Q: MacBook Pro Retina display burn-in?

Canuck1970 wrote:

 

shayster98 wrote:

 

Exactly; and calibration might actually look worse to people used to uncalibrated screens. Calibrated monitors are generally less bright and the white balance matches the color (as close as possible) to white paper, so that a photographer can expect that the photographs on the screen look similar after they're printed.

 

My worry is that the Samsung displays are less accurate and will not reach the calibration target as close as the LG panels would.

OK, as Marty and I have suggested, if color accuracy is that important to you, please calibrate your displays with a proper calibration device. If the calibration software generates an error, take a screenshot of that error and bring your machine into an Apple store for servicing. If the calibration is successful, and you still don't like the way your display looks, give yourself a chance to get used to it, because you're seeing the proper colors on your display, possibly for the first time. Where the human eye is concerned, color is very subjective, not absolute.

I realize this; my point is the Samsungs might not be as accurate as the LGs but not quite abysmal enough to trigger the error. Blues on my machine are purple, and no calibration software can change those to rich deep blues that they should be (even if it removes the purple tint).

And, about the "Exactly; and calibration might actually look worse to people used to uncalibrated screens," I wasn't suggesting that calibrated screens look worse to me. I was pointing out that the monitors in the Apple Stores aren't calibrated, because the average consumer would actually percieve them as dimmer and less vivid.

shayster98 wrote:

 

I realize this; my point is the Samsungs might not be as accurate as the LGs but not quite abysmal enough to trigger the error. Blues on my machine are purple, and no calibration software can change those to rich deep blues that they should be (even if it removes the purple tint).

Yes it would absolutley trigger the error. It is the entire point of the calibration system.

There is no such thing as "Close enough" in calibration. The entire purpose of the system is to make colors look identical on mutiple displays and in print. Their entire business would be pointless otherwise. Can you imagine Chevrolet having a picture of a sleek new Corvette that is supposed to be BLUE but in the print of a magazine it looks purple? This is why calibration exists. So what you see on the screen matches on other screens and in print.

Each Pixel on your screen is comprised of 3 LEDs.  Red, Green, Blue.  Those 3 colors are mixed in varying intensity to comprise the color the computer wants the screen to display. There is no "Purple" it is a mixture of Red and Blue LED's with the Green LED "OFF"  In order for your screen to display Purple it has to be able to display blue. In fact in order for it to be displaying Purple tint, it is displaying too MUCH Blue and too much Red as well... because Red+Blue= Purple.

I am going to explain in 8-Bit Color because it is easier.... Each of those RGB LEDS vary in brightness on a scale 0-255.  0 being OFF and 255 being full power. When calibrating and checking for "Blue" the calibrator is reading the screen at varying levels of intensity for blue.

So if the calibrator wants to see blue at 200, it says "Mr Computer give me blue 200". Then it takes a reading. If the reading says the screen is showing "Blue 197" then the calibrator says "No thats 197, please boost the voltage on the BLUE channel by 3 points". The computer compensates/adjusts by 3 points. The calibrator takes another reading, and sends adjustment requests until the computer has properly displayed "True Blue" at level 200.

It does not say "close enough" it keeps adjusting until it is CORRECT, or the computer responds with "I cannot compensate any further". When it cannot adjust far enough you get an error.

To beat the horse even further. Take a look here: http://www.rapidtables.com/web/color/RGB_Color.htm

You can adjust the RGB values yourself. Set the R to "0" and G to "0" and the B to 255.  Now adjust the B down to 250. Your eyeball cannot even see the difference betwen Blue 250 and Blue 255. The change is so minute.  But the Calibrator CAN, thats its job. So it would see that "Purple" tint you have right away and say "Mr Computer, we have too much RED and BLUE here, we need to dial them down."

Yes, I understand this; but then how does one explain that, with an identical color profile loaded, the LGs are much more vivid than the Samsungs?

Right now, if I open Photoshop and fill a blank image with 0,0,255 on both my iMac and my MBPr, the iMac looks bluer, while the laptop looks a little more purplish. Would hardware calibration on both of these machines make them both identical?

Are you suggesting that a calibrated bad quality display could display as accurate colors as a calibrated good quality display? Then what would be the point of buying a higher caliber monitor (excluding wide gamut screens)? If I buy another screen, why should it be a Thunderbolt Display instead of a crappy TN panel (ignoring black level) if both can be calibrated to show identical colors?

