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.
Mac Fanboys converging in 3... 2... 1...
...the new OSX interface has shown us that we don't need so many colours. Colours in a computer eat up the memory bits and distract us from our reverence. Personally, I'm going to take Steve's advice and go get my eyes chromed.
Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
the Windows Guy could retaliate in one of those commercials.
But cutting costs is part of innovation, so Apple is still the best, OBVIOUSLY.
I don't have a Mac, but I do sometimes buy computer monitors. I can understand specifications like the physical size, resolution, viewing angle and (just about) contrast ratio. But do manufacturers publish specs on what colour depth is supported? Is there some quantitative measure of how well a display shows different colours and how wide the gamut is? How can I avoid getting caught out like these hapless iMac buyers?
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Strange, the first case that was "settled out of court under undisclosed terms" seems to have been just two guys. Surely there are more than two photographers who bought macs thinking they would get 8-bit color and later realized it was only 6-bit. I wonder why no class-action was initiated? Since it wasn't though, it seems like Apple is still open to potentially thousands or more lawsuits for this false advertising.
That's what it is, right? They say "millions of colors" when it's really 262k colors. Or is there some precedent that lets a company claim dithering = unique color?
everything in moderation
I work at an Apple shop, I love Apple products, but I'd be happy to tell you how shitty the 20" Aluminum iMac screens are. They really, really suck, and here's hoping Apple finally gets their head out of their ass and puts a quality screen on what should be a quality product.
Apple is just trying to bring back the glory days of black and white screens.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
640 colors ought to be enough for anyone.
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
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.
Quick, ban this guy for posting something that might be construed as anti-apple... We all know they can't do wrong. Someone change Apple -> Microsoft and all will be well...
6-bit colors? In 2008? What were they thinking? The trend is towards 10 bits. At 6 bits, gradients look awful; false edges appear. Go into Photoshop, generate a single color gradient, and then "posterize" to 64 colors to see what this looks like. Yuck.
Dithering won't help; it puts noise into a nice, smooth gradient.
Apple uses octal.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
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'd call this 98% color reduction a healthy, green approach, great for the environment... except that green was one of the colors that was removed...
Mod parent up. This is absolutely true. I'd estimate that the vast majority of LCD panels on the market are 6-bit screens. Whether you are buying Benq, LG, Dell, Viewsonic, it doesn't matter. Most of them are 6 bit.
They are cheaper, and they have faster response times.
8-bit LCD panels are almost a niche specialty 'pro product' in today's market, and unless you went out of your way to buy an 8 bit screen odds are you took home a 6-bit TN panel, advertised as showing "16.2 million colours" without even knowing it.
Its not just Apple. Although they seem to have gone beyond marketing deceptiveness to outright lies and deserve to be taken to task about it.
But don't for a minute think all those free Dell monitors bundled with low end PCs are anything better. Hell, even the ones you can pay to upgrade to aren't often anything better than 6-bit.
So Apple uses a TN panel for one of their consumer products. Just like it is used in a majority of all consumer-grade flat-screens on the market. Sure, it is a bit misleading stating "it's going to look stunning on an iMac", but TN is in my opinion a logical choice of panel for a product like the iMac. That makes the rant about all the ways TN is inferior to IPS feel a bit unnecessary.
Actually, there were two 6-bit modes on the Amiga - EHB, as described, and HAM (Hold And Modify), which caused the pixels defined as colors 32-63 to be defined as "the color of the pixel to the left, but with its (R|G|B) value replaced with ...", thus allowing for all 4096 colors on-screen at once, but usually with a slight fudge-factor, depending on your image and how you arranged your 32-color palette.
And that's not getting into the later chipsets, which mostly just added bits... (:
Go to Newegg and try to buy a flat panel that actually has 8 bit color. Even ones advertised as the full 16.7M colors don't - there are a number of websites out that either have or show you how to make a proper test pattern in PS - a non-dithered screen will produce smooth gradients, while a dithered screen will show 'steps' of color. Final test - watch a cutscene in a 3D game like NWN2 on a flat screen - dithering GALORE.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Let's start with, it's multiplicative, not additive. That's 255^3, not 255*3. This is because, as you mentition later, the eye combines all three subpixels into a new color.
If you interpert color as a wavelenght of light as opposed to relative excitment of the three colored cones in your eye, then yes. But no one thinks of that definition. Instead, the obvious usage is 'colors preceived'. Even when you talk about color of a pure wavelength, you can only interpert it as combinations of your three cones.
