Live data from Hacker News

MacBook Pro, Thousands of Colors

mantia.me

71–80 of 158 posts

Re: MacBook Pro, Thousands of Colors

#71
post #23

Wait a second this guy is an icon/ui designer .... Which means he works on computer design so to be realistic most of his customers do not have "millions of colors". He has a 30 inch cinema display that he can now use for designing and checking colors with the replacement cable but he still would rather rant and rave and call support hours on end rather than just replace the laptop.

Professionals in any creative industry need to be able to see or hear exactly what they are actually creating. This is why audio monitors for recording studios cost a lot, and don't "sound as good" to the untrained ear. Accuracy is what you are paying for. If it is inaccurate in any one direction, the potential for problems during reproduction on client machines (which could be inaccurate in the other direction; doub…

> This is why audio monitors ... don't "sound as good" to the untrained ear.

I've never understood this, myself. If it was mixed on monitors, and made to sound good on monitors, then shouldn't it sound best when replayed on monitors?

Re: MacBook Pro, Thousands of Colors

#72
post #8

Alternate headline choice: Man with ability to research decides not to and is disappointed in purchase but offered full refund

I would have taken my refund and used it to pay a notebook repair tech (perhaps an Apple one, off-the-job) to swap out my 6-bit display for an 8-bit one.

Re: MacBook Pro, Thousands of Colors

#73
post #11

I purchased my first mac last year ( a white macbook, right before the new unibody models came out). The screen on the thing is a piece of dung. Gradients look terrible. My acer travelmate from the days of the dinosaurs even has a better screen. I enjoyed reading about this guys little quest and it's one of the reasons I prefer to keep my distance from Apple.

MacBook screens have been crap for as long as I can remember, since the days when they were selling PowerBooks and iBooks, long before the first iPod.

I have no idea why the "demanding" Apple audience let's them get away with that but the panels on these things have always had lower contrast and (sometimes ridiculously) lower viewing angles than comparable notebooks, e.g. the sony vaios.

I've done plenty side-by-side comparisons and both problems are fairly obvious even to the untrained eye. For example the RGB color #fefefe is generally indistinguishable from white on MacBook displays. Some of our designers refer to them as WashyBooks and spend time to make sure their palettes are "WashyBook safe".

Re: MacBook Pro, Thousands of Colors

#74
post #54

So how does one tell whether a monitor is 6-bit or 8-bit?

If you can't tell by sight, then you don't need it.

If I have two monitors side-by-side, one 8-bit and one 6-bit, I'm pretty sure I could see the difference (just like, as an audio engineer, I can clearly hear the difference between high end monitors and consumer speakers). The question is...how do I know, if I don't know? You know?

I have multiple monitors, but the only one that I knew was 8-bit (a high end Viewsonic intended for designers, and from a time when specs were easy to find and very clear and generally accurate, at least on high end devices) has long since left the stable as it was only 19". I'm certain the differences are subtle, as they are in good consumer speakers vs. good studio monitors. But, it'd be nice to know if what I'm working with is altering my perception of things. Particularly as I've just done several thousand dollars worth of design work for print on my new laptop which may or may not have an accurate display. It's just nice to know what I'm dealing with is all.

Re: MacBook Pro, Thousands of Colors

#75
There are 8bit portable displays, you know, and Apple should be a company that uses them, especially when they are generally known for great quality products, but instead, they went with the cheaper option, a lower bit display.

Translation: I am unhappy that Apple made a business decision to use a cheaper component that won't affect most users of the machine, but negatively affects my particular use of it.

More broadly, in this day and age I'd also be skeptical of the author's notion that the word "Pro" means it's explicitly designed for "professionals" as opposed to normal people. Look at most advertising - the word has come to mean nothing more than high-end consumer grade. For the most part, if something is made explicitly for professionals in a certain field it will rely on industry-specific promotions/reviews and knowledge to make itself known, as opposed to outright advertising. This is similar to the frequent use of the word "exclusive" in reference to availability - if it was really exclusive, it wouldn't be advertised.

And even if I'm wrong about those two points, when did "professional" come to mean "digital art professional"?

Re: MacBook Pro, Thousands of Colors

#76
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Define pro.

I dunno, "pro" for a graphic artist probably includes "actually displaying millions of colors instead of dithering so I can actually tell what color it is."

Sure, but show me where Apple defines "Pro" as "Pro for a graphic artist"?

Re: MacBook Pro, Thousands of Colors

#77
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Professionals in any creative industry need to be able to see or hear exactly what they are actually creating. This is why audio monitors for recording studios cost a lot, and don't "sound as good" to the untrained ear. Accuracy is what you are paying for. If it is inaccurate in any one direction, the potential for problems during reproduction on client machines (which could be inaccurate in the other direction; doub…

> This is why audio monitors ... don't "sound as good" to the untrained ear. I've never understood this, myself. If it was mixed on monitors, and made to sound good on monitors, then shouldn't it sound best when replayed on monitors?