Which brings me to my other point, which is the black level on Samsungs compared to LGs. I think we all know the story there.

I'm not trying to start a debate; I'm just really want to know the answers to the above questions. Thanks.

shayster98 wrote:

 

I'm not trying to start a debate; I'm just really want to know the answers to the above questions. Thanks.

I am also very interested in the answers to these questions.

shayster98 wrote:

 

Yes, I understand this; but then how does one explain that, with an identical color profile loaded, the LGs are much more vivid than the Samsungs?

 

Right now, if I open Photoshop and fill a blank image with 0,0,255 on both my iMac and my MBPr, the iMac looks bluer, while the laptop looks a little more purplish. Would hardware calibration on both of these machines make them both identical?

 

Are you suggesting that a calibrated bad quality display could display as accurate colors as a calibrated good quality display? Then what would be the point of buying a higher caliber monitor (excluding wide gamut screens)? If I buy another screen, why should it be a Thunderbolt Display instead of a crappy TN panel (ignoring black level) if both can be calibrated to show identical colors?

 

Which brings me to my other point, which is the black level on Samsungs compared to LGs. I think we all know the story there.

 

I'm not trying to start a debate; I'm just really want to know the answers to the above questions. Thanks.

When you calibrate a screen, the hardware calibrator does an excellent job of making the colors look correct - even cheap TN panels.  I have two monitors I use at work side by side - both low end Dells.  One is a TN panel, and one is an IPS panel.  Because I calibrated them, they look pretty close to identical to me. But the TN panel starts changing colors as you look at it from the side or up and down.  So one advantage of an IPS panel is that it doesn't have that change from various angles.

However, a calibrator can only fix something that is fixible.  My first Retina MacBook pro (LG Panel), actually had a pink color cast to it even after calibrating.  That one I could not figure out.  At the time I thought it was the backlight that had a color cast to it since the Apple Logo on the back side was pink. But my newer Samsung also has a pink Apple logo and no pink color cast.  So I'm not sure what was causing that.

But to your question - the same 0,0,255 color on your iMac and rMBP should look identical if both have been calibrated.   For all of you questioning the value of a hardware calibrator, it is definitely worth it.  I will never have a screen that I don't calibrate anymore.  The change is simply night and day dfferent and you can finally trust what you are seeing on your screen is correct.  It will make the cheapest panel look good and perfect a really good panel.

shayster98 wrote:

 

Yes, I understand this; but then how does one explain that, with an identical color profile loaded, the LGs are much more vivid than the Samsungs?

 

You obviously do not understand or are skimming through the above answers. If you had read them you would see where I have said mutiple times that you cannot share a Color Profile. Each and every display should have its own. Even same displays from the same manufacturer need to be calibrated.... and even MORE so for displays from different manufacturers.

The computers come loaded with a "Default" Color Profile.  It is a "Middle of the Road"  profile that works for many displays but is not actually accurate. It makes the Samsungs look "Warm" (yellow) and the LGs look "Cool" (blue).  I had an LG at first and I calibrated it as well because the default display was too cool. Cooler profiles will make blacks look darker and thus more vivid.... but that doesn't make it right.

Each display really should have its own Color Profile and not share a "Default" .... but people would never comprehend that. So they load one that will "Generally" work. 95% of people never notice the difference because they do not care.

shayster98 wrote:

 

Right now, if I open Photoshop and fill a blank image with 0,0,255 on both my iMac and my MBPr, the iMac looks bluer, while the laptop looks a little more purplish. Would hardware calibration on both of these machines make them both identical?

Thats the idea yes. I calibrate my 3 displays once a week so that they always look the same. I bought 2 ASUS 22" IPS displays. One came out of the box with a Green tint to it, and the other came out Blue.  I calibrated them both to be neutral.

For What Its Worth that blue you are seeing that is so "vivid" is not what blue is supposed to look like. The glossy displays give unnatural depth to color. This is why on the old MBP that offer "Anti-Glare" are popular with photographers. The Anti-Glare is a $50 upgrade. Most people think "Why would you do that, those displays look less vivid?"... but that is what color actually looks like.

shayster98 wrote:

 

Are you suggesting that a calibrated bad quality display could display as accurate colors as a calibrated good quality display? Then what would be the point of buying a higher caliber monitor (excluding wide gamut screens)? If I buy another screen, why should it be a Thunderbolt Display instead of a crappy TN panel (ignoring black level) if both can be calibrated to show identical colors?