So, even if one were to concede all your points, these aren't really 1920x1280x24 displays are they then. Because that 1920x1280 resolution has to get shortchanged for the dithering. So you can say that Apple lied about the resolution instead of the color if you like, but it's awful pedantic.
I know people who paid a lot more to get a camera with a Foveon sensor, actually. While I might be unable to notice the quality, they (and their clients) can. And you better believe they would be pissed if they ended up with a Bayer filter instead.
If you want to say that the difference is small, and unnoticible to most people, so that is the optimal thing to make, fine. I respect that, and agree with you. But this is flagrant false advertising. A 1920x1280x24 screen was advertised and not delivered. Bitch about Apple's behavior just like any other major company's.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
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...
I'm the guy that you'd find arguing over how much LCDs suck and how much better CRTs are a couple years ago. But my CRT died last month (Mitsubishi 19" Aperture Grille, it was about the best monitor you could get short of the 22" version of the same), and I picked up a Samsung 226CW. There are only two things it doesn't do as well as the CRT:
Absolute black level.
Off-axis viewing degradation.
The color is actually BETTER, DESPITE the 6 bit panel. The reason why 6 bit is not a big deal is because the panel response is so fast that it can temporally dither two colors into one, and you don't even notice that its doing it. For photography, its actually better color reproduction because its more consistent than CRT. On top of that, the "C" model in particular (as opposed to the 226BW) has a 95 CRI backlight, which means the spectrum the backlight produces is much less peaky and closer to natural sunlight. Altogether, the result is more accurate color than I'd get on a CRT. Plus I get 2ms response time so gaming is fine too.
The 226CW may be TN, but its one of the best panels out there. I thought I was going to be more disappointed than I actually was. In fact, I wasn't disappointed at all because it turned out better in most regards, not just "almost as good." It can produce smooth color because spatial and temporal dithering on fast monitors is surprisingly effective, and its actually more accurate because of the better quality back light.
Not that this was an article about CRT vs LCD, but I'm saying that TN panels have become common not just BECAUSE they're cheap but because the good ones (as cheap as they are) are SURPRISINGLY good. Apple may have used a shitty 6 bit panel instead of, say, Samsung's 6 bit panel, but the number of native colors is surprisingly not that big a deal, even if you're a picture-accuracy freak.
(It doesn't excuse them from not clarifying whether it was TN or IPS though, and in fact it pisses me off that no manufacturers are clear on what overall technology goes into their LCDs)
Try the following exercise:
1. Find a new 20" iMac (or laptop, or other machine with a crap TN panel). Find a good IPS panel such as the one on a 24" iMac. Put them side by side.
2. Open your favorite image editor.
3. Create a diagonal gradient starting with black and ending with 50% pure blue or green
4. The hard part: tell me with a straight face that you can't see the dithering.
At typical viewing distances, subpixels are small enough to dither with reasonable effectiveness. Full pixels aren't, at least where the color transitions are subtle.
*This in-betweening process is what knocks down the available number of colors on 6-bit displays to 16.2 million instead of 16.7 million.
What the hell is the complaint about? Even a screen with an 8-bit DAC is only capable of displaying 766 colours - each subpixel can show 255 brightnesses of three distinct wavelengths of light (as each subpixel can show the same black this makes 766, not 768). ... This whole thing is stupid. It sounds like people nitpicking advertising, without actually being aware of the technical concepts involved the image display process.
... you pass judgement with authority, but nowhere in your post do you indicate that you've actually looked at a new 20" iMac. So I'm gonna call you out and say that you're full of bullshit.
Interesting
If there is no visual difference between a good 18-bpp display and a 24- or 36-bpp display, then why are they dirt cheap and considered inferior by everyone who has ever owned or used one for image processing work?
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.
Whether you are buying Benq, LG, Dell, Viewsonic, it doesn't matter. Most of them are 6 bit. ... But don't for a minute think all those free Dell monitors bundled with low end PCs are anything better. Hell, even the ones you can pay to upgrade to aren't often anything better than 6-bit.
For those interested in looking up the monitors, here is a handy guide that gives you the inside scoop on most of the Dell flat panels. Also why the the 200x, 240x, and 300x series monitors get the loving they do and were worth the extra dollars.
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
I believe this has already been tested in court (I think against Palm?), and that the 'dithering defense' was duly defeated. So the perceptual definition may be irrelevant to the cast at hand.
