Filed under: Macbook Pro
New MBP offers top display quality, but some beg to differ
For pro photographers who care about color fidelity on a laptop screen, there's good news from Rob Galbraith on the revamped MacBook Pro line: the new laptops offer improved color performance, which Rob's review describes as "better colour accuracy than any Apple laptop we've profiled since...2001." Color accuracy, display evenness and grayscale viewing are all noted as excellent; the only sore spots are viewing angle and the grating lack of matte screen options for anything but the 17" top model. He notes that TechRestore may begin offering matte-screen replacements for the smaller units soon, for those who can't tolerate the glossy glare.
Not everyone is satisfied with the MBP screens, however. Designer Louie Mantia of the Iconfactory has a bone to pick with the screen quality of his new 13" unit; it's sporting a 6-bit display, which has been an issue with color-sensitive professionals for years now. To add insult to injury, the Apple store sold Louie the wrong DisplayPort adapter for his external display, and nobody at Apple HQ is willing to give him an answer on whether or not an 8-bit panel is even an option (hint: it's not, sorry about that). One could argue, as he does, that a 'Pro' machine ought to have a professional-quality panel... but that campaign's not likely to get much traction in the halls of Cupertino.
Via Apple Hot News
Get a WordPress.com Blog
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Fade2blac said 6:54PM on 7-04-2009
I played with last years aluminum MacBook and wasn't terribly impressed with the screen quality. Some have told me the this years model is better, can anyone confirm that?
Reply
Joseph said 9:38PM on 7-04-2009
they have finally transitioned away from the TN panels. So now all of them are native 8-bit. Not to mention that the 17" has better res than the 23" ACD.
Mike said 10:28PM on 7-04-2009
I've had a brand new 15" MacBook Pro (512MB VRAM) for 2 weeks and it is the best computer I've ever had (Wallstreet, 15" TiBook 1GHz, 15" MBPro 2.16GHz). The display is super bright and very crisp. I almost went with a pimped-out 13" (as much as you can), but the better video of the 15" won me over. I'm mostly a programmer and hardware tech, but I sometimes dabble in graphic design and video, so take it for what it's worth.
Cy Starkman said 6:56PM on 7-04-2009
I beg to differ.
Thankfully I have a LED 07 MBP with a matte screen.
I wouldn't know what to get at the moment; 17" portables just aren't, I'd prefer to invest the extra money in a big screen on the desktop than carry a 17". It would have to be either a hackintosh or a custom job from colorware or something.
It was dumb when it started on windows laptops because they had crud screens that needed fluffing and when it became "cool and normal" and then Apple adopted it was their worst design decision since the failed Cube.
The gloss screen idea needs smashing.
Reply
Howie Isaacks said 7:13PM on 7-04-2009
I work with graphics quite a bit, and the glossy screen has never been an issue for me. I prefer the glossy screen over the matte screens even though I sometimes have to move to a lighting angle that does not cast a glare on the screen. I agree that Apple needs to offer both options, but I don't think that smashing all of the glossy displays is the solution. This is a subjective issue after all. If you don't like the glossy screens, don't buy a laptop or desktop with one.
Jon said 12:40AM on 7-05-2009
@Howie
Please tell me what my options are then for a portable Apple notebook without a glossy screen? You say don't buy one, but I've been using a Mac for a while now and need a portable computer. So based on your comment, I should fork out the $3400 including tax (Canadian) for a 17" with matte screen, or buy a Windows laptop.. Yeah, that makes sense.
Kelmon said 4:18AM on 7-05-2009
"I work with graphics quite a bit, and the glossy screen has never been an issue for me."
I presume from this that you don't work with colours then. If you work with colours and need them to be correctly reproduced then you don't use a glossy display that attempts to make the look more vivid. It's really not a question of glare (although it may be for some people) but a question of colour accuracy.
Cowfodder said 11:43AM on 7-05-2009
@Kelmon
"I presume from this that you don't work with colours then. If you work with colours and need them to be correctly reproduced then you don't use a glossy display that attempts to make the look more vivid. It's really not a question of glare (although it may be for some people) but a question of colour accuracy."
I presume that you have no clue what you are talking about. Glossy vs Matte has nothing to do with trying to make images look "more vivid." That is controlled entirely by the color temp and gamma controls. Being that I am an ISF certified display calibrator, I can tell you with 100% certainty that glossy screens produce a more accurate image than their matte counterparts. This is due to the matte screen's tendency to diffuse light in scattered directions. This is one of the reasons that matte finished LCDs have such a hard time creating a dark, true black. Yes, gloss finished screens have reflections in brightly lit areas. Matte finished screens wash out and color shift in bright light. Gloss screens, while shiny, do not color shift.
FotoGenetix said 6:58PM on 7-04-2009
Considering Apple markets their displays to have "Millions of colors" and a 6 bit only displays 262k (with dithering) allowing a simulation of "millions". I am kinda mad too. But on one side that's what happens when you buy a rebranded macbook pro 13in. As a photographer the smallest size your workhorse should be is 15in. Apple should really ask themselves what does the "pro" name really mean if they can just throw it on anything.
