Almost a year after those two photogs first tried to bring a class-action suit against Apple for supposedly underperforming colors on MacBook and MacBook Pro LCD screens, our own Mike Rose has been proven right -- Apple has "quietly settled" the suit, and presumably Apple didn't have to pay much: the plaintiffs apparently had trouble finding other people who had purchased the laptops solely for the "millions of colors" claim.Which makes sense -- why would you need any more than a few hundred thousand colors on a single screen? Of course, the drawback here is that we'll never find out if you really can get millions of colors on a MacBook screen, as the photographers wanted. For all we know, they might actually be technically correct -- widely recognized as the very best kind of correct.
[Via Engadget]











Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
3-26-2008 @ 11:27PM
Dan said...
Wow, it's been ages since I was sent to a dead Geocities link. Oh the memories...
Reply
3-26-2008 @ 11:44PM
Byron Doyle said...
I think it's ludacris that they would sue at all over the millions of colors thing. The human eye can't even distinguish as many colors as a modern video card is capable of producing, so how would they be able to tell?
Reply
3-27-2008 @ 1:22AM
Marcos El Malo said...
I think it's Tupac that you're this ignorant about professional use of color on computers, and yet still feel qualified enough to comment. Some might say that your uninformed opinion is quite MC Hammer, given that some P Diddy pros actually use 10 bit/channel and 16 bit/channel color spaces on high end work in the Ice Cube film FX and Snoop Dog print worlds, yo.
3-27-2008 @ 2:08AM
Byron Doyle said...
*sigh*
I *am* one of those professionals. I use 16-bit channels all the time for print purposes. I simply posted to point out the stupidity of the suit–yes, Apple did not deliver hardware as advertised, but frankly, it doesn't really matter that much as long as the dithering process works. Now as Ryan pointed out, since the dithering process is sub-par, this does make a difference, because it produces visual artifacts that you can see. I'm sorry that sarcasm doesn't translate well through the interwebs, but it doesn't mean that you can be a troll.
3-27-2008 @ 4:31AM
doc said...
Ludicrous : adj
Idiotic or unthinkable, often to the point of being funny.
He made a ludicrous attempt to run for office.
Synonyms
(idiotic or unthinkable): laughable, ridiculous
3-27-2008 @ 4:49AM
Byron Doyle said...
Heh Opera doesn't spell check my text fields, and apparently neither do I. :D
3-27-2008 @ 8:04AM
Ed said...
Marcos - funniest post this month, period.
Byron - that's not him trolling, that's you making a tit of yourself. Twice.
3-27-2008 @ 4:48PM
Gareth Burleigh said...
"I think its Tupac" had me laughing so hard I woke my baby up.
Thank you Marcos
Gareth
3-27-2008 @ 12:43AM
Aaron Davies said...
The Rainbow Brite icon is cute, but the Photoshop jobs has some rough edges--a bit of her ponytail is covering up the menubar. Unless that machine is running Leopard with menubar transparency hacked way up, that's impossible. :-)
Reply
3-27-2008 @ 12:50AM
adisor19 said...
WoW. I read the article and some of these comments and I'm speechless. Apple advertised the LCD panels to be 8bit and instead shipped 6bit panels. HOW THE HELL CAN YOU NOT SEE THE PROBLEM HERE ?
Adi
Reply
3-27-2008 @ 1:16AM
Lyle said...
i Cannot connect my ipod touch to itunes this message is displayed everytime i try to connecting it to the computer."error OxE8000022" its quite annoying someone please help me? i cant access anything!
Reply
4-05-2008 @ 1:12AM
Jose Guerra said...
Cannot connect my ipod touch to itunes this message is displayed everytime i try to connecting it to the computer."error OxE8000022" its quite annoying someone please help me? i cant access anything!
i have the error oxe8000022 instaling the jailbreak liberty+
how can i fix the software of my itouch
3-27-2008 @ 1:31AM
Ryan said...
The "millions of colours" argument isn't the point. All 6-bit LCDs only display a subset of the available 16.7 million available in the 24-bit range. The eye is fooled by the use of dithering techniques, and most manufacturers do this well enough to not be noticeable.
The problem is that Apple's dithering is sub-par, and so many cases colour banding is obvious, particularly in images with smooth colour gradations.
Reply
3-27-2008 @ 8:36PM
Cycomachead said...
too true!, look at the TUAW background as a prime example!
3-27-2008 @ 4:23AM
doc said...
I think the suit is ludicrous because of the fact that a professional photographer should not be even considering a macbook as a work platform. I parallels them using a Cybershot level camera as a professional camera. It's not that Cybershots are bad cameras I happen to own several but if I'm getting paid I'm bringing my 5D and 40D. The prosumer market is flooded with wedding video guys trying to edit using GL2's and iMovie.
Use the right tools for the right job.... thats why it's called a MacBook and not a MacBook Pro. BTW no self respecting shutterbug uses a lappy as a proofing computer. It's still a good CRT or LCD and a Greytag-Macbeth colorimeter for calibration... You see this colorimeter cost like $10K small change if you are a true professional photographer.
Reply
3-27-2008 @ 8:47AM
dexter fillmore said...
you say "thats why it's called a MacBook and not a MacBook Pro; from the post: "underperforming colors on MacBook and MacBook Pro LCD screens"
3-27-2008 @ 2:07PM
doc said...
Thats exactly why I said no notebooks for proofing. You need a CRT and maybe a really high end LCD with a colorimeter.
3-27-2008 @ 8:33PM
Cycomachead said...
Ok first: The macbook is an awesome computer. The only thing holding it back is the integrated graphics which is actually not to shabby for things like Aperture and Lightroom. I edit RAW files in Aperture 2 on a 1st gen 2.0GHz CD MacBook - I'm not a pro but it's a fine system.
Both notebook lines claim to offer millions of colors, so this applies to both.
The difference here is between the 6Bit and the 8Bit screen. The 6 can display
262, 144 colors (or somewhere around there...) or 16.2m inaccurate colors using software called dithering. The 8 Bit ones can do a full 16.7m colors that look good provided you profile and calibrate the display (another topic). These extra colors become more noticeable with calibration and make for a better calibration - and yes you can tell the difference, depending upon the picture. Obviously, black background will look black on both computers...
Now the issue is the type of LCDs used in laptops are TN film. These are cheap and small and have good response times, yet aren't 8-bit. The Apple Cinema Displays are S-IPS type which have very good color reproduction and reasonable response times. They're also bigger and more expensive. There are also some median display types which are 8-bit. However, the problem is there are very few made for laptops. There's also the fact that a simple advertising clarification would clear a lot of this up.
Now let's not get started on the LCD vs CRT display because each has is pros and cons and both are good. Have you seen an Eizo monitor?
3-27-2008 @ 5:56AM
Katy Cartee said...
YAY FOR RAINBOW BRITE!!!! :D
Reply
3-27-2008 @ 8:43AM
db cooper said...
The MacBook screens are dithered which looks awful even if you're not a professional photographer or photoshopper. I can't believe the apologia over this - a $400 Dell has a better LCD screen than a $1200 MacBook. It's unacceptable. Apple is lucky it has a fanbase of noncritical users with bad eyesight.
Reply