[idsn6]

Originally Posted by Raqia

Do you know what "break" is? I'd like to know for the sake of terminating VBA programs in Excel.

Don't know, never had to use that key and unsure what it does. Try either Fn + Esc or Fn + Shift + F12.

[Mintmaster]

Originally Posted by pcchen

The widely accepted human eye acuity for a perfect 20-20 vision is ~0.3 arc minute (the actual number is like 0.59 arc minute per line pair, that's two pixels, so it's ~0.3 arc minute per pixel). Now, at 50cm (should be close to your "one full arm length"), that means the pixel size should be ~0.0436 mm. That's ~582 DPI.

The 20/20 line on a Snellen chart has letters that are 5 arc minutes tall, and line thickness 1/5th the height. So it's really 1 arc minute per pixel, which corresponds to needing to be closer than 40cm to distinguish minimally-sized text on the new Macbook.

However, 20/20 is probably not the right standard to be using, because that's used for measuring acuity at far distances to judge the ability of the lens to focus that far. Without glasses I have horrid indoor (i.e. full pupil) acuity at 20 ft, but there's nothing wrong with my retina, so I can do a bit better than 2 arc minute per line pair at close distances. The 0.59 figure is, AFAICS, about the very limits of visual acuity, and being able to barely tell the difference between one line and two. It wouldn't ever be worth having that ability in a display, IMO.

Long story short, I think the new display is about as much as we'll ever really desire for reasonable viewing distances. Props to Apple for using its muscle and loyal+rich clientele to make it happen.

Now it's time for display technology to address contrast, as that has a far greater impact on picture quality. I'd rather have 3000:1 contrast on a 1680x1050 notebook display than a Retina display (its ~900:1 is about as good as it gets for notebooks, but that's well short of TV standards). Unfortunately, the vast majority of sub-$1k notebooks have only 200:1 contrast. It's a joke compared to even budget TN desktop monitors, and I'd easily $100 for that $10 fix. I hope they can figure out how to get PVA's response times up, as I really want decent blacks on my computer; otherwise, I'll have to wait for AMOLED to get big and cheap...

Originally Posted by milk

What is the source? Does everybody who researches in the field agrees with it? You could be right, but the last time I checked, and I did read a couple pieces of literature on that topic some time ago, there were many diverging opinions. But things could have changed.

There's no diverging opinion on the definition of 20/20. There are diverging opinions on how much better than that human vision is for some people, but 20/20 is a standard for a reason.

[pcchen]

Originally Posted by Mintmaster

Now it's time for display technology to address contrast, as that has a far greater impact on picture quality. I'd rather have 3000:1 contrast on a 1680x1050 notebook display than a Retina display (its ~900:1 is about as good as it gets for notebooks, but that's well short of TV standards). Unfortunately, the vast majority of sub-$1k notebooks have only 200:1 contrast. It's a joke compared to even budget TN desktop monitors, and I'd easily $100 for that $10 fix. I hope they can figure out how to get PVA's response times up, as I really want decent blacks on my computer; otherwise, I'll have to wait for AMOLED to get big and cheap...

I agree. Other than contrast, I also think it's important to have accurate color presentation. Unfortunately, Apple's recent LCD are not very strong in this department.

[UniversalTruth]

Originally Posted by Mintmaster

Unfortunately, the vast majority of sub-$1k notebooks have only 200:1 contrast. It's a joke compared to even budget TN desktop monitors, and I'd easily $100 for that $10 fix.

What do you mean?

My laptop Acer display quality is much better than the vast majority of desktop displays. Even I will say that it would be very hard for you to find a budget monitor with better image quality.

Anyways, I think laptop displays in general come as the better ones.

[Entropy]

Originally Posted by pcchen

I agree. Other than contrast, I also think it's important to have accurate color presentation. Unfortunately, Apple's recent LCD are not very strong in this department.

The iPad3 however, has a superb screen in terms of colour accuracy and gamut.
Given how the new Retina MacBook Pro is specifically marketed towards photographers, I would give it the benefit of doubt. I will see for myself in a while, my wife is a graphic designer and has ordered one, and I'm sure I will be able to get some useful data from its calibration, apart from the purely subjective raves it has already received.

[Davros]

what someone should do is buy 4 of them, remove the screens, join them together and wire up a connector to each for dvi/dp/hdmi and connect them to an amd gfx card using eyefinity. Voila super hi-res pc screen.

