Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
since their article has an "update" it's clear they publish content without fact checking.
This is the dumbest thing I've ever read on these forums.

The article published a measurement of SDR content.
They later added a second measurement of peak brightness in HDR content.

That wasn't even a correction, it was just additional information after they've run an additional test measuring a different scenario. Wherein lies the lack of "fact checking" here?
 
I do wonder if there's a way to force a bit higher brightness for desktop use via terminal command or otherwise. It's clearly capable of it, and I'd be thrilled for 600-700 nits for outdoor use even if there's a saturation or color accuracy drawback at those levels.
 
  • Like
Reactions: joelhinch and OSX15
No, you're missing the point.

I never thought HDR applied to the IDE. I just didn't realise, because Apple doesn't mention it, that the screen only gets brighter than 500 nits on HDR content.
Because Apple doesn't mention it explicitly, somehow they're responsible for you not looking beyond them for answers to how HDR works? Granted, Apple could offer a lot more information about HDR, but there are numerous sources about HDR and how it works on the internet. Ditto, SDR versus HDR. I'm sure your misunderstanding is anyone's problem but your own, but here we are.
 
I just tried the auto setting in a sunlit room and it seems to work. I've never used this before. The problem with auto, is it doesn't take into account user preference, obviously. It would be nice to be able to adjust the parameters.
 
Last edited:
It's how they worded it, 'up to 1000 nits' is legally correct but as consumer you'd expect it to be 1000 nits everywhere and 1600 nits when watching HDR content, like iPhone 13 Pros 1000 nits everywhere and 1200 HDR.
Curious, have you ever actually tried to look at 1000 nits full panel?

It’s uh… Not something you’d ever want to do. It’s akin to staring into the sun.
 
  • Like
Reactions: eltoslightfoot
Because Apple doesn't mention it explicitly, somehow they're responsible for you not looking beyond them for answers to how HDR works?
I feel like you're responding to me but not to what I've actually said.

There's no confusion here about HDR works or what HDR content is, and you're right in that it's not Apple's job to educate me about HDR.

It is their job to communicate to users that the feature they're selling only applies to HDR content.
 
Been using my 14" all day and no complaints, tomorrow i'll take out doors and see how it does.
 
I feel like you're responding to me but not to what I've actually said.

There's no confusion here about HDR works or what HDR content is, and you're right in that it's not Apple's job to educate me about HDR.

It is their job to communicate to users that the feature they're selling only applies to HDR content.
I would encourage you and anyone else who thinks that Apple should do a better job of communicating that to customers to go here - https://www.apple.com/feedback/macbookpro.html and let them know. I don't see any reason why Apple would want to obfuscate that SDR is limited to 500nits versus 1000 sustained for HDR. I certainly wouldn't want do that to customers as SDR content is limited in brightness for a good reason. I still don't think Apple does a good job of educating their users around several things and HDR/SDR is one of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3Rock
I would encourage you and anyone else who thinks that Apple should do a better job of communicating that to customers to go here - https://www.apple.com/feedback/macbookpro.html and let them know. I don't see any reason why Apple would want to obfuscate that SDR is limited to 500nits versus 1000 sustained for HDR. I certainly wouldn't want do that to customers as SDR content is limited in brightness for a good reason. I still don't think Apple does a good job of educating their users around several things and HDR/SDR is one of them.
It's a user's job to educate him/herself...especially when the product is a "pro" product. It's not Apple's problem.
 
A random user who has been using Apple laptops since 2008 along with owning 10 MacBooks since. Check my register date here. Not everyone uses the same sites and since their article has an "update" it's clear they publish content without fact checking. No thank you.
Not having heard of notebookcheck but being registered on MR since 2008 with 10 different MacBooks in 13 years means a lot :
- you are a random Apple fanboy
- you are not curious about laptop market or laptop products in general
- you are not curious enough about technical details on laptops

It's like being an hardcore fan of TV without knowing Rtings : non sense.
It shows your lack of interest/curiosity and therefore knowledge on the topic.
 
Not having heard of notebookcheck but being registered on MR since 2008 with 10 different MacBooks in 13 years means a lot :
- you are a random Apple fanboy
- you are not curious about laptop market or laptop products in general
- you are not technical enough

It's like being an hardcore fan of TV without knowing Rtings : non sense.
It shows your lack of interest/curiosity and therefore knowledge on the topic.
He can interpret specs correctly though, unlike the others...
 
  • Like
Reactions: the future
He can interpret specs correctly though, unlike the others...
OP has clearly understood.
Defending Apple even when they make shady marketing is just stupid.
In the keynote it was clearly not mentionned, if you find fair to have to go on tech specs thereafter to check if conditions where applied to these figures...
For iPhone they just say HDR local peak and SDR sustained peak the same way on keynote as these MBP. It was def misleading. Period.
 
