Prev: Free YouTube Video Downloader Software
Next: Bootcamp and Parallels question
From: Sebastian Hanigk on 5 May 2008 06:02
Steven Fisher <sdfisher(a)spamcop.net> writes:

> No, there hasn't always been confusion. I'm not trying to defend the
> color thing at all, but this is revisionism at its best.
>
> It was 1,024 until hard drive companies started playing with the
> numbers. And it still is everywhere except in hard drives.

To be honest, it has always struck me as borderline stupidity to usurp
the SI prefixes which denominate powers of 10 as prefixes for powers of 2.
And in that regard the hard-drive manufacturers are correct to state
that a gigabyte is exactly 10^9 bytes and not something else.


Sebastian
From: Eric Lindsay on 5 May 2008 07:01
In article <do9xuxqfx0in$.1svw3xu1d6hsm.dlg(a)40tude.net>,
salgud <spamboy6547(a)comcast.net> wrote:

> I've been reading about the problems with screens on 20" iMacs. I was about
> to buy one in May when I heard about this. I've googled and read up on it,
> but still haven't heard about any statement by Apple. I certainly don't
> want to buy a computer, especially one that expensive, with a screen
> intensity variance of a full fstop top to bottom and that only represents
> 260,000 colors when it's advertised to show millions. I need to make a
> decision soon. Anyone know anything more about this situation?

The cheapest members of the iMac family (which are about half the price
of the most costly standard model) have typically used 6 bit per colour
LCD displays, while the more expensive iMacs tend to use 8 bit per
colour displays. As far as I can tell, pretty much every notebook
computer (of any brand) uses 6 bit displays, and the vast majority of
separate LCD displays are also 6 bit. These 6 bit displays all use
temporal dithering to generate more than their native 256k colours. It
is a perfectly normal and standard method of doing colour LCD displays
that can show millions of colours, and every company claims millions of
colours. This is much like TV makers specifying sizes on the diagonal (I
must try that next time I want to sell a window).

I strongly suspect the majority of people will not notice the
difference, unless comparing the two displays side by side. I can see
the difference between the 20 inch and 24 inch display iMacs. I can see
it when they are side by side, and when I am looking specifically for a
difference. I can see a difference between my 20 inch iMac G5 ALS
display (which is 8 bit), and my Powerbook G4 (which is not), but the
difference is not a problem. If I feed my Powerbook video output to my
24 inch Dell 2405 WFP display (also 8 bit), I can see the difference.
Basically the fancy 8 bit displays are a pretty expensive item, and most
people are looking at costs or response times. My Dell, for instance, is
a bit slow when viewing a TV show with fast action.

Unless you are into graphics, I don't think most people will notice it
as a problem, as it is the same as most computer displays. Best thing is
to check both displays side by side at an Apple shop. Odds are you will
not find it a problem, since the low end display is the same as pretty
much any other computer.

The display banding problem is a different thing, and looks very much
like an obvious display fault. Check the display before buying a 20 inch
model, in case that fault has not already been fixed.

I am not sure exactly how Apple (or anyone else) will manage to explain
the differences without placing themselves at a considerable advertising
disadvantage. You do need to note that 8 bit S-IPS panels do have their
own set of disadvantages (one of which is very high prices). They are
typically slower, and thus may show motion blur in games or acting as
TV. Dell sell their 2407WFP with two types of panels, S-IPS and S-PVA.
They do not state which you are getting, so non-disclosure of display
type is not limited to Apple.

It seems to me very much a case of you get what you pay for. If you want
a cheaper computer, you are stuck with TN displays. If you want a
cheaper computer and excellent display, consider connecting a good
quality second hand CRT display.