 

Bad Quality Displays cannot be calibrated, you will get errors on ability to display true color. A Thunderbolt display is expensive because of The really high Resolution level as well as other things it offers... but also "Apple Tax"....  That is why I went with an ASUS display because it was basically the same but lowe resolution.  A screen you pick up from Best Buy for $150 is not gonna calibrate, its gonna give errors.

shayster98 wrote:

 

 

Which brings me to my other point, which is the black level on Samsungs compared to LGs. I think we all know the story there.

 

There is no such thing as 100% black.  Everything you see is a reflection of light. This is why you buy Suits in a Coat and Pants "Pair" because if you bought a "Black" coat from Calvin Klien and a "Black" pants from Target... one black would look different than another even though they are both "Black".

MartyF81 wrote:

 

shayster98 wrote:

 

Yes, I understand this; but then how does one explain that, with an identical color profile loaded, the LGs are much more vivid than the Samsungs?

 

 

You obviously do not understand or are skimming through the above answers. If you had read them you would see where I have said mutiple times that you cannot share a Color Profile. Each and every display should have its own. Even same displays from the same manufacturer need to be calibrated.... and even MORE so for displays from different manufacturers.

 

The computers come loaded with a "Default" Color Profile.  It is a "Middle of the Road"  profile that works for many displays but is not actually accurate. It makes the Samsungs look "Warm" (yellow) and the LGs look "Cool" (blue).  I had an LG at first and I calibrated it as well because the default display was too cool. Cooler profiles will make blacks look darker and thus more vivid.... but that doesn't make it right.

 

Each display really should have its own Color Profile and not share a "Default" .... but people would never comprehend that. So they load one that will "Generally" work. 95% of people never notice the difference because they do not care.

Well.. no. I do understand that, and you keep trying to tell me I don't. Yes, it's pretty silly for even the same vendor's screens to share calibrations; there are variances in production. What I'm asking is, why IS that? If the RGB subpixels each have 255 levels of brightness why aren't they close to exact on different displays?

Also, I just can't wrap my head around the fact that after individual calibration, an LG and a Samsung panel will both look identical, when the LG has a better contrast ratio and a slightly larger color gamut.

MartyF81 wrote:

 

Bad Quality Displays cannot be calibrated, you will get errors on ability to display true color. A Thunderbolt display is expensive because of The really high Resolution level as well as other things it offers... but also "Apple Tax"....  That is why I went with an ASUS display because it was basically the same but lowe resolution.  A screen you pick up from Best Buy for $150 is not gonna calibrate, its gonna give errors.

 

There is no such thing as 100% black.  Everything you see is a reflection of light. This is why you buy Suits in a Coat and Pants "Pair" because if you bought a "Black" coat from Calvin Klien and a "Black" pants from Target... one black would look different than another even though they are both "Black".

Black isn't a reflection of light. Black is the ABSENCE of light. You can't compare it with clothing because that's physical, where, yes, black is a reflection of light. But on the light color wheel you can't make black by combining red light, green light, and blue light. You can't use the clothing example randomly just to ignore that different screens have different black levels, and that LGs have better shadow detail because of this.

Black levels are measured for a reason; darker blacks are always better; you can see more details in dark areas. If you have a terrible black level (let's assume horrible like a light black or dark grey), then you can't view details in the shadows of your photos; it'll just look uniform in those areas.

As we all know there is a backlight behind the panel that always stays on. Even when the screen is showing black. When showing black, it's how well the the screen can block that light. Am I correct in saying that the subpixels are like filters; they're subtractive? Each color is measured between 0-255 on the computer, but the actual way it physically works in the display is that 255 means the subpixels for blue "turn on" but actually are blue filters in front of the white backlight? That would mean black would be all the "filters" on; red, blue, and green, and that's how you get black because white cannot pass through all three colors?

This is just what I think happens but I guess none of us really know/care about how the physical panel interprets the signals of 0 (no color) to 255 (full brightness of that color).

