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

New MBP owners: Post your LCD color profiles...

sRGB IEC61966-2.1 is the most accurate colour profile for the mbp. I toyed with user settings on here and even tried my own but nothing compared to it. It exists on all of your MBP's along with ProPhoto RGB which is also very good but contains slightly too many blacks for my liking and also causes some issues for me when using .raw files.

So yeah, sRGB IEC61966-2.1 - dig it out and smile at your beautiful display :)
 
clyde2801 said:
Used the native. Like it. Thanks!
Click to expand...
hi Clyde2801, could u double check your ical event and first icon on front row if they changed from blue to purple? this is an otherwise great profile, however it turns some specific blues into purple...
 
clyde2801 said:
It is still light blue.
Click to expand...
tks Clyde2801.
My ical's "Show or hide Mini-Month" icon on the lower left turns into purple after i close and relaunch ical. this also affect front row and some photos contain that specific blue.
btw i am running latest 10.5.5.

Now that's weird, are there so much variation on same panel model rather than just brighter or darker?
 
allanibanez said:
sRGB IEC61966-2.1 is the most accurate colour profile for the mbp. I toyed with user settings on here and even tried my own but nothing compared to it. It exists on all of your MBP's along with ProPhoto RGB which is also very good but contains slightly too many blacks for my liking and also causes some issues for me when using .raw files.

So yeah, sRGB IEC61966-2.1 - dig it out and smile at your beautiful display :)
Click to expand...

This is not a display profile, but a standard profile for color editing. If you are using this profile for your display, you are guaranteed to get inaccurate colors.
 
I just noticed my thread and I decided to chime in really quick. I started this thread when I bought my first 15" 2.5 unibody MBP because the default profile looked very bad and kinda "blah".

but I've since then ditched that machine and I ordered the 2.8 version from Apple's site. I must say that I was very surprised to see how nice the stock color profile looks on this machine. I haven't had to adjust anything and it looks great.

so my question is, can I assume they use different profiles between the 2.5 and 2.8 machines? I wouldn't see why they would unless the displays themselves are somewhat different.

what do you guys and gals think?
 
ozziegn said:
I just noticed my thread and I decided to chime in really quick. I started this thread when I bought my first 15" 2.5 unibody MBP because the default profile looked very bad and kinda "blah".

but I've since then ditched that machine and I ordered the 2.8 version from Apple's site. I must say that I was very surprised to see how nice the stock color profile looks on this machine. I haven't had to adjust anything and it looks great.

so my question is, can I assume they use different profiles between the 2.5 and 2.8 machines? I wouldn't see why they would unless the displays themselves are somewhat different.

what do you guys and gals think?
Click to expand...

Different panel?
 
ozziegn said:
I just noticed my thread and I decided to chime in really quick. I started this thread when I bought my first 15" 2.5 unibody MBP because the default profile looked very bad and kinda "blah".

but I've since then ditched that machine and I ordered the 2.8 version from Apple's site. I must say that I was very surprised to see how nice the stock color profile looks on this machine. I haven't had to adjust anything and it looks great.

so my question is, can I assume they use different profiles between the 2.5 and 2.8 machines? I wouldn't see why they would unless the displays themselves are somewhat different.

what do you guys and gals think?
Click to expand...

No, the profile does not change based on processor speed. It will change if it's a different panel type (9C84 or 9C85).
 
ozziegn said:
it must be a different panel then because it looked good right out of the box. my 2.5 was just the opposite.
Click to expand...

You can check the profile by selecting the profile in the display preference, then open profile. Scroll down to line 13 and select that. You should see either 9c84 or 9c85, those are the only two reported so far.
 
Has anyone noticed any pattern to which models get which screen? I had a 2.53ghz MBP with the 9C84 (which I preferred), then got a 2.8ghz with a 9C85. I assumed this was the standard (based on the processor), but is it instead just the fact that they may have changed suppliers or stock at some point in the production and the 'later-manufactured' models use the 9C85?
 
twynne said:
Has anyone noticed any pattern to which models get which screen? I had a 2.53ghz MBP with the 9C84 (which I preferred), then got a 2.8ghz with a 9C85. I assumed this was the standard (based on the processor), but is it instead just the fact that they may have changed suppliers or stock at some point in the production and the 'later-manufactured' models use the 9C85?
Click to expand...

I don't think there's a pattern. For a while I was convinced the 2.4s were predominantly 85s, but I've actually encountered twice as many 84s (such as my current one) so there's no pattern. All 15" models share a common LCD pool; configuration doesn't matter.
 