--
http://www.ericlindsay.com
From: salgud on 5 May 2008 10:50
On Mon, 05 May 2008 21:01:22 +1000, Eric Lindsay wrote:

> In article <do9xuxqfx0in$.1svw3xu1d6hsm.dlg(a)40tude.net>,
> salgud <spamboy6547(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> I've been reading about the problems with screens on 20" iMacs. I was about
>> to buy one in May when I heard about this. I've googled and read up on it,
>> but still haven't heard about any statement by Apple. I certainly don't
>> want to buy a computer, especially one that expensive, with a screen
>> intensity variance of a full fstop top to bottom and that only represents
>> 260,000 colors when it's advertised to show millions. I need to make a
>> decision soon. Anyone know anything more about this situation?
>
> The cheapest members of the iMac family (which are about half the price
> of the most costly standard model) have typically used 6 bit per colour
> LCD displays, while the more expensive iMacs tend to use 8 bit per
> colour displays. As far as I can tell, pretty much every notebook
> computer (of any brand) uses 6 bit displays, and the vast majority of
> separate LCD displays are also 6 bit. These 6 bit displays all use
> temporal dithering to generate more than their native 256k colours. It
> is a perfectly normal and standard method of doing colour LCD displays
> that can show millions of colours, and every company claims millions of
> colours. This is much like TV makers specifying sizes on the diagonal (I
> must try that next time I want to sell a window).
>
> I strongly suspect the majority of people will not notice the
> difference, unless comparing the two displays side by side. I can see
> the difference between the 20 inch and 24 inch display iMacs. I can see
> it when they are side by side, and when I am looking specifically for a
> difference. I can see a difference between my 20 inch iMac G5 ALS
> display (which is 8 bit), and my Powerbook G4 (which is not), but the
> difference is not a problem. If I feed my Powerbook video output to my
> 24 inch Dell 2405 WFP display (also 8 bit), I can see the difference.
> Basically the fancy 8 bit displays are a pretty expensive item, and most
> people are looking at costs or response times. My Dell, for instance, is
> a bit slow when viewing a TV show with fast action.
>
> Unless you are into graphics, I don't think most people will notice it
> as a problem, as it is the same as most computer displays. Best thing is
> to check both displays side by side at an Apple shop. Odds are you will
> not find it a problem, since the low end display is the same as pretty
> much any other computer.
>
> The display banding problem is a different thing, and looks very much
> like an obvious display fault. Check the display before buying a 20 inch
> model, in case that fault has not already been fixed.
>
> I am not sure exactly how Apple (or anyone else) will manage to explain
> the differences without placing themselves at a considerable advertising
> disadvantage. You do need to note that 8 bit S-IPS panels do have their
> own set of disadvantages (one of which is very high prices). They are
> typically slower, and thus may show motion blur in games or acting as
> TV. Dell sell their 2407WFP with two types of panels, S-IPS and S-PVA.
> They do not state which you are getting, so non-disclosure of display
> type is not limited to Apple.
>
> It seems to me very much a case of you get what you pay for. If you want
> a cheaper computer, you are stuck with TN displays. If you want a
> cheaper computer and excellent display, consider connecting a good
> quality second hand CRT display.

Thanks for your informative reply, Eric. It helps me with my decision. I
have already decided that the number of colors displayed is not that
important to me, though it may be to others. (It still concerns me that
Apple would run misleading advertising about this, but I guess Jobs is
pretty much like Gates, just not as rich yet. It's about the money for
those guys) At this point, I'm more concerned about the difference in
screen brightness between the top and bottom of the panel. I'm going to
check this out very carefully before I buy because I do need to use it to
do color and contrast adjustments to the pictures I take, at least until my
photogrphic skills improve. :)
From: Daniel Cohen on 5 May 2008 17:05
Eric Lindsay <NOwebmasterSPAM(a)ericlindsay.com> wrote:

> The display banding problem is a different thing, and looks very much
> like an obvious display fault. Check the display before buying a 20 inch
> model, in case that fault has not already been fixed.

It may be an unfixed fault. But, once I noticed the issue, every machine
I looked at (including a PowerBook G4) turned out to have the problem.
--
http://www.decohen.com
Send e-mail to the Reply-To address;
mail to the From address is never read
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Free YouTube Video Downloader Software
Next: Bootcamp and Parallels question