Apple Monitors (Why do they look so good?)

[krumme]

i personally don't like the glossy/glass coated monitors, as in certain lighting conditions it produces too many reflections. But yeah in the right environment it does look clearer.

The interesting part is everybody can see the benefits of glossy monitors, but only some see the reflections and get irritated by it. A few even have problems seeing the reflections. Its highly personal.
Now Apple brand might be so strong so that even if somebody tend to get irritated by reflections will be able to supress that irritation due to brand loyality. Pre-understanding and expectations tend to alter perceptions radically. Eg. you can only see what you are looking for - the rest gets lost in noise. A strong brand can shape what you expect and what you are looking for.

Edit: an example of the above is eg the difference between oled and ips screen on phones. Its far more pop and real colors on oled - as the advantage of glossy monitors. Even today without the backsides. Still there is tons of 6500k nonsense in Apple reviews - as if it matters if +/- 100 on whitebalance for the average consumer - contraire to the superior contrast and real world colors on a good decent calibrated oled. A strong brand not only influences what consumers expect, but also what direction reviewers look.

 

[hawtdawg]

They don't look any better than any other A+ panel 27inch IPS (unless you're talking about the newer ones). The gloss coating just tricks your brain when you see them in the stores.

 

[PC Master Race]

Rather than the glossyness (though it plays a part) I'd pin it more to the fact that their latest iMac and their Macbook Pro line comes with very high resolution displays. 5K for iMac and 2880x1800 for the 15" MBP.

Resolution has nothing to do with the displays quality. Aside from the resolution Apples monitors which are LG panels are hand picked A+ best of the best cream of the crop from LG. Contrast, Color reproduction and range etc are all top notch. OP Apple monitors are not some magical thing that only Apple can have they are just very premium high binned A+ panels from LG. Apple used to get panles from Samsung but they had a falling out with Samsung and no longer use any Samsung components.

 

[oobydoobydoo]

Resolution has nothing to do with the displays quality.

[redacted]

Aside from the resolution Apples monitors which are LG panels are hand picked A+ best of the best cream of the crop from LG. Contrast, Color reproduction and range etc are all top notch. OP Apple monitors are not some magical thing that only Apple can have they are just very premium high binned A+ panels from LG. Apple used to get panles from Samsung but they had a falling out with Samsung and no longer use any Samsung components.

Wrong. Many of the Panels used on Apple products are used on nothing else, the most recent example being the 5k iMac. Apple has pushed display vendors to make specific panels. And panels aren't "binned" like CPUs, they either meet spec or don't... Apple just requires much more stringent specs. You are showing yourself to have a unique amount of terrible posts on this forum. Everything I've seen you type has been factually incorrect. That is remarkable, and not in a good way.

Infraction issued for personal attack.
-- stahlhart

 

[PC Master Race]

More "wisdom" from the poster with the aptly nonsensical name. I suppose your understanding of what a "race" is can't be too much better than your concept of how Apple works.

[redacted]

Wrong. Many of the Panels used on Apple products are used on nothing else, the most recent example being the 5k iMac. Apple has pushed display vendors to make specific panels. And panels aren't "binned" like CPUs, they either meet spec or don't... Apple just requires much more stringent specs. You are showing yourself to have a unique amount of terrible posts on this forum. Everything I've seen you type has been factually incorrect. That is remarkable, and not in a good way.

[redacted]

Infraction issued for personal attack. Account under administrative review.
-- stahlhart

 

[Black Octagon]

Regardless of whether the word "binning" is appropriate for panels, the fact remains that (non-binding) panel rating norms very much exist: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_9241#ISO-9241-302.2C_303.2C_305.2C_307:2008_pixel_defects

 

[postmortemIA]

It is not just hardware. Apple made their OSX work perfectly with high dpi display. The trick is to upscale everything 2x so that you get 800p text size with 1600p precision. While Windows is still unable to upscale properly, so you lose bit of clarity. Also color profiles are there. It is easy to condor apple display with apple PC, limited number of combinations = better optimization.