The point is that you can't know what it sounds like unless they are accurate. Every consumer speaker sounds different in different ways. So, if I bought a pair of mid-range car speakers to mix on, assuming most of my target audience would hear it on their car stereo, and I made it sound good on those speakers...even if everybody only listened on car speakers, odds are good it would still be too hyped or too bassy or too tinny on about half of all speakers. The degree of variance is the problem.

If I mix on a set of accurate studio monitors (and assuming a reasonable level of skill in the area), the sound will be pretty well balanced across any number of speakers. Some will be hyped (smiley curve EQ), some will be bassy, and some will be bright. But a balanced mix will be pretty well-balanced on any set of speakers of reasonable quality. If I mix on speakers that lead me to boost or lower a specific set of frequencies, the speakers that do the opposite will be twice as far off as if I had mixed to a balanced set of speakers.

Everybody here is probably pretty mathematical, so think of a single sine wave at a specific frequency. Say I'm aiming for an amplitude of 1 (units irrelevant). My mixing speaker boosts it by .5, because it's a speaker aimed at guys who like their cars to rattle. So, now I've mixed this sine wave at an amplitude of .66. If someone who likes bright sounding music (and with speakers that drop the bass by .5) listens, my mix now has the bass at .33 (ignoring all the dB math, and the crazy physics of ears/distance/frequencies etc. for the sake of simplicity).

If, on the other hand, I mixed on a speaker that accurately gave me a 1 when I wanted a 1, it'll play at 1.5 on the bass-heavy speakers, and at .5 on the treble-heavy speakers. Smaller differences are better.

Note also that professional studios also tend to include a few sets of speakers. You mix on the "mains" which are usually high quality near-field monitors, and you test on the small and big speakers and possibly a specific set of speakers that matches your target audience. Good engineers also usually live and breathe their projects, and so they'll also listen in the car on the way home and to work in the morning. The main work of mixing, however, always happens on a good, accurate set of monitors. If it doesn't, odds are very good it'll sound like crap on a good portion of speakers.

And to answer this questions specifically:

then shouldn't it sound best when replayed on monitors?

Sure, but how many people have $1000+ speaker/amp combos in their car, iPod, home, etc.? The problem is merely one of making the best mix for the most people. If you know exactly what speakers your customer is using, and those are the only speakers that will be used for playback of your recording, then you would obviously tune your mix for that exact set of speakers. But, that's pretty much never the case. We do the best we can with a complex set of variables.

Re: MacBook Pro, Thousands of Colors

#78
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure about this - if false advertising (millions of colors) caused him to sell his old laptop with a better screen, then he's still worse off, as a result of Apple's actions. Then again, I think the whole MBP line has had 6 bit displays for their whole history, so I'm not sure why he's complaining now.

I thought that the 13" inch Macbook Pro had the 6 bit display while the others had 8 bit :-/ If the entire MBP line has 6 bit displays, then why complain? I am a bit concerned of Apple's false advertising though. So my 2006-ish 17 Macbook Pro is not able to display millions of colors? That is sad...

I looked into this a bit, and there are tons of conflicting reports on this over the web.

I have a 2007ish 15" MBP, and it dithers/FRC's like a mofo with certain colors in WinXP.

Re: MacBook Pro, Thousands of Colors

#79
post #25
post #8

Alternate headline choice: Man with ability to research decides not to and is disappointed in purchase but offered full refund

That's not entirely fair. The specific information he was looking for is not made available to the public by Apple. He was only able to find the information after getting the model number for the display and checking with the vendor. There was no way of knowing exactly which display was used without access to a MacBook Pro because that's not information made public by Apple, either. It's an awfully roundabout way of…

Apple advertises it as being able to display millions of colors despite the fact that it really only displays 262,144.

A 6-bit display is capable of displaying more than 6 bits of color information, using a technique named temporal dithering. For an example, open this image on a 6-bit display: http://imgur.com/BeVicl.png >. If the display could only display 262k colors, the squares would look identical.

Re: MacBook Pro, Thousands of Colors

#80
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Professionals in any creative industry need to be able to see or hear exactly what they are actually creating. This is why audio monitors for recording studios cost a lot, and don't "sound as good" to the untrained ear. Accuracy is what you are paying for. If it is inaccurate in any one direction, the potential for problems during reproduction on client machines (which could be inaccurate in the other direction; doub…

> This is why audio monitors ... don't "sound as good" to the untrained ear. I've never understood this, myself. If it was mixed on monitors, and made to sound good on monitors, then shouldn't it sound best when replayed on monitors?

I think the idea is that taste can be developed. A musician probably will like the sound best from a monitor, but someone who doesn't pay as much attention to sound has a less nuanced appreciation and taste. Cheaper speakers are often biased to exaggerate the qualities that are appealing to the majority (whose tastes are less refined), hence the scare quotes acknowledging the subjective interpretation of goodness.
Post reply on HN