The display of my MBookPro Penryn is 262k colours! Display 9C83! HOPELESS! NEW IMAGE!

[Stardust79]

Hi everyone! My name is Marco and I'm a new mac user from Italy... 30 days ago I bought a new Penryn MacBookPro 2.5 Ghz 15" matte in order to use it for my photographic work... today I was using it to open some nefs taken with my Nikon D300... macro shots... In the backgroud of my photos I found no smooth colors but pixelation... In order to compare the result I opened the photos with my Eizo Lcd with my pc and there weren't problems... So going round on the net I found the problem with MacbookPro's dispalys, colorblindmac... ecc... I downloaded SwitchResX and I found the 2 product codes:

33692 (839C) (9C83) ------> Samsung

LTN154BT ----> Samsung

http://www.samsung.com/global/busine...rtnum=LTN154BT

features

size 15.4
resolution WXGA+
number of pixels 1,440 X 900
active area (mm²) 331.6 x 207.2
pixel pitch (mm) 0.230
number of colors 262K
contrast ratio (typ.) 500:1
brightness (cd/m²) 300(LED)
responsetime (ms at 25°C) 16
viewing angle (U/D/L/R) 55/55/65/65
interface LVDS(2ch)
outline dimension (mm)
344.0 x 222.0 x 6.0

weight (g) 430
production Now

Yes! It's a 262k display!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://forums.macworld.com/images/emoticons/sad.gif

2200 Euros for a "pro"laptop that doesn't help me in retouching my photos! Why?

I called Apple Italy Service... They told me that they don't know... but there's something wrong... but... they can't say nothing...

Tomorrow I'will take the macbook pro to their certificated service... and then? Maybe they will substitute it......

I'm hopeless!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And frustrated, is my first Mac.......... maybe the last.....


I'm very sorry for my english...


Marco

 

[mox123]

so is 262k good or bad? it sounded bad based on reading your post...why is it bad? there should be more colors?

 

[Stardust79]

so is 262k good or bad? it sounded bad based on reading your post...why is it bad? there should be more colors?

It's BAD! The same photo on my Eizo Lcd or on the Lcd of my 6years old Compaq Laptop looks better and "normal"... the green background has smooth changes of colour... in my MacBookPro seems a "stair"

Terrible

 

[markrivers]

It's BAD! The same photo on my Eizo Lcd or on the Lcd of my 6years old Compaq Laptop looks better and "normal"... the green background has smooth changes of colour... in my MacBookPro seems a "stair"

Terrible

unfrotunately, if you'll be working with heavy graphics or video editing
( hardcore) MBP alone won't suffice.. you need an external LCD.. and don't go buying the ACD or you'll be heading towards another disappointment.

 

[bcaslis]

Virtually every (possibly every) laptop on the market today uses displays that are 6 bits in each channel. If you need more, then I think the only option is a desktop monitor. A different LCD or even a different laptop isn't going to fix the issue. I use my MBP for photos also so I'm aware of the issue you are talking about.

 

[Stardust79]

unfrotunately, if you'll be working with heavy graphics or video editing
( hardcore) MBP alone won't suffice.. you need an external LCD.. and don't go buying the ACD or you'll be heading towards another disappointment.

Yes... Ok... but the problem is that I bought the MBpro to use it on the field...
2200 Euros for a laptop proposed as the top choice for photoediting... and outperformed by a terrible blueish lcd made in 2002... No Comment... I'm wondering to consult my lawyer...

 

[Stardust79]

Virtually every (possibly every) laptop on the market today uses displays that are 6 bits in each channel. If you need more, then I think the only option is a desktop monitor. A different LCD or even a different laptop isn't going to fix the issue. I use my MBP for photos also so I'm aware of the issue you are talking about.

OK... but why my 7years laptop doesn't have that kind of problem (ok it's blueish)... and also my cousin's 500 Euros Hp laptop is perfect?

No way....

 

[bcaslis]

OK... but why my 7years laptop doesn't have that kind of problem (ok it's blueish)... and also my cousin's 500 Euros Hp laptop is perfect?