7even said:
I don't think there's a pattern. For a while I was convinced the 2.4s were predominantly 85s, but I've actually encountered twice as many 84s (such as my current one) so there's no pattern. All 15" models share a common LCD pool; configuration doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

Good to know. My 2.8 replacement is arriving this morning (any minute now!) and I'm really hoping it's an 84. In my opinion my first 84 was miles ahead of the 85 I have now. Here's hoping! :D
 
twynne said:
Good to know. My 2.8 replacement is arriving this morning (any minute now!) and I'm really hoping it's an 84. In my opinion my first 84 was miles ahead of the 85 I have now. Here's hoping! :D
Click to expand...

It's possible one panel is generally better than the other. But from the limited sample I've seen that is not the case. Certainly after calibration both panels are very close. There's no way to tell any difference without them being right next to each other.
 
AquaMethod said:
Of course, the problem with these profiles is that most of them turn blues really, really purple. The problem is that the "blue" on these profiles is so far from sRGB blue that the transform introduces a lot of red. If you want to really see it, switch the display profile first, and then open up a color picker and set it to pure blue. It'll be purple under most of these profiles.

An easy way to get a color picker is with TextEdit. Open it and press ⌘⇧C, then click the second tab on the color picker. Choose RGB sliders (⌘2) and crank up the blue (the bottom one) all the way, while lowering the other two. With the MBP200815 Native, for example, it'll be quite purple. Quit TextEdit, change back to the default Color LCD profile, and try it again. It'll be blue.

That's not a big deal for some people, but it's always really bothered me to have such inaccurate blues.
Click to expand...

I just calibrated my display myself by eye and I am very happy. What you said about blues looking purple is spot on. Check out this picture I took of blue flowers that have purple just in the middle. With the posted profiles, the flowers look purple instead of blue.
 

Attachments

  • p574562716-5.jpg
    p574562716-5.jpg
    223.3 KB · Views: 395
blSwagger said:
I just calibrated my display myself by eye and I am very happy. What you said about blues looking purple is spot on. Check out this picture I took of blue flowers that have purple just in the middle. With the posted profiles, the flowers look purple instead of blue.
Click to expand...

So these flowers should look purple in the center of each flower and blue on the end of the leaves? That's how they look to me with my profiles I posted. I guess this shows individual variations and the reason each panel needs to be calibrated to get accurate color.
 
bcaslis said:
So these flowers should look purple in the center of each flower and blue on the end of the leaves? That's how they look to me with my profiles I posted. I guess this shows individual variations and the reason each panel needs to be calibrated to get accurate color.
Click to expand...

The profiles you posted are definitely better than out-of-the box settings. I just remember the flowers looking more blue and less purple. I remember looking at them on my friend's calibrated MBP (I think pre 2008 version; he had the plug-in for firefox to calibrate web pages). The flowers looked purple on his screen despite the calibration. If memory serves me right, the amount of purple is supposed to be minuscule. I don't have the actual flowers in front of me, so maybe I'm wrong. Best solution is to print the picture out and see how close the print looks compared to your screen.

Is there a way to save a custom calibration you make in System Preferences so you can see what I'm seeing? I have a feeling my profile is way to cool (vs. warm) for most people, but I can't stand unnatural warm tint (no offense to anyone, just my preference).

......................

Okay, so I just looked through a bunch of my pictures using my personal color profile, MBP Late 08, and MBP200815 Native. Now I think I prefer MBP Late 08 the most! lol
 
so i was wondering if anyone is around the alexandria, va area that had display calibration equipment...

if they wouldnt mind letting me borrow it or me metting up to let me calibrate my display real quick... i wouldnt mind payn' 50 bucks.
 
Very interesting discussion thread. I would have to say I agree with them. When you calibrate a notebook screen you get better colors overall but the pure blues do tend to get sacrificed for a purple/blue. Just goes to show that those saying you really need an external monitor to get completely accurate colors are right.

But as laptops go, this new MBP has a very very nice screen. :D
 
Noticed a strange thing today... happened to boot from the OS X install DVD in order to repair disk, and noticed that the color (in my opinion) was perfect when booted from the DVD. In OS X I find the default profile is far too yellow/sepia for my liking.

Question is... does anyone know how/where to find the color profile used when booting from the install DVD? I've used Pathfinder to dig around in the hidden disk contents, but can't see any obvious profile there. Is it hidden, or is there some sort of 'default' color profile?
 
Is there any way to tweak the profiles that have been posted? I like the Spyder 3 Pro the best but want a 2.0 gamma.
 
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