I went to the spec page and I can’t find 500 nit’s anywhere (USA site) Can you show me where it is? As far as up to 1000 sustained nits, how do you get to that? What are the hoops I have to go through to get to it? Thank you
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New MacBook Pros only reach 500 Nits on non-HDR content, measured by Notebookcheck
- Thread starter Not-A-Fan
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My mistake. I honestly thought I saw it. Ok, then, yeah, they definitely should've mentioned it.
I still think this is a non issue and this forum is just looking for things to pissed at. From the notch-crisis that seems to be winding down now that people actually got to use their MacBooks, to this. No one advertises SDR brightness, because SDR content is mastered at 300 nits anyway. I really don't get it why everything is this shattering catastrophe in this place, I can only assume it's some sort of inner justification mechanism.
Still, it was my mistake, I genuinely remember seeing it in Tech Specs, so my mind must be playing tricks with me. I apologize, I should've checked before I wrote that.
It was an honest mistake. But sure, call me a liar. You're just a nice person, aren't you?
I am not forgetting them as I am one of them! I mostly use my computer for productivity, Internet, Mail every day and I find the display great. For me the added brightness when using HDR content is a nice plus. Especially when watching Dolby Vision content on AppleTV+ is really great on this laptop.
The Apple Cinema Display XDR that costs 6000$ has the exact same "limitation". SDR content is limited to 500 nits, so I expected the MacBook Pro to be the same.
Having said that, Apple should write that in the specs and clearly mention it. No-one says they shouldn't. I understand if people feel disappointed, but at the end of the day each and every one of us should think if there is anything better out there on the market.
This display is really amazing. 500 nits is very very bright indoors. I mostly use 200-250 nits and it is still extremely bright. As I wrote before, the only practical use of having a much brighter display for SDR content would be the beach..
My suggestion is, just enjoy the display. It's really great.
Sure - I just meant at the general tone of the thread. But for the 500 nits, you're right - I made a mistake. I honestly believed I saw it, but it was actually the iPad Pro XDR screen that I misremembered. On the iPad, they clearly mention 600 nits brightness and 1000/1600 for HDR. So, combine that with the fact I read the 500 nits SDR article earlier - it got mixed up and I believed I saw that on the Tech Page, even their keynote. My error - I apologize.
And, for the record - I do think Apple needed to write the SDR max brightness in the Tech Specs, heck, even in the fine print would be something. But they wrote nothing.
With that said, my LG OLED also doesn't mention SDR brightness either which, I believe, peaks at 450 nits - they only advertise HDR brightness. It is standard - with the exception of phones and watches (which only do it outside, with automatic brightness on), I don't know if any HDR screen that has SDR brightness that matches HDR, because SDR is intended to be lower than HDR. If SDR had such high dynamic range - it would be HDR
Anyway, these screens are probably one of the best screens you can find on a laptop. Leave it to this place to raise some drama about them.
Thank you for owning up. Others will go quietly in the night and not respond. Thank youSure - I just meant at the general tone of the thread. But for the 500 nits, you're right - I made a mistake. I honestly believed I saw it, but it was actually the iPad Pro XDR screen that I misremembered. On the iPad, they clearly mention 600 nits brightness and 1000/1600 for HDR. So, combine that with the fact I read the 500 nits SDR article earlier - it got mixed up and I believed I saw that on the Tech Page, even their keynote. My error - I apologize.
And, for the record - I do think Apple needed to write the SDR max brightness in the Tech Specs, heck, even in the fine print would be something. But they wrote nothing.
With that said, my LG OLED also doesn't mention SDR brightness either which, I believe, peaks at 450 nits - they only advertise HDR brightness. It is standard - with the exception of phones and watches (which only do it outside, with automatic brightness on), I don't know if any HDR screen that has SDR brightness that matches HDR, because SDR is intended to be lower than HDR. If SDR had such high dynamic range - it would be HDR
Anyway, these screens are probably one of the best screens you can find on a laptop. Leave it to this place to raise some drama about them.