 

[_UP_]

Apple didn't do any "magic" and does not have amazing scaling. They used a simple trick that makes things look good, but doesn't really give you the desired resolution.
They do what's called ubersampling in Witcher 2 - they map a few pixels to each 1 pixel that is supposed to be displayed. In other words, the rMBP (which I own the 13" version of) doesn't really show you the 2560x1600 pixels you have on the screen - but only 1680x1050. Now sure, it looks sharper than "regular" 1680x1050 that's definitely true, but this is not great scaling, and for those of us that wanted higher res for having more space (for development) that was a disappointment. I must admit that I missed that part since I heard so much of Apple's great scaling. Luckily, there are some apps that let you tap all of those pixels and set the resolution to whatever you want. I ran full res for a while, but that was too small, so I settled on 1200p.
So the screen looks great (a high quality IPS panel) but the scaling is just the same as Windows if not worst (especially as more programs are written properly and with Win 8).
Now, back OT, their monitors look good because they choose the best panels and they don't skimp when they design the scalar/other circuitry. There are other panels that look great. But remember that when you look at an Asus/Samsung/BenQ/... monitor, you are looking at 1 in a million different models for various price segments and you rarely see the expensive ones - the ones that cost as much as an Apple display, whereas Apple only makes that one display so every Apple display is that super-premium product.
And they have an extremely high attention to detail. That is why their laptops are amazing (HW wise. I'm still not convinced that OSX is great at all. My next laptop will definitely be bootcamped).

 

[Stuka87]

Apple didn't do any "magic" and does not have amazing scaling. They used a simple trick that makes things look good, but doesn't really give you the desired resolution.
They do what's called ubersampling in Witcher 2 - they map a few pixels to each 1 pixel that is supposed to be displayed. In other words, the rMBP (which I own the 13" version of) doesn't really show you the 2560x1600 pixels you have on the screen - but only 1680x1050. Now sure, it looks sharper than "regular" 1680x1050 that's definitely true, but this is not great scaling, and for those of us that wanted higher res for having more space (for development) that was a disappointment. I must admit that I missed that part since I heard so much of Apple's great scaling. Luckily, there are some apps that let you tap all of those pixels and set the resolution to whatever you want. I ran full res for a while, but that was too small, so I settled on 1200p.
So the screen looks great (a high quality IPS panel) but the scaling is just the same as Windows if not worst (especially as more programs are written properly and with Win 8).
Now, back OT, their monitors look good because they choose the best panels and they don't skimp when they design the scalar/other circuitry. There are other panels that look great. But remember that when you look at an Asus/Samsung/BenQ/... monitor, you are looking at 1 in a million different models for various price segments and you rarely see the expensive ones - the ones that cost as much as an Apple display, whereas Apple only makes that one display so every Apple display is that super-premium product.
And they have an extremely high attention to detail. That is why their laptops are amazing (HW wise. I'm still not convinced that OSX is great at all. My next laptop will definitely be bootcamped).

OSX only scales things that do not support the native resolution. Any app designed for retinal display compatibility displays at the full resolution. Windows scaling is certainly worse. Windows 8.1 is better, but still not as good as OSX's support.

 

[2is]

Windows scaling for high DPI displays is a joke compared to OSX. OSX multi-monitor support is a joke compared to Windows. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. Scaling is not a Windows strength. That will likely change with Windows 10 but we aren't there yet.

 

[kasakka]

Apple didn't do any "magic" and does not have amazing scaling. They used a simple trick that makes things look good, but doesn't really give you the desired resolution.
They do what's called ubersampling in Witcher 2 - they map a few pixels to each 1 pixel that is supposed to be displayed. In other words, the rMBP (which I own the 13" version of) doesn't really show you the 2560x1600 pixels you have on the screen - but only 1680x1050.

No, what they do is that the display has a resolution of say 4K. But instead of showing the user interface at that resolution, they double the size of all assets (icons and other non-text UI elements). So what is normally a 256x256 pixel icon is now 512x512. The end result is very sharp (due to higher res assets and more display pixels to display text etc) but relatively the same size as on the lower resolution regular models. This avoids too small UI that would otherwise occur on a laptop display or even the 27" 5K iMac.

By comparison Windows' DPI scaling scales dynamically according to a user-definable multiplier. More customizable but thanks to 3rd party developers largely ignoring DPI scaling and custom user interfaces being more prominent on Windows, results are varied.

Basically Apple went for a much easier implementation as they have control over both hardware and software as well as imposing quality requirements for apps sold in their app stores. Windows' method is more advanced but unfortunately poorly supported.

I haven't really seen much difference in multi-monitor support on OSX vs Windows.

 

[_UP_]

Exactly. So effectively, on an Apple display, you have a lower resolution, but much sharper. Now, that is great, except that some users actually want more real estate.
The Windows scaling method has been used since Vista. The problem, just as you say, is developers not conforming. Even Chrome had serious issues because of that. MS should force 3rd party developers to conform to this and implement according to their guidelines. That way you get the UI scaled but can still use more real estate. On my rMBP, when I use any resolution that is different than what they suggest (and higher) it looks worse than Windows does (I have a windows machine as can be seen in my SIG).

