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)"
http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/
it says "2048-by-1536-pixel resolution at 264 pixels per inch (ppi)"
New "Retina Display" Macbook Pro computer
- Thread starter Grall
- Start date
DuckThor Evil
Legend
Thread is about the new Macbook Pro 15" with a 2880x1800 display. your quoted specs are from the new iPad.
Mintmaster
Veteran
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/acer-aspire-timelineu-m3-life-on-the-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.
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
Veteran
You 'should of' said 'should have'
UniversalTruth
Veteran
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
Veteran
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?
What's the model of your Acer?
Last edited by a moderator:
UniversalTruth
Veteran
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mintmaster
Veteran
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...
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.
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...
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Short-Review-Acer-Aspire-7720G-Notebook.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.
UniversalTruth
Veteran
Yeah, of course, I cannot say that it is ideal. I'm just saying that I don't see anything like the below one.
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?
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.
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.
Very informative!
He drops a few tidbits on how Apple drives the entire market forward, kicking and screaming.
AnandTech said:
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 :smile:
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.
UniversalTruth
Veteran
This is due to its "naturally darker image" which is generally considered as a disadvantage not advantage.
Next to the other disadvantages of that technology including heat, price, size, etc..This discusion is intrusive unless you find a way to build tablets, notebooks, even consumer computer displays using it...
Blazkowicz
Legend
no problem, here's a laptop with a plasma display
Heh, I remember an even earlier Toshiba laptop that had twin 3.5" floppy drives (no harddrive at all!) and a "slimline" (for its time) chassis. It might have been a plasma display on that one as well, I can't quite recall. Black/yellow monochrome is a possibility, although could have been monochrome LCD as well maybe. Not sure there were large-ish (around 9-10 inches?) dot matrix LCDs in the second half of the 80s.
Gods, laptops were insanely expensive back then. NiCd cells for batteries as well. Yummy stuffs, and memory effect... Ungkh.
Gods, laptops were insanely expensive back then. NiCd cells for batteries as well. Yummy stuffs, and memory effect... Ungkh.
Blazkowicz
Legend
there were machines with like four lines, 40 column unlit LCD, with tremendous battery life from a pair of AA batteries. "BASIC calculators", then "organizers" or whatever you call them, "handheld computers" maybe.
the lack of networking helped. also if any additional storage is available it might be a memory card with 16KB S-RAM. never got to play with such a computer but they look fun. closest modern thing in term of battery life should be e-book readers, which do have a "retina" display of some sort but I'm wary of the slow e-ink.
would it be reasonable to make an unlit, high dpi monochrome LCD these days?
the lack of networking helped. also if any additional storage is available it might be a memory card with 16KB S-RAM. never got to play with such a computer but they look fun. closest modern thing in term of battery life should be e-book readers, which do have a "retina" display of some sort but I'm wary of the slow e-ink.
would it be reasonable to make an unlit, high dpi monochrome LCD these days?