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
You don't want 1000 nit SDR content, it would be like pointing a light at your eyes. HDR is not intended to blast 1000+ nits in your face constantly, rather to show bright highlights and short flashes. 500 nits is really good for SDR. And the fact that your workflow may not use this brightness doesn't change that - it is intended for HDR, not for reading emails (you don't want that anyway).
With that said - you can still enjoy HDR videos and photos from various sources. Any photo taken by a newer iPhone is HDR and looks stunning on an XDR display, and yes, these photos will go up to 1000 nits sustained. Also watching videos, movies, etc. will be incredible. But if you just watch office applications or do programing, you can still benefit from this display - having such great contrast and such punchy peak brightness means the colors can be richer and blacks can be deeper. Basically - even SDR images just look nicer. But the moment you get to 1000 nits, that is by definition "high" dynamic range, aka HDR. You're basically asking for HDR SDR, which doesn't exist.
I specifically agree with you on your point I've marked in bold and this is where and why people have the problem they do. Apple should have been clear with the screen limitations relating to SDR content because in doing so it allows buyers to make an informed decision. If the SDR limitations were identified in the specs page it would allow prospective buyers to make an informed decision based on that spec if purchasing the machine was best value for money when compared to other models. Not identifying the SDR limitations of the macbook 14 means the informed decision is taken away from buyers which is something that governments and consumer groups do not like.
Just got off the phone with a product specialist. I pointed out a lot of the things that people were saying here on this thread. They issued me a $400 gift card for "misleading me". Thanks guys!
Does the new MacBooks have the very noticeable ghosting my iPad pro 2021 has since it’s mini led as well?
Are you positive auto-brightness does not raise it higher than that, when you're outside? My iPad Pro M1 is also SDR-limited, but it is clearly visible and bright outside. Maybe you should've tried this laptop outside before returning it.
HDR content is not 1000 nits all the time, it's for bright highlights, not for blasting your eyes with light. Also, judging by my iPad, these will be quite fine outside, even on a sunny day.
If that is the case then why doesn't Apple explain this in their product brief on the machine? If the machine is capable of 1000+ nits but such a high value is not required for SDR content because if anything such a high values is likely to hurt the eyes then why not say so. Why do people have to find such info from other sources?
Not everyone is a tech whizz (obvious to see by the many threads about macbook screen issues) which is why you see many threads with various macbook owners complaining why their screen looks dull compared to other owners and other similar models of machine. Instead of Apple saying 'Up to this value' and 'Up to that value' in spec sections of their website, why not say 'SDR content x value nits, HDR content x value nits', then explain what nits are in relation to the LCD and let the consumer decide. Apple have a habit of making spec values ambiguous which result in buyers making the wrong purchase choice.
This better not be a prank because others will see your message and try the same thing.
You might have seen it in pro display xdr specs i believe ...
Ye i agree ,been a bit agressive there ,my apologies.as u kept pretending u saw 500nits all over the place i thought u might be playing some kind of game ,or perhaps reassuring yourself (the latter i would totally understand tbf)
Not everyone has the same eye sight strength, 500 nits may not be suitable but 600 nits could. You need to take that into consideration.
Last edited:
Befor
If he had said $50 to $100, it would be legit, as we all know this happens all the time. Not with Apple though. I don't know if Apple does that sort of thing at all. Probably not.
Seriously? It's obvious sarcasm, and you are right 90% will try this themselves.
If he had said $50 to $100, it would be legit, as we all know this happens all the time. Not with Apple though. I don't know if Apple does that sort of thing at all. Probably not.
Last edited:
Is it?
“Up to 50% faster than the competition” started last year with the A14. Apple back in the PPC days was famous for needing asterisks for their claims.
Apple saying up to 1,000 nits sustained, but not mentioning it’s for HDR only is rather tame in comparison to what Apple used to do…. Heck their battery life claims used to be fairly inaccurate as well. Only fairly recently they have been realistic and you could be in the ballpark of their claims.
There’s a 14 day return period for a reason. If you’re not happy about something, or you feel lied to, then return it. Simple as that
Personally I had no issues understanding the marketing and so I’m not disappointed in any way by what I’ve received
