[Bruck]

When viewing the same colors on my powerbook G4 and then pull up the same image or file or screenshot etc on a dell lapotp or on a thinkpad - the colors don't look as rich.

Which specification of our displays create this difference? (I'd like to know what i'm talking about when i tell people about it)

[mduell]

Are you comparing to matte or glossy Dell/ThinkPad displays?

Either way, you have different color calibration profiles on the different laptops, different default gamma settings, etc.

[Bruck]

Matte to Matte. (powerbook G4 AL)

I am pretty sure color profiles have absolutely nothing to do with it, as during one extensive test - i placed a dell laptop and an ibm thinkpad and my powerbook on the same table and opened all color profile settings. I think dragged each color tweaking slider/curve/thingy attempting to achieve similar colors. Not only could i not get rich colors out of the pc models on the exact same photo, but when i did - the grey/silver of the menu bars and whites of programs were horrible.

[mduell]

Could just be a difference in the screen coatings... the PCs have had glossy options for years for people who want rich, deep color.

[Bruck]

really. I am suprised by that answer - are the panels of the same exact manufacturer?

- Why can't mac laptops go higher on res like pc's ----- isn't there some trade off going on.....?

[Klipse]

well not exactly.. probably just an illusion..

[rjenkinson]

Originally Posted by Bruck 

I think dragged each color tweaking slider/curve/thingy attempting to achieve similar colors. Not only could i not get rich colors out of the pc models on the exact same photo, but when i did - the grey/silver of the menu bars and whites of programs were horrible.

sounds like the difference between mac and PC gamma settings is making the difference you're seeing.

-r.

[cherry su]

Originally Posted by Bruck 

- Why can't mac laptops go higher on res like pc's ----- isn't there some trade off going on.....?

You can buy a panel from eBay and drop it into your lappy if you want.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Bruck 

really. I am suprised by that answer - are the panels of the same exact manufacturer?

- Why can't mac laptops go higher on res like pc's ----- isn't there some trade off going on.....?

There are only about 4 companies that actually make LCD panels, and not too many more who package them up for laptops. But there are a lot of options for the OEM/ODM in terms of size, performance, screen coatings, and resolutions.

They can go higher res... Apple just hasn't chosen to do so yet. For a while they were hung up on 100 ppi being somehow "optimal" but they've since dropped that from their website and their displays range from 85 to 115 ppi.

[Bruck]

After reading all of this - Gamma settings seemed to be the answer, so i did a little experimenting and research.

I learned that part of what I was seeing WAS gamma differences. BUT

then I thought about it. Windows is higher than MAC. So why is the difference that I see in the opposite direction.

Example:

Mac 1.8. PC 2.2

When i switched my mac to 2.2 everything looked EVEN BETTER. This wouldn't explain how PC's look worse (duller) than my mac (which is 1.8 when i noticed the difference). Images edited on Macs at 1.8 would appear even better in a 2.8 gamma than on a mac. So why is it that i notice a reverse change?

[Bruck]

Originally Posted by cherry su 

You can buy a panel from eBay and drop it into your lappy if you want.

Do any windows machines use the display that apple does? My point is that maybe they don't because everyone expects the hi-res. I wonder if i bought a display panel that is hi-res and dropped it into my mac, I'd get higher res, but if i then took my mac display and put it in a pc - would it look better?

I can't wait to get a new mbp so i can test images while booted in parralels (should be 2.2. ) vs Mac (1.8)

[Veltliner]

The production of LCD panels, so I heard, cannot be completely controlled, and there are differences in quality in the same batch.

Then they take the best panels, and sell it for more, and the worst for less.

So the different panel qualities have - so I heard - not only to do with the manufacturer, but also which part of a batch a display maker buys: the top part, the middle, or the cheap and poor quality panels.

An apple display panel could be from the top 10%, and the cheap PC laptop panel from the bottom 25%.

I have no reference to the source of this information, but I came across it when I once wondered how I could get the best possible display.

Also: the software is also a factor in how good a picture a panel can produce.

PS: you can get an even better (much better) picture if you calibrate your monitor. The Pantone Huey (80$) is a very able little tool, the spider pro (200$ is the pro version, but lacks the adjustment to the room lighting function the huey offers). For anybody working on digital video or digital photos a calibration tool is an absolute must, and for everybody else an increase in joy with your computer.

[ghporter]

I'm still stuck on "richer". Are we talking about saturation, brightness, contrast, or a combination of them and more? ALL of those are adjustable, both in the video hardware (preferences/configuration settings) and usually in the display itself. Of course a default, "plain jane" PC's display settings can look like poo compared to a Mac's because MS has to make allowances for everything from the most expensive, newest and bestest super displays to some old paper-white monochrome display somebody dug up in a yard sale, so the defaults are "bland" while Apple can simply adjust basic settings to take advantage of a much smaller, known pool of specific hardware.

[salgiza]

You are comparing a Powerbook with an IBM and a Dell laptop. Or to put it in perspective, you are comparing a Laptop whose market is comprised of a lot of web designers, video editors, graphic artists,... and two Laptops whose main markets are users (business, people looking for cheap prices) who don't really know anything about colour management (and don't even care). This basically means that, if they had to cut costs, the screen is one of the first victims.

I work for an IBM business partner (which means that I've seen quite a few IBM laptops) and I can say without doubt that their screens suck. A lot. In fact, I have an IBM laptop at work and I've had to add an external monitor because it was impossible to do any kind of web related work with it. And I'm not even a designer (I'm a developer). But when you have problems distinguishing some shades of red from orange, and the lightest shades of gray become white, I have no idea wether I'm really implementing the correct design for a webpage.

