Maybe they’ll bump it up to 600nits with a firmware update like they did when the air went from 350 -> 400
This is the dumbest thing I've ever read on these forums.since their article has an "update" it's clear they publish content without fact checking.
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.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.
Curious, have you ever actually tried to look at 1000 nits full panel?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.
I feel like you're responding to me but not to what I've actually said.Because Apple doesn't mention it explicitly, somehow they're responsible for you not looking beyond them for answers to how HDR works?
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.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.
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.
It's a user's job to educate him/herself...especially when the product is a "pro" product. It's not Apple's problem.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.
Not having heard of notebookcheck but being registered on MR since 2008 with 10 different MacBooks in 13 years means a lot :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.
He can interpret specs correctly though, unlike the others...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.
According to you.It's a user's job to educate him/herself...especially when the product is a "pro" product. It's not Apple's problem.
This really has you wound up doesn't it? The "others" are simply showing pictures of what literally is there.He can interpret specs correctly though, unlike the others...
OP has clearly understood.He can interpret specs correctly though, unlike the others...
Not at all misleading to anyone who knows what they're doing. Period.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.
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).
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.It's a user's job to educate him/herself...especially when the product is a "pro" product. It's not Apple's problem.
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.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 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.