[Arwin]

Originally Posted by Entropy

The iPad3 however, has a superb screen in terms of colour accuracy and gamut.
Given how the new Retina MacBook Pro is specifically marketed towards photographers, I would give it the benefit of doubt. I will see for myself in a while, my wife is a graphic designer and has ordered one, and I'm sure I will be able to get some useful data from its calibration, apart from the purely subjective raves it has already received.

Yeah, my iPad 3 and my father-in-law's recently (a few months ago) purchased MacBook Mini (or whatever it is called) are worlds apart.

[idsn6]

Originally Posted by Davros

what someone should do is buy 4 of them, remove the screens, join them together and wire up a connector to each for dvi/dp/hdmi and connect them to an amd gfx card using eyefinity. Voila super hi-res pc screen.

Or just do this.

[Davros]

I should of said hi-res/high dpi

you'd have a 4096x3072 (roughly 14" x 18") display

[Pressure]

Originally Posted by Davros

I should of said hi-res/high dpi

you'd have a 4096x3072 (roughly 14" x 18") display

Wouldn't it be retina 2880 x 1800 with 4 displays?

Or 5760 x 3600 pixels with no retina mode.

[Davros]

I got the specs from here
http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/

it says "2048-by-1536-pixel resolution at 264 pixels per inch (ppi)"

[Dr Evil]

Originally Posted by Davros

I got the specs from here
http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/

it says "2048-by-1536-pixel resolution at 264 pixels per inch (ppi)"

Thread is about the new Macbook Pro 15" with a 2880x1800 display. your quoted specs are from the new iPad.

[Davros]

oops

[Mintmaster]

Originally Posted by UniversalTruth

My laptop Acer display quality is much better than the vast majority of desktop displays.

I have an Acer 3820TG, bought because it was thinner, lighter, and faster (GPU and CPU) than the M11x, while also having a bigger display and nicer chassis. However, it has awful contrast, and I don't know of any Acer notebook with >250:1 contrast.

Look at any dark image with low to medium room lighting on your Acer. It can't get close to reproducing black. It's this awful bluish-grey. Macbooks and Vaios are pretty consistently in the 500:1 to 1000:1 range, which gives a much better black, and you even get good contrast with certain eeePCs. Most other displays, unfortunately, are in the 200:1 range. You're dead wrong about notebook image quality:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5672/a...kepler-verge/5
notebookcheck.net is an even better site for notebook reviews, and fortunately they also check contrast. Most Acers are ~150:1, none over 250:1 aside from tablets.

Originally Posted by pcchen

I agree. Other than contrast, I also think it's important to have accurate color presentation. Unfortunately, Apple's recent LCD are not very strong in this department.

I'm not too picky about color, because even 50% of AdobeRGB is enough to produce more saturated colors than 99% of surfaces around the house (and colors that you can't even print). Black, however, is all over the place, including the notebook itself, and we know what it's supposed to look like even without side-by-side comparisons.

[Mintmaster]

Originally Posted by Davros

I should of said hi-res/high dpi

You 'should of' said 'should have'

[UniversalTruth]

Originally Posted by Mintmaster

Look at any dark image with low to medium room lighting on your Acer. It can't get close to reproducing black. It's this awful bluish-grey.

If there was a problem with black represantation, I would notice it but I have no complaints about bright black. As I said I am very pleased and the quality is there. And it is not only about contrast, black colour, etc, sometimes it is about graininess and smoothness of the picture too.

[Mintmaster]

Graininess is not something that's been a problem with for the majority of LCDs, especially those with decent resolution. Everyone has different preferences, but poor contrast is easily the most identifiable display deficiency after poor brightness and sharpness (neither being a problem nowadays).

What's the model of your Acer?

[UniversalTruth]

Originally Posted by Mintmaster

What's the model of your Acer?

Click

Well, I realise that your complaints might have something to do with this:

Display

The Aspire 3820TG's 13.3" HD LED backlight display has a resolution of 1366x768 pixels and has a 16:9 aspect ratio. Movies are rendered with a slighter, or even completely without, a black bar. The point density is 118 dpi and thus represents a good compromise of presentation size and available desktop surface. Acer calls the AU Optronics display with a reflective surface "CineCrystal" and promises an excellent presentation of multimedia content.

Click 1

So, "CrystalBrite" vs "CineCrystal".

Acer CrystalBrite LCDs employ the same advanced technology that gives LCD TVs their glossy, deeply detailed display — presenting rich, vivid colour saturation, sharp images and outstanding colour contrast. Use Acer CrystalBrite to get the best visual experience from your notebook. The choice has never been clearer!

Acer CrystalBrite LCDs achieve contrast ratios far superior to normal LCDs. In a room with ambient lighting, the contrast ratio of an Acer CrystalBrite LCD is 36 percent better than a normal LCD (445:1 versus 327:1).

