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

New MacBook Pros Have Up to 3x Brighter Displays for HDR Content

Return Zero said:
To my (limited) knowledge dithering simulates more colors but doesn't actually produce them.
Click to expand...
It's using multiple neighbouring pixels with different colors to create a new color that isn't available to a single pixel. So it's cheating, yes. Quality varies though, depending on the actual implementation. Sometimes it's visible, sometimes not. Manufacturers often claim 10-bit colors when in reality it's 8-bit with dithering. For color critical applications such a photo/video work, the choice should be obvious. For Excel/Word, it doesn't really matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Return Zero
827538 said:
I have an LG C1 and iPhone 13 Pro and strongly disagree.

Mini LED has all sorts of blooming issues, especially in fine detail. Good luck getting inky blacks right next to peak bright pixels. Peak OLED highlights look incredible and my iPhone and TV are two of the brightest displays I've ever used. I rarely use them at their maximum brightness.
Click to expand...
13 Pro is servicable because it's a very small screen. This allows it to reach a lukewarm but still respectable 1200 nits peak brightness. That LG C1 TV however, is complete garbage if you actually care about a decent HDR experience.

Proper HDR needs a minimum of 1600 nits peak highlights (not to be confused with full screen brightness) to even meet the minimum threshold. OLED fails disastrously here and if you've never experienced proper HDR on something like a PG32UQX you aren't qualified to talk here.
 
splitpea said:
What if you don’t want more brightness? I’m already desperate for a dozen more levels between the lowest brightness and blackout on my 2019 MBA for evening use. Whereas “not bright enough” has never been a problem.
Click to expand...
Do you know about adjusting brightness in smaller increments with option+shift+brightness?
 
  • Like
Reactions: veena3
AgentAnonymous said:
13 Pro is servicable because it's a very small screen. This allows it to reach a lukewarm but still respectable 1200 nits peak brightness. That LG C1 TV however, is complete garbage if you actually care about a decent HDR experience.

Proper HDR needs a minimum of 1600 nits peak highlights (not to be confused with full screen brightness) to even meet the minimum threshold. OLED fails disastrously here and if you've never experienced proper HDR on something like a PG32UQX you aren't qualified to talk here.
Click to expand...
You say 1600 is bare minimum for "proper HDR" and then reference a monitor that only does 1400... Yes it's close, but still, that doesn't exactly help you gain credibility.

I know most OLEDs can't even get close with full-screen, but they do alright with smaller highlights, and the relative contrast (i.e. range, the 'R' in HDR) is generally good enough for a proper experience as long as you're watching in dark environments (i.e. your eyes are more sensitive to it). Where OLED HDR really fails hard is in bright rooms.

In short, it's called HDR, not HAL (high absolute luminance). We can throw out absolute numbers all day, but they're still relative to how the human eye takes them in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: escapevelocity
splitpea said:
What if you don’t want more brightness? I’m already desperate for a dozen more levels between the lowest brightness and blackout on my 2019 MBA for evening use. Whereas “not bright enough” has never been a problem.
Click to expand...
Sounds like something a 3rd party could resolve. It’s just code anyway.
 
I'm still stuck on that unsightly notch in the middle of that freakin screen. That's gonna be a hard no for me dawg. I can't believe they did that. I can't believe it. Is it just me? Has the world gone mad?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phoenix1000
AgentAnonymous said:
13 Pro is servicable because it's a very small screen. This allows it to reach a lukewarm but still respectable 1200 nits peak brightness. That LG C1 TV however, is complete garbage if you actually care about a decent HDR experience.

Proper HDR needs a minimum of 1600 nits peak highlights (not to be confused with full screen brightness) to even meet the minimum threshold. OLED fails disastrously here and if you've never experienced proper HDR on something like a PG32UQX you aren't qualified to talk here.
Click to expand...
That PG32UQX only has 1400nits peak brightness ;)

Anyways, I'm looking forward to the Macbook Pro. It has equivalent or better specs than that $3,000 PG32UQX monitor other than size and 144hz Gsync. More peak brightness, same standard brightness, hopefully Dolby Vision compatibility, and possibly 100% P3 color coverage.
 
zorinlynx said:
Does this mean that a white on black terminal window will have halos around the text?

If this is the case I'm going to be wary of these machines, because I use those a lot.
Click to expand...
Given it uses the same panel as the iPad Pro, yes. There will be haloing unfortunately.
 