I think we're getting a little off-topic here, unfortunately but the main thing I just want to see is a calibrated LG sitting next to a calibrated Samsung and seeing the colors identical, and the Samsung being as vivid as (note: not over-the-top vivid but just identical to) the LG.

millerrh512 wrote:

When you calibrate a screen, the hardware calibrator does an excellent job of making the colors look correct - even cheap TN panels.  I have two monitors I use at work side by side - both low end Dells.  One is a TN panel, and one is an IPS panel.  Because I calibrated them, they look pretty close to identical to me. But the TN panel starts changing colors as you look at it from the side or up and down.  So one advantage of an IPS panel is that it doesn't have that change from various angles.

 

But to your question - the same 0,0,255 color on your iMac and rMBP should look identical if both have been calibrated.   For all of you questioning the value of a hardware calibrator, it is definitely worth it.  I will never have a screen that I don't calibrate anymore.  The change is simply night and day dfferent and you can finally trust what you are seeing on your screen is correct.  It will make the cheapest panel look good and perfect a really good panel.

Alright! But for most displays then, color is not the issue. It's just the better viewing angle, higher resolution, or slimmer package you get when you pay more with consumer displays I guess. I thought you get better color as well but I guess not! (excluding really high end professional monitors)

Thanks for clarifying.

millerrh512 wrote:

 

However, a calibrator can only fix something that is fixible.  My first Retina MacBook pro (LG Panel), actually had a pink color cast to it even after calibrating.  That one I could not figure out.

That's what I've been trying to figure out. Not with an LG, but I'm still concerned about the issue of "is my screen fixable?". To everyone, sorry for all the posts about the color. I didn't mean to spam you guys!

shayster98 wrote:

 

Well.. no. I do understand that, and you keep trying to tell me I don't. Yes, it's pretty silly for even the same vendor's screens to share calibrations; there are variances in production. What I'm asking is, why IS that? If the RGB subpixels each have 255 levels of brightness why aren't they close to exact on different displays?

 

Because they are produced on a manufacturing line making thousands of these things a day. There are too many variables. Temprature change during production, changes in quality of materials, variances in the metals "Resistence" that is passing the voltage, the human who is spot checking....  Kind of like the Big Mac you get in the box never looks like the one in the picture. Mass Production causes variences.  The Retina Screen is a $650 part as it is, reducing variances in production would increase the price exponentially. If every Big Mac that comes off the grill looked like the picture they would cost $10 instead of $2. Same thing for screens.

shayster98 wrote:

 

Also, I just can't wrap my head around the fact that after individual calibration, an LG and a Samsung panel will both look identical, when the LG has a better contrast ratio and a slightly larger color gamut.

Calibration is to make the display show colors as close to what your eyes would see. It is not to make the display show 100% in every category... because your eyes do not even ever see that.  Do you see pure 255 blue in the "wild"? No of course not nothing is 100% blue they are usually lighter or a mixture with another color, etc.. ! Those really dark "blacks" that give you that "Yummy Extra Contrast" feeling. Those blacks do not exist in the wild because your eyes see a reflection of light... which is why I used the Black Pants analogy. That super dark black you are seeing on the "Better" display doesnt actually exist, it is artificially making the "Darks" look "Darker".

shayster98 wrote:

 

Black isn't a reflection of light. Black is the ABSENCE of light. You can't compare it with clothing because that's physical, where, yes, black is a reflection of light. But on the light color wheel you can't make black by combining red light, green light, and blue light. You can't use the clothing example randomly just to ignore that different screens have different black levels, and that LGs have better shadow detail because of this.

In "Color Theory" you are right... but theory and real world are 2 different things.  Your eyeballs do not see a color theory wheel they see light. So everything you see is a reflection of light. There is no such thing as "True Black" in the real world. Because if there was, you would be able to see it! Your eye's are receptors of light so they cannot see an "absence" of light. In other words everything you ever "See" is going to be brighter than 0 Black.  In "Theory" all humans can reproduce, in reality that is not the case. There is a big difference between how things are "Supposed" to work and how they actually work.

Those LG displays are claimed to be displaying things "better"... they are not displaying "Accurate" color, they are displaying them in a fashion that is more "Appealing" to you. That doesn't make them right, they are actually over saturated and very inaccurate compared to what they are supposed to be reproducing. Ever watch the show CSI Miami? See how green and orange and blue the opening scene is? Ya thats purposely over saturated with color because it "looks" really nice.... but if you actually go to Miami you will find burtn green grass, the ocean is not really that blue, and the people on the beach... probably need to cover up!

If a Samsung and LG display are set next to each other and both are properly calibrated they should look the same. The "Vividness" of the LG will be dialed down to where it is supposed to be.

