visual limitations than do 8-bit panels (after all, the proof should be in the quality, not in the details of the technical implementation).
Click to expand...

Actually, LCD panels use monochrome pixels, not just RGB.
 
Jethryn Freyman said:
...snip...Actually, LCD panels use monochrome pixels, not just RGB.
Click to expand...
Well, the physical liquid-crystal cells are monochrome, but the pixel elements that create the image are seen through RGB filters so for all intents and purposes the panels themselves (and their "pixels") are RGB.

I should add that by "RGB" I mean red, green, and blue -- not a full RGB spectrum. Similarly, when I said "monochrome" I mean grayscale not a single color (the latter being a single shade of red, green, or blue). Thus, the individual sub-pixel elements in an LCD display emit differing shades of red, green, and blue which are combined by your eye and brain to produce a full spectrum of color. Of course, these "shades" of red, green, and blue are what we're talking about when we discuss 8-bit versus 6-bit hardware.
 
ALL laptop displays are horrible quality... there were a few 15" IPS (similar quality to an Apple Cinema Display) laptop displays manufactured but they have since stopped. You won't find a laptop with a good LCD nowadays.

A lot of cheaper laptops have contrast ratios in the range of 150 or 200 to 1 and brightness of about 200 candelas per square metre so your Macbook Pro screen is actually one of the best you can get, for a laptop.
 
Just like most DACs inside of a laptop/portable devices suck, the LCDs all suck to an extent as well.

However, there are different degrees of suck, and some are well worth avoiding.
 
fpnc said:
Well, the physical liquid-crystal cells are monochrome, but the pixel elements that create the image are seen through RGB filters so for all intents and purposes the panels themselves (and their "pixels") are RGB.

I should add that by "RGB" I mean red, green, and blue -- not a full RGB spectrum. Similarly, when I said "monochrome" I mean grayscale not a single color (the latter being a single shade of red, green, or blue). Thus, the individual sub-pixel elements in an LCD display emit differing shades of red, green, and blue which are combined by your eye and brain to produce a full spectrum of color.
Click to expand...

You're right, that's what I get for just skimming over the first sentence of a wikipedia article.
 
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