 

[Stuka87]

Exactly. So effectively, on an Apple display, you have a lower resolution, but much sharper. Now, that is great, except that some users actually want more real estate.
The Windows scaling method has been used since Vista. The problem, just as you say, is developers not conforming. Even Chrome had serious issues because of that. MS should force 3rd party developers to conform to this and implement according to their guidelines. That way you get the UI scaled but can still use more real estate. On my rMBP, when I use any resolution that is different than what they suggest (and higher) it looks worse than Windows does (I have a windows machine as can be seen in my SIG).

The resolution isnt lower. They do not change the resolution, the screen is still at its native res. They scale the objects on the screen yes, but that has zero effect on the screens resolution.

Now do you lose some screen realestate, yes. But very very few people want their 15" laptop to use 1:1 scaling with a 2880x1600 display. Things are not legible unless you it 10" from the screen.

Do you have a high res display on your windows machine? How are you comparing it?

 

[postmortemIA]

E On my rMBP, when I use any resolution that is different than what they suggest (and higher) it looks worse than Windows does (I have a windows machine as can be seen in my SIG).

My rMBP has 3 useful resolution. Recommended one its great, and other two are decent too... can't spot that they are not native. So resolution that is 1/2 of retina in x and y has perfect match; but they upscale other resolutions too, that's why they appear to be better than simple interpolation by GPU or LCD on Windows

 

[_UP_]

I understand how Apple scaling works. I'm saying that it doesn't allow me to do what I, personally, want to do - have access to "all" pixels and choose where to scale. I like the fact that in Windows I can select which things to scale, and if the developer followed the guidelines it will look and work great. On the other hand, to do so in Apple is only somewhat possible (although that might also be partly due to bad coding). Apple decided for me to scale everything and to not let me use the "real" resolution (1:1 scaling). Which means I had to find an app to let me do that. In-fact, Apple only gave me 3 options of scaling, which kind of annoyed me. Maybe I'm not a good Apple customer as I want to be able to do as I please with my machine, but that's me.
I have a 27" 2560x1440 monitor on my Windows machine. I do realise that the size difference is huge, that said I am sitting much farther away from it than I do my laptop. So some of that difference is mitigated. Some of it is by me using lower effective resolution on my Mac. So I can compare. It's not a perfect comparison, but it isn't all bad.
I do love apple hardware. I think it's top notch, and unfortunately, no PC vendor is offering anything nearly as well constructed and well thought out hardware wise. It is also of expensive as it used to be (comparing premium machines, of course). If you want a capable CPU for example that's your only option. I'm just not a big fan of OSX. Not at all. Definitely wouldn't want it on my desktop and like I said before, my next laptop will have enough storage to boot camp. I like it for the Unix part of it more than anything else.

 

[Pneumothorax]

I understand how Apple scaling works. I'm saying that it doesn't allow me to do what I, personally, want to do - have access to "all" pixels and choose where to scale. I like the fact that in Windows I can select which things to scale, and if the developer followed the guidelines it will look and work great. On the other hand, to do so in Apple is only somewhat possible (although that might also be partly due to bad coding). Apple decided for me to scale everything and to not let me use the "real" resolution (1:1 scaling). Which means I had to find an app to let me do that. In-fact, Apple only gave me 3 options of scaling, which kind of annoyed me. Maybe I'm not a good Apple customer as I want to be able to do as I please with my machine, but that's me.
I have a 27" 2560x1440 monitor on my Windows machine. I do realise that the size difference is huge, that said I am sitting much farther away from it than I do my laptop. So some of that difference is mitigated. Some of it is by me using lower effective resolution on my Mac. So I can compare. It's not a perfect comparison, but it isn't all bad.
I do love apple hardware. I think it's top notch, and unfortunately, no PC vendor is offering anything nearly as well constructed and well thought out hardware wise. It is also of expensive as it used to be (comparing premium machines, of course). If you want a capable CPU for example that's your only option. I'm just not a big fan of OSX. Not at all. Definitely wouldn't want it on my desktop and like I said before, my next laptop will have enough storage to boot camp. I like it for the Unix part of it more than anything else.

Switchresx works on my rMBP 15 for 1:1, but I hardly use it as I'm not 16 anymore. Anyways, I find Apple's implementation the best as the UI/Text is rendered at a readable resolution, while the photo's/video's I edit are shown at 1:1...

 

[_UP_]

Fair enough. We all have different vision and preferences. I prefer having control over each element which is what MS was trying to do.
And I don't use 1:1 anymore. That was indeed too small. I'm using 1920:1200 which is more than Apple offers.
I just don't think that everything Apple does is perfect, which is what I find many people think.