For one, there are laptop screens that use other panel types. For example LG Display makes the LP201WE1 which is a full 8-bit laptop LCD panel.
Also it is easy to get non-TN panels for desktop displays, you just have to be willing to pay more. For example the LG L1910S is a 19" S-IPS monitor. However, it's going to run you like $350, not the $150 you may be accustomed to for monitors that size. Same deal with larger panels. Yep, you can get 24" TN panels, and you can get them for an extremely good deal. Just $350 will get you a cheap KDS 24" TN panel. However, you can get a nicer panel if you like. $600 gets you a BenQ FP241VW which has an A-MVA panel. Need even better? Ok the NEC 2490WUXi has an amazing LG H-IPS panel in it, and tons of professional features (like hardware calibration with 12-bit per channel look up tables), however it'll run you about $1100.
So it isn't that you can't get good displays, it is that most people don't chose to. For them, they'll take the cheap TN panels.
The reason Apple is getting in trouble is twofunavaliable
1) They DO charge a hefty premium for their devices.
2) All the dick waving they do about things looking better. They talk about the "rich vivid color" and in the case of the Macbook talked about how much better of a display it was. Ok, fair enough, but if you are going to tell people you are giving them a quality display, it'd better actually back that up.
So if Dell wants to sell crap screens, it works out ok because they don't ever seem to indicate anything about them. Even their better screens are only marketed as "extra bright". However if they started talking about how much better color they gave, well then they'd better actually do that, or there'd be trouble.
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.
Unfortunately, that isn't a good indicator anymore. This is in part because companies are deceptive, but mostly because retailers don't know what they are talking about. At any rate, just do a little searching around and you'll find 6-bit TN panels that are listed on a site as "16.7 million colours". The reason is that the site isn't even checking, they just put that for ALL monitors.
It also goes the other way too. I am thinking about getting an NEC 2690WUXi which is a pro monitor. It is, of course, an 8-bit panel. NEC verifies this, you can check the specs on the LG panel it uses too. Ok, one would expect this for the price. However, it seems not all the resellers know this. One lists it as "more than 16 million" and another as 16.2 million. Again, it isn't that they think it is a 6-bit panel, it is that they just list that for all monitors.
So really the only way to be sure is to find out what panel a monitor uses, then look up that panel. Thus far, I've never seen a panel manufacturer lie about it. For 6-bit panels, they even say 262k colours.
The only other guideline you ca use is price. If there's a big price jump, chances are you jumped panel quality. For example you find 24" monitors in the $350-400 range, and then they suddenly jump to $550+. Sure enough, you go from TN to VA when you do that, and thus also from 6 to 8 bit. This isn't foolproof, but generally if there is a big jump and the monitors are "expensive" all of a sudden for a given size, you are getting an 8-bit panel.
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.
There's no army of Apple fan boys coming to their defense in this particular case. Come on, you can start posting defensive comments now, it's past noon.
I'm curious - and completely ignorant of how to find this information. What type of screen does the iPhone use? The WikiPedia entry doesn't give that much detail, or I don't know what I'm looking for. Thanks!
- Sometimes you're the pidgeon, sometimes you're the statue.
Typically, 24" screens and greater are not TN. This article claims that the first 24" TN panel came out in mid 2007.
I can't imagine that there are many larger LCD TVs with TN panels, even among the cheap ones; the viewing angles would be unacceptable.
I use one of these exact machines on the weekend and in the last few weeks I've been having serious eye strain. When I come home during the week and use generic 17" LCDs or my 19" CRT the need to rest my eyes constantly goes away by about Wednesday, but it comes back every weekend when I use that 20" iMac. Seems like a pretty direct correlation. It could be something else like the lighting in the room there, but I'm wondering if anybody else who has used one of these had noticed unusual eye troubles after prolonged usage.
(Shameless plug) Rather than creating the image yourself, you can also try The Lagom LCD test pages (and try lots of other monitor tests as well).
Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
because he is colorblind. That is why the original Macintosh and Lisa were in black and white with shades of gray. It wasn't that it was cheaper, it was that Steve Jobs is colorblind. 6-bit or 8-bit color, it all looks the same to Steve Jobs.
On the other hand, Windows and PCs are the way they are because Bill Gates has asperger syndrome.
Linux is the way it is because Linus Torvalds worked his way through college as a nude model for art students to paint or draw pictures of the human body. That is why Linux is open, totally naked.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
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!!