Click 2

[homerdog]

Originally Posted by pcchen

I agree. Other than contrast, I also think it's important to have accurate color presentation. Unfortunately, Apple's recent LCD are not very strong in this department.

Is the LCD on the new MBP notably bad in this department? I thought it was basically in line with the competition.

I want one really bad

Like most people I don't care much about color accuracy as long as it's not terrible. By all accounts the new LCD looks absolutely terrific.

[Mintmaster]

homerdog, no, it's not bad at all. Macbooks have always had good contrast relative to the competition. I'm just saying that I'd rather have a display with top notch blacks (i.e. 3000:1) at decent resolution than one with decent blacks and exceptional resolution; unfortunately, the former isn't an option. I'll probably have to wait for AMOLED for that.

We were just talking about dpi and limits of what our eyes can see. I'm saying that there's no need for more resolution now unless it's free. Technology needs to focus on blacks now. They actually got it with cPVA monitors, but unfortunately those have bad response time (some pixel transitions take 70ms!).

I hope they can figure that out, or at least make OLED affordable. There's something about inky blacks on a display that just puts a grin on my face...

Originally Posted by UniversalTruth

Click

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Short-R...ok.8225.0.html

202:1

You just have very low standards for black levels. Your display is almost as bad as mine at blacks. If you had a perfect display with a gamma of 2.2 and equal brightness, a 200:1 display would only be able to replicate its shades from 23 to 255; shades from 0 to 22 would be too dark. To compensate, poor contrast monitors lighten all the darker shades into the range that it can reproduce.

A decent desktop monitor (even TN) will have 1/5th the black level of your notebook at equal brightness. A top plasma TV will have 1/50th the black level, which is roughly the point that we're unable to see the difference between true black.

[Davros]

When I first moved from a crt to a lcd the black level drove me insane, I spent the first few days downloading calibration programs to try and fix it. You do get used to it though as long as you dont continue to use a crt

[UniversalTruth]

Originally Posted by Mintmaster

You just have very low standards for black levels. Your display is almost as bad as mine at blacks.

Yeah, of course, I cannot say that it is ideal. I'm just saying that I don't see anything like the below one.

Originally Posted by Mintmaster

It can't get close to reproducing black. It's this awful bluish-grey.

This is simply ridiculous. "Bluish-grey" black.
And please, take a look at such a display with your own eyes and then trust those reviews.

You can't be fully aware what you buy and after that start complaining with your purchase.
If you have so high standards, then why did you buy it?

[Arwin]

Originally Posted by Davros

When I first moved from a crt to a lcd the black level drove me insane, I spend the first few days downloading calibration programs to try and fix it. You do get used to it though as long as you dont continue to use a crt

This was the most striking thing for me with the AMOLED's - during the day, I simply cannot see where the black of the Vita ends, and the black of the screen starts. It's fantastic. I never had a crt close to that.

Of course, if you turn off all lights, then strange greenish algea suddenly come out of hiding, thinking they're alone and safe now.

[Pressure]

If you haven't gotten a chance to read the review by AnandTech you really should.

Very informative!

He drops a few tidbits on how Apple drives the entire market forward, kicking and screaming.

Originally Posted by AnandTech

At each IDF I kept hearing about how Apple was the biggest motivator behind Intel’s move into the GPU space, but I never really understood the connection until now. The driving factor wasn’t just the demands of current applications, but rather a dramatic increase in display resolution across the lineup. It’s why Apple has been at the forefront of GPU adoption in its iDevices, and it’s why Apple has been pushing Intel so very hard on the integrated graphics revolution. If there’s any one OEM we can thank for having a significant impact on Intel’s roadmap, it’s Apple. And it’s just getting started.

[homerdog]

Originally Posted by Mintmaster

A decent desktop monitor (even TN) will have 1/5th the black level of your notebook at equal brightness. A top plasma TV will have 1/50th the black level, which is roughly the point that we're unable to see the difference between true black.

Yeah. My friend has a Samsung D8000 64 inch plasma. It looks perfect with black levels, as in I can't tell if the screen is on or not if you cover up the power LED

I've seen LED backlit LCDs produce the same effect, but
A) The ones with local dimming are ridiculously expensive.
B) Even the ones with local dimming don't look as good as a nice plasma. IMO of course.

Plus the nicest LCDs can't do a starry night sky very well. You might say that's a pathological case, but many of my favorite movies happen to take place beyond the boundaries of Earth's atmosphere

In general, I don't really know the reason why plasma TVs look better to me. Even the shitty ones.