Reply
Macopotamus said 7:27PM on 7-04-2009
"Pro" should just be taken as branding, like "Classic", "XL", "LC", etc.
Just look at the App Store for hundreds of products branded as "Pro" for no reason other than they are not free.
FotoGenetix said 7:38PM on 7-04-2009
Apple has stated, that at what point does a Macbook with all the same features as the "Pro" not a "Pro" . I understand that the 15 and 17 models are superior but when people put things in the same class as its bigger brothers I would have to expect a decent
And the "pro" as just branding? I disagree, the pro line has always had attracted the pro audience, with its great quality and especially now with the unibodies. I love mac products as much as you all, but I love the pro line because of the display qualities.
Kelmon said 4:20AM on 7-05-2009
I'm not too concerned that Apple is only selling the 13" models with a 6-bit display but this must be clearly communicated so that buyers know what they are getting. "Pro" really can mean a lot of things to different people and there is nothing to say that your profession has anything to do with colour work.
James Donevan said 7:25PM on 7-04-2009
Louie seems intent on making himself look like a fool. This is a grown man who went into an Apple Store one day, looked over a machine at his leisure, talked to the sales staff about its specs, didn't get informed answers, then went home. A day or two later he went back to the store and bought the machine -- without bothering to do even the most basic checks to ensure it met his requirements as a graphic designer. The latter is particularly ironic as Louie is keen to repeatedly bang home the point that "you already know I’m a designer, so you know how important color is to me."
Then he buys the wrong adapter. More befuddlement on his part and the Apple Store staff. Louie is from the school that assumes anyone working in an Apple Store knows or should know every detail about every product they sell. Louie is heading for many more hours of frustration using that logic. Affable the Apple sales staff may be, founts of knowledge they are not.
Apple agrees to exchange the adapter free of charge but "it’s just serving as a distraction. (Louie wants) a better portable display." Apparently Louie thinks by persistence he will eventually convince the various Apple Support/ Customer Relations staffers that they should build him a special machine. At least that would seem to be his goal because Apple doesn't make a 13 inch model with the specs he thinks befit his 'professional' status -- something many professionals would have noted BEFORE making their purchase.
Very long story short, Louie didn't do his homework, suffers the consequences, and now figures he'll make an issue of it to soothe his ruffled feathers. (Draw your own analogy to the feathers reference.) His antics makes for amusing reading though: After talking to various Customer Support reps, Louie concludes "these guys assume I’m an idiot." I'm guessing he's right there. Them and many more of us.
Reply
FotoGenetix said 7:32PM on 7-04-2009
true that he did not do more research, and he really should of gotten the 15in or 17.
However I think the main point is the "Pro" badge on a product that is not up to "Pro" standards. You can call the guy out on his typical "consumer" mistake but in the end he is just a consumer like the rest of us who want a product to reflect its marketing.
kajoob said 8:24PM on 7-04-2009
It is a self-styled "Pro" machine that Apple falsely claims displays MILLIONS of colors. It does not. You can't say what is effectively "buyer beware" when Apple out and out lied about the specs and he relied on their false claim. He's got a legitimate beef.
Kovah said 9:00PM on 7-04-2009
I think the biggest problem is the attitude Apple has in this case. They can't tell him what type of display is in the machine, or if upgrading to the 15" will give him the 8-bit he needs. What Apple should be doing in this case is just give us all a straight up answer, is the display on the 13" 6 or 8-bit, and is upgrading to 15" going to give you a better display.
And as stated before, "Pro" should mean more then just a three letter word that you can stick to the end of anything. I'm currently on my MBP Unibody 13" writing this, and finding out the display is 6-bit (meaning 200k+ colors), and not millions of colors as stated on their web-site, I as a consumer actually feel cheated. If this is something that's important or not might be up to discussion, but Apple - or anyone for that matter - should not falsely advertise with wrong specs or information regarding their products. Ever.
iomatic said 1:27PM on 7-07-2009
So if you didn't notice in the first place, your only rationale is that you "feel" cheated?
Sigh; kids today.
As noted before, most designers wouldn't even notice, and with a 13" laptop, let's hope you do connect to a better display (guess what I do with my 13" MBP?), and use it in the field or for simple presentations in a pinch.
SSteve said 7:35PM on 7-04-2009
After reading all the glossy screen bashing from various quarters, I was a little apprehensive when I ordered new MacBook Pros for my wife and me (13" and 15", respectively). To my pleasant surprise, the displays are excellent. We are both very happy and have had no problem with glare. Of course, neither of us is a professional designer so perhaps we are unqualified to pass judgement.
Reply
Joanna D said 7:49PM on 7-04-2009
The point is that Apple is claiming the 13-inch display supports "millions of colours" both on its website and on the product box. This is not the case.
Reply
Jason Davies said 8:15PM on 7-04-2009
Who can really tell the difference?
Reply