No way....

A display from 7 years ago, yes it might be 8 bits. Your cousin's HP (if it was in the past couple of years), no way.

They all use the 6 bit displays now. Apple in the U.S. was recently sued by a couple of photographers over this issue. The lawsuit was settled, don't know the terms of it though.

Search on 6 bit color channels in laptop displays. This is a very well known issue. Your particular problem might or might not be due to the use of a 6 bit display. But getting a different MBP or even a laptop from another manufacturer isn't going to change the fact that your laptop is using a 6 bit color channel.

Edit: FYI, here's a link for you:
http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2007/05/apple_lcd_lawsu.html

Another edit: Here's a link to describe the technology. Most laptops (if not all) are TN + film technology"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TFT_LCD

 

[Stardust79]

A display from 7 years ago, yes it might be 8 bits. Your cousin's HP (if it was in the past couple of years), no way.

They all use the 6 bit displays now. Apple in the U.S. was recently sued by a couple of photographers over this issue. The lawsuit was settled, don't know the terms of it though.

Search on 6 bit color channels in laptop displays. This is a very well known issue. Your particular problem might or might not be due to the use of a 6 bit display. But getting a different MBP or even a laptop from another manufacturer isn't going to change the fact that your laptop is using a 6 bit color channel.

Edit: FYI, here's a link for you:
http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2007/05/apple_lcd_lawsu.html

Another edit: Here's a link to describe the technology. Most laptops (if not all) are TN + film technology"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TFT_LCD

Thank you very much for the link... Maybe it's not only Apple's problem... I'm sure of that... but the problem remains... and my photos look smoother on all the other displays I've seen so far... 6 bit? 8 bit? Dithering? I don't think that this is the true problem... I know that is boring and that I repeat the same thing but 2200 Euros = 3482,28 US Dollars (today) for a fu**ing lcd that doesn't display "milions of colours" it's something terrible...

 

[dallas112678]

unfrotunately, if you'll be working with heavy graphics or video editing
( hardcore) MBP alone won't suffice.. you need an external LCD.. and don't go buying the ACD or you'll be heading towards another disappointment.

whats wrong with the ACD, i was looking to buy a 23" monitor in the near future and since i have a MBP the ACD was on the top of the list. Whats wrong with it and what LCD would you suggest?

 

[bcaslis]

whats wrong with the ACD, i was looking to buy a 23" monitor in the near future and since i have a MBP the ACD was on the top of the list. Whats wrong with it and what LCD would you suggest?

It depends on what you want to use it for. If you want accurate colors or color matching for photo editing / printing there are much better choices. The NEC 2690 or an Ezio coloredge are better examples. Here's a link for a photographer's review of the NEC. This photographer replaced his ACD with this NEC and seems to be very pleased with it:

http://duncandavidson.com/2008/03/nec-2690wuxi-first-impressions.html

 

[PDE]

I've long thought about why some very old laptop LCDs seem to have better gradients and color rendition. Except for the flexview screens used for a while in some thinkpads, laptop LCds have never been 8-bit so it has to be something else. I suspect it might have something to do with the tremendous difference in brightness between the old displays and the current crop. The brightness seems to show the limits of the display more clearly. The last generation of powerbooks, or rather the one before the last, had excellent LG displays that were very evenly illuminated, had great color rendition and showed gradients very smoothly, but they were dim. Then came the brighter displays and the complaints have been constant ever since. I just can't imagine that the LCDs are actually less capable of display dithered colors than they were before, so I feel it must be something else. Brightness perhaps? I don't actually know, just a thought.

