New MacBook Pros only reach 500 Nits on non-HDR content, measured by Notebookcheck

[tastylemon]

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.

Sure, but the display hardware is capable of going to 1000 nits and I want to use it. I'm bummed that they're limiting software to prevent it from taking advantage of this. It's like a car company preventing the gas pedal from working if you're going over the speed limit.

I bought my 16" with the knowledge that it would likely be limited to 500 nits for SDR. However, I'm disappointed that there's nothing in the display settings to allow me to go further. In theory, I should be able to "calibrate" the display to go brighter.

 

[Eso]

For anyone whose job does not amount to tricking people for a living, the most straightforward understanding of the phrase “up to 1,000 nits sustained brightness” is that if you were to set the device to 100% screen brightness (since it’s a variable setting) it would be 1,000 nits.

I wouldn’t even consider it debatable, honestly. Some people maybe need to take a look in the mirror.

 

[eltoslightfoot]

For anyone whose job does not amount to tricking people for a living, the most straightforward understanding of the phrase “up to 1,000 nits sustained brightness” is that if you were to set the device to 100% screen brightness (since it’s a variable setting) it would be 1,000 nits.

I wouldn’t even consider it debatable, honestly. Some people maybe need to take a look in the mirror.

Evidently according to those people, you are "reading it wrong."

 

[EnderTW]

For anyone whose job does not amount to tricking people for a living, the most straightforward understanding of the phrase “up to 1,000 nits sustained brightness” is that if you were to set the device to 100% screen brightness (since it’s a variable setting) it would be 1,000 nits.

I wouldn’t even consider it debatable, honestly. Some people maybe need to take a look in the mirror.

Don’t buy any tv ever then lol because that’s how it is described.

Also guys that 1,000,000 : 1 contrast ratio.

Guess what. Only on HDR.

Apple lied!

It’s like no one has ever bought a tv or display prior to apple. It’s insane.

 

[EnderTW]

Also why we are at it.

The ssd speeds of up to 7.4gb/s is only on certain ssd drives as the lower capacity drives do not reach that.

Don’t want people to feel lied to when they discover that, considering it’s a normal practice that lower capacity drives are slower.

 

[aevan]

Yeah compared to my intel 16” the brightness is exactly the same, apple lied about many features

They state 500 nits for SDR on the specs page and they told 1000 nits is for HDR only.

What other features did they “lie” about?

 

[Love-hate 🍏 relationship]

Really? I have the MacBook Pro 16" 2019 and at max brightness it is only half as bright as my MacBook Pro 14". I had them side by side yesterday. With my 16" the brightness was set three from max. With the 14" the brightness is set eight from max.

100% the 14" is 2x brighter than the old MacBook Pros.

either youre lying to yourself or your unit has a problem

seeing how badly you defend them ,with some dumb arguments even ,ill tend to think its the former.

dude,thats a fact,apple advertises 1000 nits ,its only for hdr with 100% APL ,otherwise in any other case youre stuck with 500 nits,not even 600 like on the ipad ,and that sucks ,and they should have mentionned it ,so people ,like you,wont lie to themselves about the brightness

 

[Love-hate 🍏 relationship]

As expected. The Apple Pro Display XDR also limits to 500nits for SDR and only goes to peak 1600nits in HDR content. The iPad Pro miniLED display XDR behaves the same way.

I don't understand the complaints.

i expected 600 nits like on the ipad .besides the pro display xdr isnt mini led

 

[aevan]

For anyone whose job does not amount to tricking people for a living, the most straightforward understanding of the phrase “up to 1,000 nits sustained brightness” is that if you were to set the device to 100% screen brightness (since it’s a variable setting) it would be 1,000 nits.

I wouldn’t even consider it debatable, honestly. Some people maybe need to take a look in the mirror.

Every HDR TV ever is sold this way, maximum brightness in HDR. No one advertises SDR.

Also, they clearly said the 1000 nits sustained is for HDR content. I guess you never bought an HDR screen before. I bought my HDR OLED TV based on HDR peak brightness, I didn’t even know what the SDR brightness was.

 

[macintoshmac]

View attachment 1880920

Where did Apple lie here?

It's up to 1,000 nits, it reached the 1600 peak and dropped back down to 1163.