Oh, and lacking a hardware calibrator, I used Adobe Gamma to create a colour profile for the IBM screen. Before that, colours were even worse.

Sooo... basically, one of the laptops you are using (IBM) has a 99.9% change of having a horrible TFT panel, so it's no suprise that you find your powerbook screen to be much better (I also have a Powerbook G4, and the difference is like night and day).

That's not to say that there aren't Windows Laptops with screens as good as (or better) than the MacBook Pro/Powerbook. But you usually will have to compare to a Sony Vaio or similar. Both IBM/Lenovo and Dell (in it's cheap and business lines) are more interested in being price competitive than in having more than good enough screens.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by salgiza 

You are comparing a Powerbook with an IBM and a Dell laptop. Or to put it in perspective, you are comparing a Laptop whose market is comprised of a lot of web designers, video editors, graphic artists,... and two Laptops whose main markets are users (business, people looking for cheap prices) who don't really know anything about colour management (and don't even care). This basically means that, if they had to cut costs, the screen is one of the first victims.

I work for an IBM business partner (which means that I've seen quite a few IBM laptops) and I can say without doubt that their screens suck. A lot. In fact, I have an IBM laptop at work and I've had to add an external monitor because it was impossible to do any kind of web related work with it. And I'm not even a designer (I'm a developer). But when you have problems distinguishing some shades of red from orange, and the lightest shades of gray become white, I have no idea wether I'm really implementing the correct design for a webpage.

Oh, and lacking a hardware calibrator, I used Adobe Gamma to create a colour profile for the IBM screen. Before that, colours were even worse.

Sooo... basically, one of the laptops you are using (IBM) has a 99.9% change of having a horrible TFT panel, so it's no suprise that you find your powerbook screen to be much better (I also have a Powerbook G4, and the difference is like night and day).

That's not to say that there aren't Windows Laptops with screens as good as (or better) than the MacBook Pro/Powerbook. But you usually will have to compare to a Sony Vaio or similar. Both IBM/Lenovo and Dell (in it's cheap and business lines) are more interested in being price competitive than in having more than good enough screens.

I think you're stating it backward. The MANUFACTURERS don't think the users care about how the display looks because they expect Lenovo/Dell/whatever laptop users to be office workers and field drones who crunch numbers or text all day. Unfortunately the users haven't revolted and made it clear that EVERYONE wants great looking pictures on their computers.

However, I stand by my previous post about Apple tweaking for a much smaller number of hardware configurations, and thus being able to better craft their displays look than PC makers can with Windows.

[Bruck]

see this is what I'm kind of saying. I realize that mac should have a better display. I'm just trying to technically understand WHY or WHAT MAKES it better.

I'm glad another person admits that ibm/dell screens suck. I just wish I knew exactly what they "sucked" at. For example: A measurable statistic that I can talk about with my friends when explaining that macs are better for graphics work, or explaining why even they notice the difference.

[ghporter]

There are a lot of variables. And frankly, I don't see Dell monitors as "sucking," they just don't start out as pretty as Apple monitors. After a little tweaking on my part, the two Dells I have right now (on PCs) look as pretty as the display on my MBP or the one on my wife's iBook.

[Wiskedjak]

"What makes apple's displays "look" richer than most pc displays?"

Fanboyism. Apple displays perform just as well as Dells, Samsungs, LGs, etc. Why? Because Apple gets it components from the same places as they do. Apple only makes the housing, which does, aesthetically, look better (richer) than anyone else's.

BTW, Apple's displays are also "pc" displays ... it's just that few owners of IBMs, Dells, custom computers, etc, can justify spending 3x as much money for something that doesn't perform any better but looks aesthetically nicer.

[Kermy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

"What makes apple's displays "look" richer than most pc displays?"

Fanboyism. Apple displays perform just as well as Dells, Samsungs, LGs, etc. Why? Because Apple gets it components from the same places as they do. Apple only makes the housing, which does, aesthetically, look better (richer) than anyone else's.

BTW, Apple's displays are also "pc" displays ... it's just that few owners of IBMs, Dells, custom computers, etc, can justify spending 3x as much money for something that doesn't perform any better but looks aesthetically nicer.

^--- Agreed.

You've gotta be under a great big delusion to think that somehow Apple has this superior LCD technology that no other manufacturer has. I like my 23" Cinema LCD tremendously but I also like my 22" Dell LCD at work also. Aside from the price difference, after some minor calibration I don't see any differences between the two; this with the same Macbook Pro plugged into both.

Also, if you have a 23" Apple Cinema, open up System Profiler, you'll see LG Electronics.

If you go here: http://www.anandtech.com/displays/showdoc.aspx?i=2400
You'll see the 20" Apple Display compared to the 20" Dell Display. Both are made by LG Phillips.

[Bruck]

I know this, but it doesn't ring true when my powerbook sits next to my friend's dell laptop. I'm not making it up - I am just calling it like I see it. Its equivalent to some of the gama (Adobe RGB 1998) etc tagged, untagged comparisons i've seen. But I knew that and spent a lot of time trying to adjust the calibration of her machine - no luck.


Oh and I realize that external displays would have very little difference, but from what I've seen - i tend to think built in laptop displays on powerbooks look better then alot of pc laptops. Maybe the lower model pc's used cheaper quality displays I don't know. But I know they'res some difference. I just can't figure out what it is.

[ghporter]

Laptop or desktop, Apple tweaks their displays to match the known hardware; PC makers don't bother. This is odd to me, since a PC laptop maker KNOWS that the laptop's display ain't changing, so they could come up with a tweak for the video to make the display sing. But they don't.

[Veltliner]

It's possibly a combination out of picking the best LCDs in the first place, matching hardware with the display, and having great processing software. I have always heard apple works very hard on grood graphics software-wise, too