Slashdot Mirror
New 20" iMac Screens Show 98% Fewer Colors
Trintech points us to an AppleInsider article about another class-action lawsuit directed against Apple Inc. This one claims that the displays on new 20" iMacs are only capable of 6-bit-per-pixel color, 98% fewer colors than Apple advertises. Rather than the 8-bit, in-plane switching (IPS) screens used in 24" iMacs and earlier 20" models, "[t]he new 20-inch iMac features a 6-bit twisted nematic film (TN) LCD screen," according to the article, "which the [law] firm claims is the 'least expensive of its type,' sporting a narrower viewing angle than the display of the 24-inch model, less color depth, less color accuracy, and greater susceptibility to washout." Apple recently settled a very similar class-action suit about the displays on MacBook and MacBook Pro models.
Good job slashdot, I think you successfully managed to show that reality is stranger than fiction by holding back on the fake articles this year. And you've thoroughly confused everyone.
the Windows Guy could retaliate in one of those commercials.
But cutting costs is part of innovation, so Apple is still the best, OBVIOUSLY.
Hasn't apple prided itself in that mac's are for "fun and artistic purposes" rather than business purposes? It seems to me that apple is shooting itself in the foot here, and then pouring lemon juice on the wound just for good measure.
I am not a big Apple fan, but in the past I always knew they at least put out a quality product. I never had problems recommending Apple products to my clients if their needs fit the product.
But in the past few years Apple quality has been slipping. They need to nip this in the bud or they'll be known as just an OS company with crappy hardware.
And for a company that pushes such a visual image - DON'T go cheap on the displays!
In this instance (not the previous one), the issue is did Apple advertise them as supporting 8 bit per plane or did they not? If they tried selling them as 8 bit and they were really 6, then there is a problem. It's called false advertising.
Just a reminder this is 6 Bits per pixel not the Bit depth that you set on your OS. Having 64 Colors per Pixel and combination of hardware dithering makes a decent screen for most people. However for true videophobes that would get in the way 8 bit would be prefered. But for most people they wouldn't know the difference betwen 8 bit and 6 bit displays.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
If it was advertised as an 18-bit screen we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
18 bits is plenty for many people, but it's not plenty for graphic artists - the very people who buy Macs.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I just checked. The tech specs page for Apple Cinema Displays says "Display colors (maximum): 16.7 million". The tech specs pages for the MacBook, MacBook Pro, MacBook Air and indeed the iMac all mention "millions of colors" (which is what Apple has traditionally called 24-bit color, as opposed to "thousands of colors" which is 16-bit mode and "256 colors" which is obviously 8-bit mode).
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
You won't see stripes, but noisy transitions, at least on the iMac. Most of the 6-bit displays (including the iMac one) dither when they are fed intermediate values.
For me, the difference is most dramatic on relatively dark gradients involving green or blue.
In any case, the worst problem with TN isn't the dithering/banding, it's the total lack of color consistency that derives from the very narrow viewing angle.
This is how some technologies, such as CRT and plasma, work.
This is not how LCD screens work.
A pixel on an LCD monitor emits a single color. There is no dithering involved. The pixel filters out a set of wavelengths from a white light source to produce a single pixel with a single, even color.
The pixels on Apple's new 6-bit iMac displays are only capable of about 262,000 individual color states. The 24-inch iMacs are capable of over 16 million color states.
90%+ LCD monitors are TN screens like the low end iMacs. They all claim 16+Million colors. The Panel itself is a LG.Philips LM201WE3(teardowns online). The manufacture web says it is 16.7million colors with FRC.
This would only affect the clueless. It was widely complained about that apple switched to TN panel on the 20" as soon as the Aluminum iMacs came out. It is not a hidden fact, you can tell by the viewing angle specs.
Apple will probably fight this one, because there is a chance the laptops did not have FRC dithering (many laptop screens don't) and thus did not have millions of colors, OTOH the FRC dithering panels are classed as having millions of colors industry wide, and the viewing angles were quoted to industry standards in the spec that would make it clear to anyone who knew or cared about display or even asked anyone for advice that these were TN panels.
In fact you would have to be living under a rock to not know, but that won't stop some people for trying for a small cash grab and lawyers from trying for a big one.
But when the manufacturer sold it to Apple, they probably didn't lie to them about what it was.
If they did, then Apple should turn around and sue them.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Anyone who works in any color-critical business knows to NEVER-EVER buy any apple branded monitor if color quality is your goal. They are the worst bang for your buck on all fronts. Even a cheap panasonic (sub $400) after calibration will yield better color than its apple counterpart with the same calibration. The only reason people buy the apple monitor is so their setup "matches" like you match your shoes to your belt.
It's sad but very true. As a professional in digital photography we carry 30in cinema displays and take note that the people who rent them only do so for 3 reasons.
They are big and honestly are a great gimmick to impress clients who work on shitty setups at their offices.
Their shooting style is such that color accuracy is not relevant at the time of capture.
They are ignorant to the nature of color and how it can potentially screw up their workflow. Both during and after capture.
And the forth ( I know I said 3 ) In the business of digital capture you have to offer what the other guys offer or you risk losing clients who don't want to pay for the top of the line
( ie any EIZO monitor )
If you look closely enough you will see THREE pixels, one red, one green, one blue. Each of these (on an actual 8-bit screen) can display 255 different shades of their color, plus black. 255red + 255green + 255blue + 1black = 766 different colors.
This in fact is the only way to count the colors if you want to claim that dithering does not count. (Conversely if you do count dithering you could claim that the screen can display an astronomical number of colors, if viewed from so far away that the entire display looks like a single dot)
However the 6-bit screen only puts out 63+63+63+1 = 190 different colors. Thus you could still claim the number of colors is 75% less.
No. The post in question is a train wreck. Combinatorial math does not work like that. Nor is that the reason that video recording is historically done in YUV. The human eye is very much capable of perceiving millions of distinguishable colors.
Bringing in the mechanics of color perception is irrelevant, not to mention that the post is using misleading and incorrect terminology (it's nothing to do with "dithering") and that it is conveniently overlooking the fact that the three wavelengths that the cones in the eye are sensitive to are red, green, and blue.
Also, regarding the article, why the heck is Apple of all manufacturers using TN panels, everyone knows they suck! A supply issue perhaps? I know there was a panel factory that went up in flames a while ago, which caused the Lenovo L220X to be severely short in supply.
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
I bought a macbook 13" for school and the viewing angle and color were so poor I couldn't get a consistent contrast from top to bottom.
TN screens are pieces of crap, period.
The color was washed out, so washed out the best I could do for calibration forced apple's colorsync tool to the edge of the charts. If I were able I would have dragged the controls off the charts, and perhaps attained a passable color accuracy. That said, the lack of consistent contrast from top to bottom of the screen is incurable.
Apple seems to have caved to the flow of the rest of the pc market, which is toward screens which are no longer built for fidelity, but for hyper-exaggerated flashiness on the salesfloor.
My cinema was the last generation before this shift, and now im stuck unserviced in the computing marketplace when i want to upgrade.
I like the OSX environment a LOT. I can't stand an interface which is not document centered, and column view is important to me, but I also want color fidelity! Whenever I see an improperly calibrated screen it grates at me like a thousand papercuts, and I've locked that macbook away in a dark corner because I want to cry whenever I look at that screen.
What has happened to apple's quality standards since 2002 can best be compared to BBC news devolving into MTV news.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!