Finally..... I am going to disengage from this conversation.  I have explained it enough. It seems some people have dug their heals in that their displays are defective and do not want to listen to anything other than someone agreeing with them on that point no matter how much proof or science is presented to them. I cannot keep coming back here to respond when the "argument" of the otherside is always "Well I disagree" but brings no support other than "its not what I see" when it has already been agreed on that your eyes can decieve you. I cannot change "feelings"... I can only talk about the facts and science. I CAN'T MAKE YOU LOVE ME!!!

MartyF81 wrote:

 

If a Samsung and LG display are set next to each other and both are properly calibrated they should look the same. The "Vividness" of the LG will be dialed down to where it is supposed to be.

..I have actually said this myself before..?

"shayster98 wrote:

While an LG panel may have oversaturated, "poppy" colors, ... Calibration will merely reduce the saturation."

One last thing: out of an i1, a Spyder, or a ColorMunki which one is best value for money?

shayster98 wrote:

 

"One last thing: out of an i1, a Spyder, or a ColorMunki which one is best value for money?"

Well, I haven't used the others, so I have nothing to compare to.

I do know that my Spyder4 Pro is easy to use and my display looked much better after calibrating it.

However, I checked out some reviews and, from what I could tell, the X-Rite CMUNDIS ColorMunki Display and the Datacolor Spyder4Pro S4P100 Colorimeter (the one I have) seem to be rated equally well. They're even the exact same price (on Amazon at least). The i1 calibration units didn't seem to be rated as highly though.

So, I'd recommend either one of the first 2.

By the way, I think it would be really great to get as many calibration results back as possible, on both the LG and Samsung displays. We know that there's an IR issue on the LG panels, but it would be comforting to know that the Samsung panels, although not completely free of the odd case of mura or dead pixels, can be calibrated to display true colors. That's why this calibration discussion (which has maybe gone on a bit too long and taken up a tad too much of this thread) is relevant.

Thanks a lot! I'll look into those two then.

Canuck1970 wrote:

By the way, I think it would be really great to get as many calibration results back as possible, on both the LG and Samsung displays. We know that there's an IR issue on the LG panels, but it would be comforting to know that the Samsung panels . . . can be calibrated to display true colors. That's why this calibration discussion (which has maybe gone on a bit too long and taken up a tad too much of this thread) is relevant.

I completely agree with you; it's what I've been wanting to know all along.

Canuck1970 wrote:

 

By the way, I think it would be really great to get as many calibration results back as possible, on both the LG and Samsung displays. We know that there's an IR issue on the LG panels, but it would be comforting to know that the Samsung panels, although not completely free of the odd case of mura or dead pixels, can be calibrated to display true colors. That's why this calibration discussion (which has maybe gone on a bit too long and taken up a tad too much of this thread) is relevant.

Isn't it great how we get to go through all this extra trouble on our $2,200 computers? Thanks Apple! I was getting bored of PC hardware that just worked!

Merch Visoiu wrote:

"Isn't it great how we get to go through all this extra trouble on our $2,200 computers? Thanks Apple! I was getting bored of PC hardware that just worked!"

I hear ya. The sad part is that up until this image retention issue, all of my experiences with Apple products and customer service have been overwhelmingly positive.

Ahora en español, porque somos muchos los latinos que compramos también productos Apple.

Compré mi mac book pro retina en Julio de este año y pagué cerca de 2800 USD por ella, a los 30 días me di cuenta del grave problema de retención de imagen IR y pedí que la repararan, efectivamente me cambiaron el display por uno marca samsung pero como a mucho, nos tocó una pantalla supremamente amarilla y poco brillante.

Ahora estoy peleando con la tienda para que me devuelvan mi dinero o reemplacen la máquina por una completamente nueva. No se si tenga suerte con esto, pero lo que si se es que esto ha sido una pesadilla y considero que Apple debería brindarle más facilidades a sus clientes que deciden comprar una laptop de 2800 USD en lugar de una Toshiba de 500USD.

Que debemos hacer, calibrar manualmente nuestras pantallas con colores de más de 7500º para pretender que nada ha pasado y tratar de igualar la calidad de un display marca LG, o nos seguimos enfrascando en estas discusiones a muerte con los representantes de Apple, hasta que reconozcan su problema y nos devuelvan nuestro dinero.