  • Like
Reactions: joelhinch
OP has clearly understood.
Defending Apple even when they make shady marketing is just stupid.
In the keynote it was clearly not mentionned, if you find fair to have to go on tech specs thereafter to check if conditions where applied to these figures...
For iPhone they just say HDR peak and SDR peak the same way on keynote as these MBP. It was def misleading. Period.
Not at all misleading to anyone who knows what they're doing. Period.
 
The specs were clear on the brightness. This isn’t rocket science.

Name one laptop with a 1000 nits on sdr content, that’s mini led and 120hz and close to 100% srgb. Lol

It’s just common sense…
 
First, what random site is that? Second, go back to the article and at the bottom the "updated" the article stating they were wrong and the MacBook does have over 1600.

1. Notebook Check can hardly be called a random site.

2. At the bottom you mention, they say, "We now tested the brightness in HDR mode and can confirm that more than 500 nits are only possible with HDR contents. We can confirm Apple statements in general and the peak brightness was 1607 up to an APL of 50 (50% white/50% black) and dropped to 1163 nits with 100% white (on a 16:9 video)."

This means what OP says and it means what the site says - over 500 nits allowed only for HDR content and that is a bug at best or Tim and Co. lied (not the first time).
 
1. Notebook Check can hardly be called a random site.

2. At the bottom you mention, they say, "We now tested the brightness in HDR mode and can confirm that more than 500 nits are only possible with HDR contents. We can confirm Apple statements in general and the peak brightness was 1607 up to an APL of 50 (50% white/50% black) and dropped to 1163 nits with 100% white (on a 16:9 video)."

This means what OP says and it means what the site says - over 500 nits allowed only for HDR content and that is a bug at best or Tim and Co. lied (not the first time).
1635354993897.png


Where did Apple lie here?

It's up to 1,000 nits, it reached the 1600 peak and dropped back down to 1163.
 
It's a user's job to educate him/herself...especially when the product is a "pro" product. It's not Apple's problem.
HDR/SDR resources on the Internet are okay. Apple used to educate customers on these sorts of things at one time, but that’s been reduced to a marketing blurb during a keynote without real context. Apple doesn’t relate any standards that they follow, well, they finally did with the inclusion of Dolby Vision recording on the iPhone 12, but they don’t specify any percentage of DCI-P3 coverage for their XDR or mention whether or not they support DisplayHDR. Unfortunately, HDR/SDR is a bit of mess and Apple just tried to steam roll through any sort of specifics on the website or marketing items while not offering any clarification of what they are supporting.
 
Not at all misleading to anyone who knows what they're doing. Period.
Almost everyone here get the technical details perfectly. That is not the issue here since anyone with a viable brain is able to read a web page that explicitly states that the 1000 nits are reserved for HDR use and that in SDR there is a maximum of 500 nits.

What many criticize here, and rightly so, is Apple's way of mentioning figures that necessarily need to be checked in a side page to see which conditions apply. Especially when this way of indicating luminances during keynotes does not correspond to the way of stating it for other products of the same brand.

There was the same problem with for example the "x5 zoom" of the iPhone 12 PM which is indeed true if you go from ultra wide angle to telephoto. But we're really dealing with commercial terms that are factually correct but deliberately obscure that will mechanically trap consumers who are less enthusiast than people who go to sites like MR.

Don't get me wrong 1k nits in SDR display is very uncommon once again that's not the issue. The issue is Apple's way of statings luminances which is shady since most users are watching SDR content most of the time and most users will don't double check luminance conditions if they are not clearly stated on keynote / main page.
 
Almost everyone here get the technical details perfectly. That is not the issue here since anyone with a viable brain is able to read a web page that explicitly states that the 1000 nits are reserved for HDR use and that in SDR there is a maximum of 500 nits.

What many criticize here, and rightly so, is Apple's way of mentioning figures that necessarily need to be checked in a side page to see which conditions apply. Especially when this way of indicating luminances during keynotes does not correspond to the way of indicating it for other products of the same brand.

There was the same problem with for example the "x5 zoom" of the iPhone 12 PM which is indeed true if you go from ultra wide angle to telephoto. But we're really dealing with commercial terms that are factually correct but deliberately obscure that will mechanically trap consumers who are less enthusiast than people who go to sites like MR.

Don't get me wrong 1k nits in SDR display is very uncommon once again that's not the issue. The issue is Apple's way of statings luminances which is shady since most users are watching SDR content most of the time.

The Up to is a generic marketing term, companies use this language in describing an item that is variable.

Apple did not coin "Up to xxx", it is not misleading. It's 'up to you' to figure out why they mentioned Up to 1,000 nits, it must ... wait for it... mean it's not always 1,000 nits of brightness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tastylemon
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.