One thing I haven't seen discussed in this is how do these current screens compare to older Powerbook screens? I've got a three-year old PB G4, and I can't see any of the banding or color problems that are being described in the lawsuit. Of course, the PBs were always sold as displaying "millions of colors," too.

Reply

The old Powerbooks had the same "problem." *All* laptops with screens smaller than 17 inches have this issue. No major panel manufacturer makes laptop screens with 8-bit color depth. It's a total non-issue that's been blown out of proportion by people who didn't realize that all laptops use 6-bit color. Apple is doing nothing wrong here. It's not even clear they advertised "16.7 million colors" (which would be untrue), versus the "16 million" color claim, which most laptop and screen vendors make (by dithering you get 16.2 million colors).

This issue is being driven by a couple of guys with misconceptions and unrealistic expectations, and a few lawyers willing to indulge them in the expectation of a windfall.

Reply

You can read about the 6-bit laptop color issue in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TFT_LCD
Except for some pricey IPS displays, all laptops are like this.

Reply

Bitching about the colour on a laptop screen is stupid. A professional Eizo coloredge hardware calibrated screen costs alot more then your macbook pro. That's the kind of screen you use when you're a real pro (and when you can afford it)

Reply

Re: (2)

The real issue is that the displays on macbooks look funky. Maybe I am the odd man out, but I believe having a non-funky display is not an "unrealistic expectation."

I previously owned a 12" powerbook and had no issues with color. Any angle I positioned the screen (forward/back) would not show any noticeable difference in gradients, transitions were smooth.

With my macbook, if I view the screen at an angle greater than 85 degrees open, gradients are blocky and speckled as if they can't display the color correctly. When I keep the angle of the screen 85 degrees or less (which is unacceptable for notebook use) gradients are smooth and there is no noticeable banding or speckling.

I have seen this on a friend's macbook as well. When you use windows on the same macbook, however, this phenomenon does not occur, which points to a software problem. The fact that it has not been addressed via software updates is ridiculous, and my one hope is that 10.5 fixes this.

...just my 2 cents.

Reply

The particular issue in this lawsuit is about color depth, not the viewing angle of the display. The viewing angle is a completely separate issue.

Yes, Macbooks have a more limited viewing angle than the older Powerbooks, but that's largely because of the glossy screen. It has nothing to do with the color depth issue.

Reply

@7, 1 and others dissing G&G:

Well id agree they arent as informed as they should be about the technical issues of colo reproduction on screen.

That said i think thier right at least in the case of the MBP. Its supposed to be a Pro Model. Therefore it should give pro color within reason. That means that the screen should have good if not excellent emulation via FRC.

If thier claims in the look of the display are true i too would be pissed, especially if I hadnt had this problem with a previous Powerbook or iBook (which i have to say, i never have with the ones ive used).

The point in reality is that the dsiplay perfomrance on the machines in question should be as good if not better as it performance when booted in windows and the same if not better than all previous models.

Unfortunately, from a legal stand point i dont think they have a leg to stand on. But if something as simple as a firmware or software update would fix it i would expect apple to do the right thing and fix it. After all the creative pro is thier bread and butter.

Reply

"Additionally, the subjective experience of some MBP owners indicates that the banding/sparkling issues are nonexistent when the machines are booted into Windows...."

Mac: [exhibiting sparkling and color banding] Hi, I'm a Mac.

PC: And I'm a PC. [turns to Mac] Hey Mac, what's the deal with your colors?

Mac: I don't know. [examines himself] I feel like I'm short some bits or something.

PC: Why don't you try using Boot Camp and boot into Vista?

Mac: Ok.

[Mac disappears, then reappears wearing drab business suit. The color banding is gone and he appears normal. A Vista Security Man in sunglasses is standing behind him.]

PC: There, that's much better.

Mac: I don't know. This feels... weird.

PC: But I have to say, you look a lot better.

Mac: [glancing down at himself] I guess I do.