The issue is that they made people think that the brightness on these panels is now 1,000 nits sustained across the board and certainly not limited to 500 nits for SDR content.

Apple did not lie where you are showing. Nobody is contesting that. Even then, where is the mention that hey ho, for nearly everything you are doing on a daily basis, you are still limited to 500 nits? They are simply not mentioning the standard content brightness any longer. That is what people are having an issue with.

 

[aevan]

either youre lying to yourself or your unit has a problem

seeing how badly you defend them ,with some dumb arguments even ,ill tend to think its the former.

dude,thats a fact,apple advertises 1000 nits ,its only for hdr with 100% APL ,otherwise in any other case youre stuck with 500 nits,not even 600 like on the ipad ,and that sucks ,and they should have mentionned it ,so people ,like you,wont lie to themselves about the brightness

They mentioned it was hdr-only and they mention 500 nits on the product page. Maybe read the specs before ordering?

Also, while both my previous iPad Pro and current one share the same SDR brightness (600 nits), the new one still looks brighter, so I believe @Hankster that his new 14” looks brighter. It’s not just about nits, it’s about color saturation, paperwhite brightness, EOTF curves, etc.

 

[macintoshmac]

They state 500 nits for SDR on the specs page and they told 1000 nits is for HDR only.

What other features did they “lie” about?

What? Where? Which country page? ? I have been unable to see that on the USA page. Even searched for 500 on the Tech Specs page. Nothing.

 

[Love-hate 🍏 relationship]

They mentioned it was hdr-only and they mention 500 nits on the product page. Maybe read the specs before ordering?

Also, while both my previous iPad Pro and current one share the same SDR brightness (600 nits), the new one still looks brighter, so I believe @Hankster that his new 14” looks brighter. It’s not just about nits, it’s about color saturation, paperwhite brightness, EOTF curves, etc.

who mentionned its 500 nits ? apple ? could u point me to it please ? and im fine ,thank you

i dont doubt his is brighter,but he claims 2* brighter ,which is purely ridicoulous

 

[aevan]

The issue is that they made people think that the brightness on these panels is now 1,000 nits sustained across the board and certainly not limited to 500 nits for SDR content.

They didn’t make people believe anything, they said it was HDR only and showed the exact specs in the product page. You assumed it was 1000 nits in SDR, but that’s on you.

Anyone who bought an HDR TV or monitor knows that advertised peak brightness is not for SDR anyway.

 

[Love-hate 🍏 relationship]

What? Where? Which country page? 😳

ikfr lol

 

[watchmainspring]

They didn’t make people believe anything, they said it was HDR only and showed the exact specs in the product page. You assumed it was 1000 nits in SDR, but that’s on you.

Anyone who bought an HDR TV or monitor knows that advertised peak brightness is not for SDR anyway.

Yeah but I've not once seen that specific scam rule applied to laptops.

There's only a few things people can lie about and get away with without being classified as total frauds:
1. MPG
2. Battery life of most things
3. TV brightness SDR/HDR
4. Internet speeds

 

[macintoshmac]

They didn’t make people believe anything, they said it was HDR only and showed the exact specs in the product page. You assumed it was 1000 nits in SDR, but that’s on you.

Anyone who bought an HDR TV or monitor knows that advertised peak brightness is not for SDR anyway.

Forget anyone or everyone buying HDR monitor. Consider me the poorest of the poor, just born. Now, could you show me where they have mentioned on the "product page" or the "tech specs" page? Else, just stop defending the company.

I did not ASSUME anything. They never said anything below 1,000 nits. They said SUSTAINED brightness of 1,000 nits and 1600 peak. I understand that peak is for HDR and 1,000 nits is sustained brightness. Am I supposed to dream that the display is going to be exactly 50% of their statement because that's what the people who buy HDR and OLED know?

That said, if tomorrow Apple tells you 2,000 nits brightness for HDR, tell me, what is the standard brightness ?

Just stop with this.

Tests are showing 500 nits for everyday content and over a thousand for HDR. This means the panel's touted brightness, the ones fanboys and girls are using to prove they did not lie, are only for HDR and nothing is mentioned otherwise. If there is, my eyes cannot see them in two countries.