 

[exar333]

[redacted]


Wrong. Many of the Panels used on Apple products are used on nothing else, the most recent example being the 5k iMac. Apple has pushed display vendors to make specific panels. And panels aren't "binned" like CPUs, they either meet spec or don't... Apple just requires much more stringent specs. You are showing yourself to have a unique amount of terrible posts on this forum. Everything I've seen you type has been factually incorrect. That is remarkable, and not in a good way.

Infraction issued for personal attack.
-- stahlhart

You are completely wrong on multiple accounts.

(1) Yes, display panels ARE binned. As others have pointed-out, it has been going on for years.

(2) Dell uses the SAME 5k panel in their monitor. It is NOT exclusive.

 

[oobydoobydoo]

You are completely wrong on multiple accounts.

(1) Yes, display panels ARE binned. As others have pointed-out, it has been going on for years.

(2) Dell uses the SAME 5k panel in their monitor. It is NOT exclusive.

1 - No they aren't. Please show me the different bins of the 5k panel.:hmm:

2 - That Panel was exclusive to the 5k imac for the first few months of its availability (oct - december). You didn't expect them to keep it exclusive forever, did you?

 

[Cerb]

For sure it makes sense in an office environment for displays catered towards general productivity. However, displays like the ROG Swift are marketed as gaming monitors and they still fail to make them glossy which puzzles me.

I'm a gamer. I paid for a glossy display with my own money once. Never again. Being TN didn't bother me too much, but I disliked the glossy coating from the first second of use to the last. AG shouldn't look like wet paper over the monitor, but glossy is not worth the slight added vibrance.

Off the top of my head, the following games were more difficult to play, or just harder on my eyes, during the day time, due entirely to the glossy coat of my prior monitor:
Metro 2033 Redux (some low-contrast areas)
Metro: LL non-Redux (some dark areas, and some low-contrast)
Fallout 3 and NV (modded w/ darker nights)
Oblivion (darker nights and interiors)
Skyrim (darker nights and interiors)
Shadowrun Returns
The Witcher
The Witcher 2

The diffuse reflections from sunlight through closed blinds is plenty to make it annoying, IME. That's with having changed the positions of my PC desk, and lamps in the room, just for the sake of the monitor, as well. Smudges and dust being so visible also drove me nuts .

So, let it not puzzle you. The preference is not merely productivity v. entertainment, and its cons are readily apparent when used for entertainment purposes, though not as intense (in a well-lit office, I would go crazy with a glossy display, while at home I just got annoyed by it). Hopefully we'll get good affordable LED displays one of these days, and not need either style of coating.

Windows scaling for high DPI displays is a joke compared to OSX. OSX multi-monitor support is a joke compared to Windows. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. Scaling is not a Windows strength. That will likely change with Windows 10 but we aren't there yet.

Windows programs that scale well will continue to, but 10 won't change anything substantially, from what I've seen. The problem is one of planning and implementation. Windows gave the option to treat GUIs like paper, with real-world dimensions, but allowed them to not be, with either pixel alignments, or [bad] assumptions about 96 pixels = 1", and in particular, the ability to mix and match within forms that did not use fluid layouts. Those applications that scale badly need a monitor of high enough res for 100% scaling increments, or they look awful, and there is no real hope for them (try XP scaling, if it's just one important program, but that only works well maybe 20% of the time). Even at 100% increments, scaling filters would do well for the viewers, like those used by old game emulators, compared to the simple stretching. Unless they implement such edge-defining filters, Windows 7's scaling ais probably as good as it's going to get. Sadly, Linux/X GUIs have been regressing, lately, too, with independent DPIs, not set by the display server, and X going with 96 DPI, where it used to use reported (why?! It used to be awesome!).

 

[chubbyfatazn]

"Grading" is probably a better word to use than "binning," but yes - panels are graded according to what and how many defects there are. They don't all just come off the production line perfect, nor are those that possess defects just tossed in the garbage. Nothing new there.

Obviously I don't have access to major manufacturers' guidelines, but here are some decent starting points

http://www.magictouch.com/Lcd_grade.html
http://qsrxk.pcvms.servertrust.com/category_s/62.htm

Saying "Macs are the best PCs that you can buy, and that's pretty much universally known by anybody who can afford them" is a complete fallacy and you know it. I'm not so stupid as to always place one company/their products on a pedestal, and neither should any other unbiased consumer/non-fanboy.

^^ typed from a mid-2009 MBP

 

[Rvenger]

Thread reopened

If I see any personal attacks, member callouts, moderator callouts, baiting, trolling, thread crapping or anything that violates the forum rules, you will be on vacation.

-Rvenger