Vista Security Prompt Man: Mac is coming to a sad realization: Cancel or Allow?

Mac: [turning to Vista Security Man] Who the hell are YOU?

PC: Oh, you'll get used to him.

Reply

The marketing materials say "support for millions of colors" so it's not clear whether they mean 16.2 dithered or 16.7 native, but regardless, the graphics card *does* support that depth. Whether the screen can display it is a separate issue. If you hooked up a big display to the DVI port, you'd get all your colors.
The 6bit laptop screen was mainly a by-product of the push for faster response time. There's no such thing as a free lunch..!

Reply

"Pro" is just a word; people are getting way too bent out of shape thinking it should indicate the best in the world.

The mixer in my kitchen has "Professional" stamped on the front, as does my microwave, but I have no illusion that these are the same brands used by professional chefs. In these days of overzealous marketing, all I take "Pro" to indicate is that I am not purchasing the worst product a company makes. Even then I am sometimes wrong.

The MBP is a great laptop, but laptops are designed to be portable, and some sacrifices have to be made. If you want an ultra high quality visual experience, get something that was made to provide it (the Eizo mentioned earlier is a good option).

Reply

The weird thing is the banding I experience on my MacBook Pro is less than on a CRT, but both still exhibit it. In Windows, the graininess of the screen is very much more emphasized than in OS X, however.

*shrug*

Reply

it's an LCD display for crying out loud. it will never display the colours possible on a CRT tube. What 16.2 dithered??! If you're a photographer dealing with such sensitive issues as colour reproduction and all that, stay away from LCDs entirely. It's -that- simple. Yes the MBP screen is a bit grainy, and yes, there is slight banding. So what? Is this a lawsuit over an additional paragraph in some PDF people won't read anyway, or??

Reply

Sorry, bu it seems most of you haven't really got a clue as to what the screen looks like. It is not one problem. it is several. And it has nothing to do with people having unrealistic expectations. Those who can't see the obvious flaws these screens have, please check again - or get your eyes checked. My latest laptop is a 17" macbook Pro. This is my 7th laptop from Apple. ALL others - from the tolietseat Ibook, to my 12" Powerbook - have had much better screens. From the dithering problem (gradient banding) to the sparkly, grainy coating on the matte screens and the very uneven illumination, my 17" C2D Macbook Pro has the hands down crappiest screen of all. And trust me, I have gone through 7 x 17", and 5 x 15", to find a screen that was JUST USABLE as a graphic designer ( and I am not talking about narrow color space of the LCD panels's and good colour vs high-end LCD panels). All their screens on their Macbook Pro's suck. Sorry, but the screens on their Pro laptops are the worst I have ever owned in an Apple laptop. It's that simple.

Reply

I have a new Macbook and what really disappoints me is the screen is worse than the iBook G4 it replaced. The color banding is terrible and very noticeable. Sure, as a designer I should use a CRT for color reproduction but that's not often easy when you're on the road. I'd love to go back to my iBook but the poor thing died...

How about we also talk about the 'lag' that new MacBooks have? I swear that my PPC was quicker to respond to commands (and yes I am using universal binaries).

Reply

This is a genuine truth-in-advertising issue. From the MBP specs page:

"17-inch (diagonal) TFT display, support for millions of colors"

"Simultaneously supports full native resolution on the built-in display and up to 2560 by 1600 pixels on an external display, both at millions of colors"

If they're advertising millions of colors on both displays, then I should expect the LCD to be capable of showing a different color on each pixel.
"Support for" is not a good enough weasel phrase, since the LCD is built in and cannot be easily replaced.

Reply

I wonder if the new MacBook Pros supposedly coming out in June, (or later) will have remedied these issues? I want to buy a MacBook Pro sepcifically for portable photography usage. If there is a problem with the screen, and the older notebook computers are better in design, perhaps I will just wait it out or get a desktop Mac instead. I really need to go portable, though. This is a conundrum. Anyone out there working as a pro photographer having these issues??

Reply