AgentAnonymous said:
13 Pro is servicable because it's a very small screen. This allows it to reach a lukewarm but still respectable 1200 nits peak brightness. That LG C1 TV however, is complete garbage if you actually care about a decent HDR experience.

Proper HDR needs a minimum of 1600 nits peak highlights (not to be confused with full screen brightness) to even meet the minimum threshold. OLED fails disastrously here and if you've never experienced proper HDR on something like a PG32UQX you aren't qualified to talk here.
Click to expand...
I didn't realize you were the arbiter of truth and knowledge. I'll stop responding in this thread.

You need to chill out. I'll stick to my fantastic HDR OLED displays and you can stick with your inferior LCD tech with its haloing.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: HeraFlight, Phoenix1000, mentalman1369 and 2 others
splitpea said:
What if you don’t want more brightness? I’m already desperate for a dozen more levels between the lowest brightness and blackout on my 2019 MBA for evening use. Whereas “not bright enough” has never been a problem.
Click to expand...

I keep my (old) iMac is only on about 40%. Any brighter is too bright, and it makes it hard to judge exposure for photographs. More accuracy at lower brightness is more important than simply being brighter. OK I can understand why some people in some situations might need brighter (perhaps you're an architect on site and showing clients images outdoors? though maybe you'd do this on an ipad anyway?) but these seem very rare. I don't ever recall needing my laptop brighter for day to day, out and about, use.
 
The notch is Apple branding most importantly.
if you are a professional, then your computer better have a notch.
 
Rudy69 said:
Of course, the words will just pop up out of the keyboard!

No, no they won't. In my opinion it also didn't make as much sense as on a phone. Most people typing aren't looking at the keyboard to see 'words' pop up to begin with
Click to expand...
thanks, smartass.
 
splitpea said:
What if you don’t want more brightness? I’m already desperate for a dozen more levels between the lowest brightness and blackout on my 2019 MBA for evening use. Whereas “not bright enough” has never been a problem.
Click to expand...
If you hold down the option and shift keys while you adjust the brightness (or volume) the adjustments happen in smaller increments.
 
Return Zero said:
You say 1600 is bare minimum for "proper HDR" and then reference a monitor that only does 1400... Yes it's close, but still, that doesn't exactly help you gain credibility.

I know most OLEDs can't even get close with full-screen, but they do alright with smaller highlights, and the relative contrast (i.e. range, the 'R' in HDR) is generally good enough for a proper experience as long as you're watching in dark environments (i.e. your eyes are more sensitive to it). Where OLED HDR really fails hard is in bright rooms.

In short, it's called HDR, not HAL (high absolute luminance). We can throw out absolute numbers all day, but they're still relative to how the human eye takes them in.
Click to expand...
The PG32UQX hits 1600 nits and this has been confirmed in all of the tests. It's the same panel as the ProArt version. I'm not sure why ASUS doesn't highlight for the PG32UQX but does for the ProArt version (it's the same panel).

The relative contrast on OLED is terrible because the peak brightness is low. Usually a laughable 400 nits on anything bigger than a phone.
 
Daniel L said:
That PG32UQX only has 1400nits peak brightness ;)

Anyways, I'm looking forward to the Macbook Pro. It has equivalent or better specs than that $3,000 PG32UQX monitor other than size and 144hz Gsync. More peak brightness, same standard brightness, hopefully Dolby Vision compatibility, and possibly 100% P3 color coverage.
Click to expand...
The PG32UQX hits 1600 nits and this has been confirmed in all of the tests. It's the same panel as the ProArt version. I'm not sure why ASUS doesn't highlight for the PG32UQX but does for the ProArt version (it's the same panel).

I'm also looking forward to the new Macbook Pros.
 
827538 said:
I didn't realize you were the arbiter of truth and knowledge. I'll stop responding in this thread.

You need to chill out. I'll stick to my fantastic HDR OLED displays and you can stick with your inferior LCD tech with its haloing.
Click to expand...
HDR and OLED can't be used in the same sentence. OLED panels are usually a laughable 400 nits peak on anything bigger than a handheld.
 
GrumpyCoder said:
How does that change what I said? Advertising 1600 nits with only 39% coverage on any display is marketing BS. The definition of what it should be is in the definition of nits already as in cd/m^2.
Click to expand...
That seems clear enough to me: it can only support 39% of the dimming zones being at 1600 nits, or all of them can be at 1000nits.
 
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