 

[WilliamG]

It depends on what you want to use it for. If you want accurate colors or color matching for photo editing / printing there are much better choices. The NEC 2690 or an Ezio coloredge are better examples. Here's a link for a photographer's review of the NEC. This photographer replaced his ACD with this NEC and seems to be very pleased with it:

http://duncandavidson.com/2008/03/nec-2690wuxi-first-impressions.html

Not true. He replaced a REALLY old ACD 23" (probably the plastic-housed one) with an NEC, since he says his ACD was bought "4 or 5 years ago." Anyway, the ACD 23" is one of the best displays on the market, so I'm not sure what the issue with lambasting of it is. I went through a ton of screens before getting it, and it's been the best of its ilk, by a country mile.

 

[bcaslis]

Not true. He replaced a REALLY old ACD 23" (probably the plastic-housed one) with an NEC, since he says his ACD was bought "4 or 5 years ago." Anyway, the ACD 23" is one of the best displays on the market, so I'm not sure what the issue with lambasting of it is. I went through a ton of screens before getting it, and it's been the best of its ilk, by a country mile.

I misunderstood how old his ACD was. Sorry about that.

But, there are much better displays for accurate colors. Nobody is lambasting the ACD, however the Eizo displays for example have programmable hardware that will calibrate the display to accurate colors for matching the screen to print. You can calibrate an ACD, but the Eizo will display a wider color gamut as well have better color matching. I've seen them and there is no comparison. The ACD is a good display but it's not the best. And it's been fairly stagnant. Other displays are improving and there doesn't seem to be much progress on Apple's displays.

 

[WilliamG]

I misunderstood how old his ACD was. Sorry about that.

But, there are much better displays for accurate colors. Nobody is lambasting the ACD, however the Eizo displays for example have programmable hardware that will calibrate the display to accurate colors for matching the screen to print. You can calibrate an ACD, but the Eizo will display a wider color gamut as well have better color matching. I've seen them and there is no comparison. The ACD is a good display but it's not the best. And it's been fairly stagnant. Other displays are improving and there doesn't seem to be much progress on Apple's displays.

But, see, the Eizos are much, much more expensive. You find me as good a display as the 23" ACD for the same price or less. Doesn't exist. The ACDs are better than as good as it gets, for the money. I'm not really sure what Apple would upgrade about them? iSight built in? The problem with having hardware that's ahead of the game is that it makes it difficult to upgrade! Look at the iPhone, for example. Years ahead of any other phone tech.

That said, just watch a new ACD come out tomorrow or something...

 

[bcaslis]

Eizos are more expensive but the NEC in the link is about the ACD price and still has the wider color gamut and programmable hardware LUT like the Eizo. So I do still argue you can get a better monitor for the same price.

An iSight is nice, but the real thing is the color gamut. For a professional monitor the ACD is not as good in covering the color gamut as other monitor that are now available. In it's day, the ACD was a leader. But that day is over.

Keep in mind that I've had two ACD panels, the old one and the newer 23". So it's not like I'm prejudiced against them. But if I had to buy today, it would be an NEC or Eizo. I wouldn't even consider the ACD today.

 

[alphaod]

If you're going to need true color go and treat yourself to an external monitor with S-IPS (Dell Ultrasharp)

 

[Bokser]

Speaking of monitors. The NEC 2490WUXi is better than the ACD 23'' panel not only in quality, the dot pixel ratio is optimal in my opinion, and the pictures objectively look better on the NEC.

In addition, the Anti polarizer covering (A-TW), programmable lut, aspect ratio/adjustments, calibration and OSM for god's sake!

The 2490 model is for sRGB work, by the way, so if you are working in Webdesign or Photoshop the 2690 with Widegamut might not be right for you...That is my reason for getting the 2490.

Well, we got offtopic here, as for Marco's question - I sympathize with you, too bad they can't use better monitors in their laptops, but I wouldn't expect one to do much photoediting work on the field, I am sure you do most of your work in from of the sweet Eizo monitor, right?

 

[Bokser]

If you're going to need true color go and treat yourself to an external monitor with S-IPS (Dell Ultrasharp)

I am sorry, I couldn't resist. I don't think a professional photographer or designer could ever TREAT himself with a "Dell". The only IPS they offer now are on the 30'' model and the 20'' (one you are using). The other ones are PVA, MVA to be more precise.