 

[Not-A-Fan]

They mentioned it was hdr-only and they mention 500 nits on the product page.

Care to show us where?

If you can, I'll send 500 Shib to your wallet.

 

[Love-hate 🍏 relationship]

Care to show us where?

If you can, I'll send 500 Shib to your wallet.

nevermind he is straight up lying at this point

 

[Macalway]

Forget anyone or everyone buying HDR monitor. Consider me the poorest of the poor, just born. Now, could you show me where they have mentioned on the "product page" or the "tech specs" page? Else, just stop defending the company.

I did not ASSUME anything. They never said anything below 1,000 nits. They said SUSTAINED brightness of 1,000 nits and 1600 peak. I understand that peak is for HDR and 1,000 nits is sustained brightness. Am I supposed to dream that the display is going to be exactly 50% of their statement because that's what the people who buy HDR and OLED know?

That said, if tomorrow Apple tells you 2,000 nits brightness for HDR, tell me, what is the standard brightness ?

Just stop with this.

Tests are showing 500 nits for everyday content and over a thousand for HDR. This means the panel's touted brightness, the ones fanboys and girls are using to prove they did not lie, are only for HDR and nothing is mentioned otherwise. If there is, my eyes cannot see them in two countries.

It's good thing this unintelligible, because it just might make a little sense. Or not.

Before people get all riled up, has anyone tried these in direct sunlight in auto?

 

[laptech]

To those saying Apple mentioned 500 nits on their product page, please provide proof of this or stop saying it because I have looked at Apples official website from the US and UK for the macbook pro 14 inch version, both the overview and the specs page and there is no mention of 500 nits anywhere. I also looked at the event video and film video which is linked on their site and again no where in either video is 500 nits mentioned. What is mentioned everywhere is 'Up to 1,000 nits sustained brightness'. The specs on both websites goes further and says 'Up to 1,000 nits sustained (full-screen) brightness'.

The tests carried out by Notebookcheck.net implies that if you are doing SDR content only, the screen only goes as far as 500 nits and will not go any higher than that so if the specs say the machine can sustain up to 1000 nits (full screen) brightness then why was this figure not reached when SDR tests were done? Why was that figure reached when only HDR test were done? Therefore it appears that not in any official Apple material, documents, specs or videos on the macbook 14 that we can find on the net does it state that SDR content is limited to 500 nits. The wording of 'Up to 1,000 nits sustained (full-screen) brightness' implies that SDR & HDR can achieve that figure. Notebookcheck.nets test prove otherwise.

If other review sites carry out similar tests and come back with similar results to that of Notebookcheck then Apple could find itself in a whole lot of trouble because it is falsely advertising a feature of the machine that can only be achieved under a specific set of conditions, mainly it being that the user must use HDR content to achieve the said specification.

 

[petvas]

I always thought that the new display would reach 500 nits for SDR content and I do not really understand why people are complaining. The display is very bright for normal usage. Unless you are planning to take your MacBook Pro on the beach under direct sunlight (which you actually shouldn't be doing anyway), you will never have a problem with the brightness. Never.
The display is amazing but I guess it is the nature of these forums to just complain. People that feel negative about the display, should just return their laptop.

 

[PhoneI]

Here is my unofficial analysis. My new 16in MacBook Pro is really really bright. There is no possible way anyone can look at this screen and think its not bright enough.

 

[laptech]

I always thought that the new display would reach 500 nits for SDR content and I do not really understand why people are complaining. The display is very bright for normal usage. Unless you are planning to take your MacBook Pro on the beach under direct sunlight (which you actually shouldn't be doing anyway), you will never have a problem with the brightness. Never.
The display is amazing but I guess it is the nature of these forums to just complain. People that feel negative about the display, should just return their laptop.

Not everyone who wants to buy one of these machines will be doing HDR content. Your forgetting about all those, especially office/business users who daily use email, use the internet, use office applications, programming (all SDR content) as part of their daily work life, are all those people not allowed to enjoy the rich bright screen display as HDR content users? why should they be limited to 500 nits?

 

[Sanpete]

It’s not just about nits, it’s about color saturation, paperwhite brightness, EOTF curves, etc.

And content. He could have been using HDR.