 

[Stardust79]

... Well, we got offtopic here, as for Marco's question - I sympathize with you, too bad they can't use better monitors in their laptops, but I wouldn't expect one to do much photoediting work on the field, I am sure you do most of your work in from of the sweet Eizo monitor, right?

Thank you very much for your answer... The problem is that now I'm working in a place where I can't use my sweet Eizo (I love it) so the MacBookPro is my only choice... anyway... I'll see what North Italy Apple Service will answer me this afternoon......... stay tuned....

Ciao!

Marco

 

[Jiddick ExRex]

Yes it's terrible that Apple is still using crap displays on a pro product line.
However, doing a little research on the matter would have made it pretty clear that Apple has been doing this since their first introduction of the MBP and you could have made the choice of not buying a MBP (although it should principally have been suited for your needs).

I am sorry that your purchase depended so much on your demands for a good display but since they did, you 'should' (easy to say now) have checked the quality out for yourself before you bought.

 

[Stardust79]

Yes it's terrible that Apple is still using crap displays on a pro product line.
However, doing a little research on the matter would have made it pretty clear that Apple has been doing this since their first introduction of the MBP and you could have made the choice of not buying a MBP (although it should principally have been suited for your needs).

I am sorry that your purchase depended so much on your demands for a good display but since they did, you 'should' (easy to say now) have checked the quality out for yourself before you bought.

Maybe it's my fault... but I don't agree with you and I don't think so... I need a new laptop for photo retouching... Apple sells the MacBookPro as the best choice... I read that the monitor support milions of colors... .... As I wrote... My 6/7years old Compaq looks smoother... I've never thought about 262k colors, searching the net... I simply choosed what is rappresented as the best product for my needs...

Ciao!

Marco

 

[Azmordean]

Maybe it's my fault... but I don't agree with you and I don't think so... I need a new laptop for photo retouching... Apple sells the MacBookPro as the best choice... I read that the monitor support milions of colors... .... As I wrote... My 6/7years old Compaq looks smoother... I've never thought about 262k colors, searching the net... I simply choosed what is rappresented as the best product for my needs...

Ciao!

Marco

Yeah.. am I the only one that thinks Apple may have a big problem here? Under Tech Specs, it clearly says the following, and I am quoting:

"15.4-inch (diagonal) antiglare widescreen TFT LED backlit display with support for millions of colors; optional glossy widescreen display"

If the displays are indeed only 262,000 colors, Apple should NOT be claiming millions of colors on their website. I don't care if techies "know" laptops don't have millions of color displays - a lot of people DON'T "know" that, and to say the display is something its not is deceptive to say the least.

If it was something that was a professional issue for me, you can bet I'd be calling Apple and complaining about it at the very least. You should be able to get them to take your computer back and give you a refund at least - so you can perhaps shop around and see if you can find a laptop with a panel that meets your needs.

 

[PDE]

Not that it makes it better, but it's industry standard to deceive about colors. On desktop displays they'll write 'millions of colors' for 6-bit displays that achieve 16.2 million colors through dithering and "16.7 million colors" for full 8-bit displays. It's of course deceptive and has been challenged.

The real issue is that there are no laptop LCDs that are 8-bit at this point. All of the laptop screens you see only show dithered millions of colors, not 16.7 million. Laptop manufacturers seem happy producing these displays and most consumers seem happy accepting them. Photographers generally know the limitations and work around them by only using laptops for very rough, in-the-field editing, followed by more precise editing on good desktop displays. If we are to blame somebody, I think we should blame the LCD producers since Apple can only use what is available unless they start producing their own LCDs, but that won't happen because of cost.

 

[tremendous]

Yes... Ok... but the problem is that I bought the MBpro to use it on the field...
2200 Euros for a laptop proposed as the top choice for photoediting... and outperformed by a terrible blueish lcd made in 2002... No Comment... I'm wondering to consult my lawyer...

Why, does your lawyer make laptops with 6 bit displays suddenly become 8 bit?